**From: ** Wolf, Betsy \<OST\>

**Sent: ** Friday, January 27, 2006 10:29 AM

**To: ** \'Bruce Bishins - USTAR\'

**Cc: ** Podberesky, Samuel \<OST\>

**Subject: ** RE: Clarification Requested - Price Advertising

Dear Bruce,

I am well, thanks, and I hope you are, too.

Yes, the Department did mean to include the phrase \"before the consumer
makes the purchase\" in the amendment proposed in Option II as it
appears on page 73966 of the Federal Register (\"FR\"), where all of the
proposed changes to Part 399 are officially set forth. That phrase does
not appear in Option II as discussed in the preamble, nor is it meant
to. Thanks to imprecise editing by the FR, some of which was not cleared
with us, there is a discrepancy between the option numbering in the
preamble and the option numbering on page 73966. Option I in the
preamble is the same as Option I on page 73966. Option II in the
preamble does not appear at all on page 73966, because the FR does not
permit inclusion in this section of proposed rule text that is neither
novel nor a modification of existing text. Our Option II, as you know,
proposes to modify our enforcement practice while leaving the text
unchanged. Additionally, the FR does not allow the listing of two
alternate suboptions as one option. It is therefore the first suboption
of Option III in the preamble (see page 73964) that appears as Option II
on page 73966. The second suboption of Option III in the preamble is
page 73966\'s Option III. The two Option IVs are the same.

As for your second question, I hope that the preamble makes clear that
the first suboption of Option III (a/k/a Option II on page 73966) would
require only disclosure of the total price before the consumer makes the
purchase, while the second suboption of Option III (a/k/a Option III on
page 73966) would require both this disclosure and disclosure in
advertisements of all price elements so that the consumer can calculate
the total price.

I hope this clears up the confusion. Had I been afforded more control
over the final product, it would never have arisen.

Best wishes,

Betsy

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

**From: ** Bruce Bishins - USTAR

**Sent: ** Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:41 PM

**To: ** Wolf, Betsy \<OST\>

**Subject: ** Clarification Requested - Price Advertising

Hello Betsy:

I hope this e-mail finds you well.

USTAR is preparing its comments regarding the NPRM in Docket
OST-2005-23194.

In reviewing the NPRM cited in the Federal Register dated 14 December
2005, I am concerned about certain language proposed as an amendment to
Section 399.84 if Option II is chosen. The proposed language in \"Part
399 - Statements of General Policy, Subpart G\" (page 73966 of the
Federal Register) reads:

\"The Department considers the sale of air transportation to be an
unfair or deceptive practice unless the total price of the air
transportation is disclosed to the consumer before the consumer makes
the purchase.\"

Betsy, I believe the Department did not mean to include the phrase
\"before the consumer makes the purchase\" in its proposed amendment in
Option II. I believe this phrase was intended in Option III only.

In reading the preamble and the various scenarios/options presented,
there is no discussion of full disclosure at a point which might
narrowly disclose the total amount paid simply \"before\" the
transaction is finalized. To the contrary, my reading of Option II is
that full disclosure (all price components) is required at the outset of
any price advertising.

In fact, the language proposed in the above cited \"Subpart G\" language
on page 73966 is identical for Option II as it is in Option III (a).

As to the language proposed for Option III, aren\'t the proposed two
choices either III (a) or alternatively, both III (a) and (b)? The
proposed amendment would seem to indicate that either (a) or (b) are
proposed amendments whereas the preamble suggests that it is either (a)
or (a) plus (b).

May I kindly request that the Department clarify/correct the above so
that comments requested by the Department maybe as accurate and germane
as possible.

I\'ll give you a buzz just to make sure I\'m not misreading something.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Bruce