Part 2.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
Chapter 26.
SUBSTANTIVE RULES APPLICABLE TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS
Subchapter Q. 9-1-1 ISSUES
16 TAC §26.435
The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) proposes
new §26.435, relating to Cost Recovery Methods for 9-1-1 Dedicated Transport.
The proposed new rule will ensure consistency and uniformity of cost recovery
for dedicated transport for 9-1-1. Project Number 24305 is assigned to this
proceeding.
John Mason, Director, Legal Division-Telecommunications and James Kelsaw,
Network Analyst, Telecommunications Industry Analysis, have determined that
for each year of the first five-year period the proposed rule is in effect
there will be no fiscal implications for state or local government as a result
of enforcing or administering the section.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Kelsaw have determined that for each year of the first
five years the proposed rule is in effect the public benefit anticipated as
a result of enforcing the section will be enhancement of 9-1-1 service quality
by requiring uniform cost recovery methods for all certificated telecommunications
utilities (CTUs). There will be no effect on small businesses or micro-businesses
as a result of enforcing this section. There is no anticipated economic cost
to persons who are required to comply with the section as proposed.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Kelsaw have also determined that for each year of the
first five years the proposed rule is in effect there should be no effect
on a local economy, and therefore no local employment impact statement is
required under Administrative Procedure Act §2001.022.
The commission staff will conduct a public hearing on this rulemaking,
if requested pursuant to Government Code §2001.029, at the commission's
offices located in the William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress Avenue,
Austin, Texas 78701 on Thursday, April 25, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. The request for
a public hearing must be received within 30 days after publication.
Comments on the proposed new rule (16 copies) may be submitted to the Filing
Clerk, Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P.O.
Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, within 30 days after publication. Reply
comments may be submitted within 45 days after publication. Comments should
be organized in a manner consistent with the organization of the proposed
rule(s). All comments should refer to Project Number 24305. The commission
invites specific comments regarding the costs associated with, and benefits
that will be gained by, implementation of the proposed section. The commission
will consider the costs and benefits in deciding whether to adopt the section.
In addition, the commission requests specific comments on the following questions:
1. Should the costs for 9-1-1 dedicated transport be apportioned equally
between CTUs originating the 9-1-1 call and the 9-1-1 network service provider,
as defined in §26.433 of this title (relating to Roles and Responsibilities
of 9-1-1 Service Providers)? In your response, please compare and contrast
possible network arrangements (e.g. incumbent local exchange company (ILEC)
to ILEC vs. competitive local exchange company (CLEC) to ILEC).
2. Is there a more appropriate allocation method to apportion costs than
the method proposed in (d)(1)? If so, what?
3. Does the proposed rule adequately address CTUs' concerns regarding alleged
discriminatory rates that are charged by the applicable 9-1-1 network service
provider, as defined in §26.433 of this title (relating to Roles and
Responsibilities of 9-1-1 Service Providers)? Please explain fully.
4. If the proposed rule does not adequately address CTUs' concerns regarding
alleged discriminatory rates, is the following language appropriate: "A 9-1-1
network service provider as defined in §26.433(b) of this title (relating
to Roles and Responsibilities of 9-1-1 Service Providers) that provides transmission
facilities from the point of interconnection with a CTU to the 9-1-1 selective
router shall charge the CTU an amount not to exceed the pro rata share of
the amount the CTU is entitled to recover from the 9-1-1 entity under paragraph
(1) of this subsection."
This new section is proposed under the Public Utility Regulatory
Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated §14.002 (Vernon 1998, Supplement
2002) (PURA), which provides the Public Utility Commission with the authority
to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers
and jurisdiction; and specifically, PURA §58.051 which requires PURA
Chapter 58 electing companies to offer access for all residential and business
end users to 9-1-1 service provided by a local authority and access to dual
party relay service; §60.001 which requires the commission to ensure
that the rates and rules of an incumbent local exchange company are not unreasonably
preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory and are equitably and consistently
applied; §60.122 which grants the commission exclusive jurisdiction to
determine rates and terms for interconnection for a holder of a certificate
of convenience and necessity, a certificate of operating authority, or a service
provider certificate of operating authority; and §60.124 which requires
each telecommunications provider to maintain interoperable networks.
Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §§14.002,
58.051, 60.001, 60.122, and 60.124.
§26.435.Cost Recovery Methods for 9-1-1 Dedicated Transport.
(a)
Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish uniform
cost recovery methods for dedicated trunks used in the provision of 9-1-1
service to end users by certificated telecommunications utilities (CTUs).
(b)
Application. This section applies to all CTUs providing
local exchange service.
(c)
Definitions. The following words and terms when used in
this section shall have the following meaning unless the context indicates
otherwise:
(1)
9-1-1 entity--A regional planning commission as defined
in Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated §771.001(10) and an emergency
communication district as defined in the Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated §771.001(3).
(2)
9-1-1 Service Agreement--The contract addressing the 9-1-1
service arrangement(s) for the relevant local area that the 9-1-1 entity and
the CTU shall negotiate and execute.
(3)
Dedicated trunk--A 9-1-1 digital signal trunk that originates
at a CTU switching office or point of presence and terminates at a 9-1-1 selective
router on a port termination, regardless of the type of application (with
a presumption for the use of the most up-to-date industry standard application,
where technically feasible, unless otherwise specified in the 9- 1-1 Service
Agreement), and as described to the CTU by the applicable 9- 1-1 entity in
its service arrangement requirements in each applicable rate center requiring
termination to a 9-1-1 selective router. 9-1-1 dedicated trunks shall be assigned
to 9-1-1 transmission facilities. Each CTU shall be responsible for providing
such 9-1-1 transmission facilities from the CTU switching office or point
of presence to the 9-1-1 selective router.
(4)
Service arrangement--Each particular arrangement for 9-1-1
emergency service specified by the 9-1-1 entity for the relevant rate center(s)
within its jurisdictional area.
(d)
Reimbursable costs.
(1)
Subject to the applicable law regarding payments by the
9-1-1 entity, the 9-1- 1 entity shall reimburse a CTU a maximum non-recurring
rate of $165 and recurring rate of $39 per month as the total compensation
for each dedicated trunk and any associated dedicated transmission facilities,
unless:
(A)
the CTU provides evidence to the commission that based
upon certain technology deployment a different rate should apply; and
(B)
after appropriate review, the commission approves such
rate as requested by the CTU.
(2)
The number of dedicated trunks needed for 9-1-1 purposes
shall be determined by the CTU following industry standards to provide a grade
of service of P.01 or greater, but the minimum number of dedicated trunks
to each 9-1-1 selective router per service arrangement shall not be less than
two.
(3)
As a prerequisite to receiving compensation for more than
the minimum number of dedicated trunks required to meet the P.01 grade of
service, the CTU must provide to the 9-1-1 entity, at least 30 days prior
to seeking additional compensation, copies of traffic studies, performed using
measured call volumes on the individual trunk group, establishing that more
than the minimum number of dedicated trunks required to meet the P.01 grade
of service are necessary.
(4)
The traffic study or summary provided in response to paragraph
(3) of this subsection shall be provided to the 9-1-1 entity at no cost. Any
other traffic studies to evaluate current network performance will be provided
to the 9-1-1 entity upon request, and the CTU shall be compensated by the
9-1-1 entity on a time and materials basis at rates that do not exceed the
tariff rates approved as reasonable by the commission for the dominant CTU
in the rate center.
(5)
Only the CTU originating the dedicated trunk from the switching
office or point of presence to the 9-1-1 selective router can submit charges
to the 9-1-1 entity for the maximum reimbursement required in paragraph (1)
of this subsection.
(6)
Where the same dedicated trunks are permitted by the relevant
service arrangements to serve areas administered by multiple 9-1-1 entities,
a CTU shall contact the 9-1-1 entity serving the largest number of access
lines for the area served by the CTU with those dedicated trunks and there
shall be a rebuttable presumption that the 9-1-1 entity serving the largest
number of access lines is the appropriate 9-1-1 entity to receive the billings
for these dedicated trunks. The 9-1-1 entity that is responsible for receiving
the billings for dedicated trunks pursuant to this subsection, may seek reimbursement
of such expense from other 9-1-1 entities within the affected rate center.
(7)
CTUs that provide 9-1-1 transmission facilities to other
CTUs shall charge no more than the actual costs to provide such facilities.
(8)
The 9-1-1 network services provider as defined in §26.433(b)
of this title (relating to Roles and Responsibilities of 9-1-1 Service Providers)
shall charge nondiscriminatory rates for all services provided to CTUs.
(e)
Reimbursement prerequisites. A CTU must comply with each
of the following prerequisites before the CTU can obtain reimbursement from
the 9-1-1 entity for dedicated trunks:
(1)
Before the CTU initiates the provision of local exchange
service in those areas in which the 9-1-1 entity provides 9-1-1 service, the
CTU shall execute the 9-1-1 Service Agreement.
(2)
The CTU shall provide verification to the applicable 9-1-1
entity that it is complying with all requirements of §26.433 of this
title, including, but not limited to, §26.433(e)(2) of this title, requiring
"a designated contact person to be available at all times to work with the
applicable" 9-1-1 entity.
(3)
A CTU that resells its local exchange service to any CTU
that, in turn, provides the resold local exchange service to end users, shall
demonstrate to the 9-1-1 entity that the CTU initially notified its reselling
CTUs:
(A)
that it does not remit the required 9-1-1 emergency service
fees on behalf of reselling CTUs; and
(B)
that, subject to a confidentiality agreement with the 9-1-1
entity, it will release reselling CTUs wholesale billing records to 9-1-1
entities for quality measurement purposes, including, but not limited to,
auditing a reselling CTU's collection and remittance of 9-1-1 emergency service
fees in accordance with applicable law.
(4)
A CTU that provides resold local exchange service to end
users must execute a separate service agreement with each 9-1-1 entity and
remit the required 9-1-1 emergency service fee to the 9-1-1 entity pursuant
to such service agreement.
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority
to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 13, 2002.
TRD-200200916
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Earliest possible date of adoption: March 31, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7208
Chapter 103.
GENERAL RULES
16 TAC §103.3, §103.15
The Texas Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of
Transportation proposes amendments to §103.3, Amended License. The Board
also proposes new rule §103.15, Exemption of Certain Vehicles from Definition
of Motor Vehicle. The Board proposes the amendments and the new rule pursuant
to Section 2001.021 of the Texas Government Code, Administrative Procedure
Act, by which an interested party may petition a state agency to initiate
a rulemaking proceeding.
The Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) filed a petition requesting
that the Board publish amendments to §103.3, proposing the addition of
subsections (d) and (e). As proposed, §103.3(d) would permit a franchised
motor vehicle dealer who changes or converts its business entity from one
form to another to do business as the new entity under the terms of the prior
franchise agreement until and unless the parties mutually elect to replace
that agreement.
Furthermore, TADA has also requested the Board to publish proposed §103.3(e),
allowing a franchised dealer who converts its legal entity from one form to
another to file an amendment to its current license to reflect the entity
change. The proposed amendment will clarify that a franchised dealer who converts
its business form from one legal entity to another can amend the existing
license, while a franchised dealer who changes its business entity using a
method other than conversion must still file a new application in the successor
entity's name.
TADA suggests that adoption of the proposed amendments to §103.3 will
benefit the public over the first five years it is in effect by preventing
manufacturers or distributors from using a dealership's change of corporate
form as a mechanism to require that dealer to sign a new franchise agreement
with less favorable terms. Additionally, dealers seeking to convert their
business entities would be able to save time and money by avoiding the process
involved in reapplying for a new license. The Motor Vehicle Board staff takes
no position on the proposed amendments to §103.3.
Kawasaki Motor Corporation (Kawasaki) has also filed a petition requesting
that the Board publish proposed new rule §103.15. The purpose of proposed §103.15
is to declare that the definition of motor vehicle does not include utility
vehicles that are not regularly titled and not intended for use on public
streets. Kawasaki requests the promulgation of this rule as a means to clarify
that its Kawasaki Mule utility vehicle, and similar products, were not intended
to be regulated as motor vehicles under the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission
Code.
In its petition, Kawasaki argues that a fair and reasonable interpretation
of the numerous definitions of "motor vehicle" found in the Transportation
Code would allow utility vehicles like the Kawasaki Mule to be exempt from
the definition of "titled vehicle," and thereby escape regulation under the
Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code. Under the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission
Code §1.03(25)(B), the definition of motor vehicle includes titled vehicles
that are not manufactured for street use. However, Kawasaki challenges the
idea that its utility vehicle could fall within the parameters of this definition.
According to its own research, Kawasaki has determined that its utility vehicle
is treated by the Texas Department of Transportation, Vehicle Title and Registration
Division, in the same manner as a golf cart.
Under §502.284 of the Transportation Code, a golf cart must be titled
as a slow-moving vehicle if operated on the public streets, unless it adheres
to certain specific conditions. Kawasaki maintains that, although its utility
vehicle occasionally has been registered as a slow-moving vehicle operated
on public streets, the vehicle was not manufactured to be operated on public
streets or highways. Therefore, it should not be included in the definition
of motor vehicle. Kawasaki further distinguishes this utility vehicle from
other off-road vehicles required to be titled in Texas, such as ATVs, by emphasizing
the fact that the Mule does not have a saddle-type seat that allows it to
be ridden like a motorcycle. Also, it asserts in its petition that the Mule
does not meet basic safety requirements for street or highway use.
Since 1999, the Motor Vehicle Board staff has interpreted the definition
of "titled vehicle" under the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code to include
utility vehicles. As a consequence, retail outlets of these vehicles are considered
subject to regulation under the Code and are required to maintain franchised
dealer licenses to sell utility vehicles. Kawasaki asserts that many retailers
who sell utility vehicles are not motor vehicle dealers, but instead retailers
of general products or farm implements. As such, it is burdensome for these
retail stores to go to the added expense of applying for franchised motor
vehicle dealer licenses. Furthermore, Kawasaki claims that the regulation
is not enforced uniformly.
Kawasaki represents that the proposed new §103.15 will benefit the
public over the first five years it is in effect by reducing the extent of
regulation, and the expense to utility vehicle retailers who are not otherwise
qualified or required to maintain franchised dealer licenses.
Brett Bray, Director, Motor Vehicle Board, has determined that for the
first five-year period the proposed sections are in effect, there will be
no fiscal implications for state or local government as a result of enforcing
or administering the sections.
Mr. Bray anticipates that there will be some indeterminate economic savings
to persons currently subject to regulation under the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission
Code. Mr. Bray also certifies that there will be no impact on local economies
or overall employment as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed
sections.
The Board requests comments from any interested person. Comments (16 copies)
may be submitted to Brett Bray, Director, Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department
of Transportation, P.O. Box 2293, Austin, Texas, 78768, (512) 416-4910. The
Motor Vehicle Board will consider adoption of the proposals at its meeting
on April 25, 2002. The deadline for receipt of comments on the proposed amendments
and new rule is 5:00 p.m. on April 5, 2002.
The amendments and new rule are proposed under the Texas Motor
Vehicle Commission Code, §3.06, which provides the Board with authority
to adopt rules as necessary and convenient to effectuate the provisions of
the Act and to govern practice and procedure before the Agency.
Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code §§1.03 and 4.01 are affected
by the proposed amendments and the proposed new rule.
§103.3.Amended License.
(a)-(c)
(No change.)
(d)
If a licensed new motor vehicle
dealer changes or converts from one type of business entity to another, the
submission of a franchise agreement in the name of the new entity is not required
in conjunction with an application. The franchise agreement on file with the
Board prior to the change or conversion of the dealer's business entity applies
to the successor entity until the parties agree to replace the franchise agreement.
(e)
If a dealer adopts a plan of
conversion under a state or federal law that allows one legal entity to be
converted into another legal entity, only an application to amend the license
is necessary to be filed with the Board. The franchise agreement on file with
the Board continues to apply to the converted entity. If the entity change
is accomplished by any means other than conversion, a new application is required,
subject to subsection (d) of this section.
§103.15.Exemption of Certain Vehicles from Definition of Motor Vehicle.
Under Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code §1.03(25)(B), the Board
construes the term "titled vehicle" to mean those types of vehicles that are
required to be registered and titled by the State for off-road use, including
off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. Vehicles such as utility vehicles
that are not intended for use on public streets and are only registered and
titled occasionally on an individual basis for limited or restricted use on
public streets as slow-moving vehicles or golf carts will not be construed
by the Board to be "titled vehicles" or "motor vehicles" under Texas Motor
Vehicle Commission Code §1.03(25)(B).
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 15, 2002.
TRD-200200978
Brett Bray
Director
Texas Motor Vehicle Board
Proposed date of adoption: April 25, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 416-4899
16 TAC §105.10
The Texas Motor Vehicle Board proposes amendments to §105.10(a),
105.10(c)(1), 105.10(c)(2) and 105.10(c)(3). The rules provide guidelines
for truthful and accurate practices in the advertising of motor vehicles.
The previously published proposed amendments to §105.10(a), 105.10(c)(1),
105.10(c)(2), and 105.10(c)(3) in the November 9, 2001, issue of the
In section 105.10(a) the word "a" is replaced with the word "the highest"
to provide greater clarity. The proposed amendment to §105.10(c)(2),
Figure: 16 TAC 105.10(c)(2), clarifies the example of acceptable dealer price
advertising of rebate incentives. It shows that the rebate must be subtracted
from the advertised price to depict the ultimate sales price in an advertisement.
Amendments to 105.10(c)(1)and 105.10(c)(3) correct typographical errors in
previous publications.
The purpose of proposing amendments to §105.10(a) is to provide needed
clarification and definition, and address the issue of bait and switch tactics
utilized by some dealerships, that is, advertising one price, but then making
higher offers to consumers that respond to the advertisement. As written,
the rule lends itself to such a practice. Amending the rule to refer to "the
highest" price instead of "a" price, makes the language more definitive.
Section 105.6 of the Board's Advertising Rules states that "All advertised
statements shall be accurate, clear, and conspicuous." The current language
of §105.10(a) with the language "a" price, does not meet that standard.
It has been suggested that adopting any language other than "a" price would
require dealers to sell only at the advertised price and not allow consumers
an opportunity to negotiate a lower-than-advertised price. The converse to
that position is that there is no rule preventing consumers or dealers from
negotiating a transaction at a price lower than advertised. On the other hand,
a consumer is not going to negotiate upward from the advertised price and
the dealer might find it economically unsound to drop the price lower than
already advertised. The primary purpose of advertising is to draw consumers
to the dealership. To do so and remain competitive, the dealership is likely
to advertise its lowest available prices.
Regarding the situation in which a consumer trades in a vehicle owing more
than the vehicle is worth, a dealer is not allowed under the Finance Code
to alter the cash price of the vehicle. Negative equity may be itemized separately
in a retail installment contract, but it cannot be added to the cash price.
Thus, even in a situation where the consumer owes money on a trade-in, the
advertised price must remain definite for the benefit of the consumer.
Another suggestion to address this issue is to amend the pertinent language
in subsection (a) to state, "When featuring an advertised sale price of a
new or used motor vehicle, the dealer must be willing to sell the vehicle
for such advertised price to any retail buyer. The advertised sale price shall
be the price before the addition or subtraction of any other negotiated items
such as additional products or services, as well as the trade-in value, or
any special rebates only available to a selected portion of the public." Other
suggested language is, "When advertising a sales price of a new or used motor
vehicle, the dealer must be willing to sell the vehicle for such advertised
price, exclusive of a rebate, to a retail buyer. A retail buyer may negotiate
to purchase additional products or services as well as the trade-in value
which allows for the sales price to be higher or lower than the advertised
price."
The Board intends to consider this language and any other suggestions that
may be made as alternatives to the published amendment, to address the issue
of inhibiting bait and switch advertising without hampering a dealer's and
purchaser's ability to negotiate a mutually agreeable transaction.
Brett Bray, Director, Motor Vehicle Division, has determined that for the
first five-year period the amendments are in effect there will be no fiscal
implication for state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering
the amendments.
Mr. Bray has also determined that for each of the first five years the
amendments are in effect, the public benefit anticipated from enforcement
of the proposed amendments will be stronger protection of the public and dealers
from those dealers who engage in false, deceptive or misleading practices,
as well as better understanding by licensees required to comply with the rules.
Mr. Bray has also certified that there will be no impact on small businesses,
local economies or overall employment as a result of enforcing or administering
the sections. Finally, Mr. Bray has certified that there will be no economic
costs for those persons required to comply with the proposed amendments.
Comments on the proposed amendments may be submitted to Brett Bray, Director,
Motor Vehicle Division, P.O. Box 2293, Austin, Texas 78768. The deadline for
submitting comments is April 5, 2002. Please submit sixteen copies. The Texas
Motor Vehicle Board will consider the adoption of the proposed amendments
at its meeting on April 25, 2002.
The amendments are proposed under the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission
Code, §3.06, which provides the Board with authority to amend rules as
necessary and convenient to effectuate the provisions of this act.
Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code §5.01A is affected by the proposed
amendments.
§105.10.Dealer Price Advertising.
(a)
The featured sale price of a new or used motor vehicle,
when advertised, must be
the highest
[
(1)
any registration, certificate of title, license fees, or
an additional registration fee, if any, charged by a full service deputy as
provided by County Road and Bridge Act, §4.202(g);
(2)
any taxes; and
(3)
any other fees or charges that are allowed or prescribed
by law.
(b)
A qualification may not be used when advertising the price
of a vehicle such as "with trade," "with acceptable trade," "with dealer-arranged
financing," "rebate assigned to dealer," or "with down payment."
(c)
If a price advertisement discloses a rebate cash back or
discount savings claim, the price of the vehicle must be disclosed as well
as the price of the vehicle after deducting the incentive.
(1)
If an advertisement discloses a discount savings claim,
this incentive must be disclosed as a deduction from the manufacturer's suggested
retail price (MSRP). The following is an acceptable format for advertising
a price with a discount savings claim.
Figure: 16 TAC §105.10(c)(1)
(2)
If an advertisement discloses a rebate, this incentive
must be disclosed as a deduction from the advertised price. The following
is an acceptable format for advertising a price with a rebate.
Figure: 16 TAC §105.10(c)(2)
(3)
If an advertisement discloses both a rebate and a discount
savings claim, the incentives must be disclosed as a deduction from the manufacturer's
suggested retail price (MSRP). The following is an acceptable format for advertising
a price with a rebate and a discount savings claim.
Figure: 16 TAC §105.10(c)(3)
(d)
In the event that the manufacturer offers a discount on
a package of options then that discount should be disclosed above or prior
to the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) with a total price of
the vehicle before option discounts. The following is an acceptable format.
Figure: 16 TAC §105.10(d) (No change.)
(e)
If a rebate is only available to a selected portion of
the public and not the public as a whole, the price should be disclosed as
in subsection (c) of this section first and then the nature of the limitation
and the amount of the limited rebate may be disclosed. The following is an
acceptable format.
Figure: 16 TAC §105.10(e) (No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on February 15, 2002.
TRD-200200979
Brett Bray
Director
Texas Motor Vehicle Board
Proposed date of adoption: April 25, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 416-4899
Part 6.
TEXAS MOTOR VEHICLE BOARD
Chapter 105.
ADVERTISING
a
] price for which
a dealer is willing to sell the advertised vehicle to any retail buyer. The
only charges that may be excluded from the advertised price are:
Chapter 107.
WARRANTY PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS