Category			Age	Income	 Matrix Value	Non-Economic Loss     Net After Non-Economic Loss
Single / No Dependents		25	$35,000	 673,043	$250,000		$423,043
Married / No Dependents		25	$35,000	 $1,296,190	$300,000		$996,190

The calculation is saying that two individuals making the same amount of
money and the same age, one?s family will receive more than twice as much
money as the single person, yet there is no reason given as to why. What is
the logic? Is the married person the primary income producer, if so, then
that person should be receiving less than the single person. What about the
single person being engaged, therefore wouldn?t that mean that the single
person?s amount would increase. The disparity is far too great without a
reasonable explanation. It would appear that the single person is being
discriminated against.
	b.) Other source compensation ? Based upon the explanation given in the
above reference and what has been stated in the newspaper, employer-provided
benefits would be deducted from the tables. What about employer provided
401(k) plans and profit sharing plans. These plans are in fact assets of the
decedent not the employer. Although provided by the employer, if the
employee was to have terminated the funds would have followed the employee.
Is it the intent of the government to take away assets of the employee?
	c.) Present value calculation ? The factor given is 5.13% over a risk free
interest rate. I am under the assumption that investments of this type do
not allow for principal reductions, annuity payments. In fact current
annuity rates are nearer 4.5%. If this is correct you are deducting a
significant amount from the families.
d.) It has been stated that the average family will receive 1.6 million
dollars. That is the gross amount, not the net amount.  Assume that your
estimate is correct at a GROSS amount of 1.6 million dollars, then you
subtract out social security benefits, benefits for spouses and children
under the age of 18 (government programs), pension benefits (including
employer and employee contributions to a 401(k) retirement plan, IRAs, Roth
accounts, SEP etc.), life insurance employer and employee paid for including
term and cash value, if in a policy, (assets of the decedent), my estimate
would put the net actual compensation paid to a family from the government
to be nearer 400,000 to 600,000 or based upon the 3,000 decedents  only 1.2
billion to 1.8 billion dollars a far cry to the amount being stated in the
newspapers and only about 25% of the airlines capped liability. It would
appear that your calculation maybe very conservative,
	f.) The consumption factor appears to be incorrect. If one reviews the
matrix for a single person no dependents and compares it to a single person
with one dependent, the table indicates that for the same age and income a
single person with a dependent receives a large amount of money, yet based
upon the ?consumption factor? the cost to support the dependent should be
deducted leaving less money for that group, not more money for the
dependent.
	g.) Did the government compare what similar airline accident insurance
suits are worth? The law, in which the settlements are determined, does NOT
state that the government should reduce for consumption factor, use present
value factors, use inflation factors for wages and clearly does not limit
the income at the top two percent. It only addresses the issue of collateral
source recovery. The public should be made aware of the differences and why
you are selecting the current method.

The law was NOT enacted for the victims, but rather for the airline industry
and a way to limit the costly legal and financial exposure that the airline
industry and others would be exposed too. Clearly the government would
rather be look as the great hand of giving to the widow and orphans of this
very tragic event in our nation?s history, but instead, the government is
appearing to be a defender of big business and giving ?short-shrift? to
those in tears and sorrow.

Clearly, the government need not give away the store, for a bird in hand is
in fact greater than two in the bush. The government is not paying the legal
expenses for the decedent?s family. The trial lawyers? organization has
agreed not to charge the families. So the settlements can be 1/3rd lower.
Yes the law must be adhere to, unless of course, you wish to take a stand
and tell of the unfairness in the law and what changes should be made and
why. Even if you do not want to change the law, at least you can increase
the compensation stated in the tables.

Hopefully you are looking to be fair and reasonable with those who are in
emotional and physical pain. Ask yourself one very important question. ?If
you were the one who perished, would you want your wife and children to
accept the offer being made?

I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and look forward in
reading your final rules.


Regards,


Individual Comment
Avon, CT