# 73 FR 27614 May 13, 2008

# DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**14 CFR Part 382**

**\[Dockets OST--2004--19482; OST--2005--22298; OST--2006--23999\]**

**\[RINs 2105--AC97; 2105--AC29; 2105--AD41\]**

**Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel**

**AGENCY:** Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary

**ACTION:** Final Rule

**SUMMARY:** The Department of Transportation is amending its Air
Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rules to apply to foreign carriers. The final
rule also adds new provisions concerning passengers who use medical
oxygen and passengers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The rule also
reorganizes and updates the entire ACAA rule. The Department will
respond to some matters raised in this rulemaking by issuing a
subsequent supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

**EFFECTIVE DATE:** This rule is effective May 13, 2009.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Room W94-302, Washington,
D.C., 20590 (202) 366-9310 (voice); 202-366-7687 (TTY);
[bob.ashby@dot.gov]{.underline}. You may also contact Blane Workie,
Aviation Civil Rights Compliance Branch, Office of the Assistant General
Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Room W98-310, Washington,
D.C., 20590 (202) 366- 9345), <blane.workie@dot.gov>.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**

**Background**

Congress enacted the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) in 1986. The statute
prohibits discrimination in airline service on the basis of disability.
Following a lengthy rulemaking process that included a regulatory
negotiation involving representatives of the airline industry and
disability community, the Department issued a final ACAA rule in March
1990. Since that time, the Department has amended the rule ten
times.[^1] These amendments have concerned such subjects as boarding
assistance via lift devices for small aircraft, and subsequently for
other aircraft, where level entry boarding is unavailable; seating
accommodations for passengers with disabilities; reimbursement for loss
of or damage to wheelchairs; modifications to policies or practices
necessary to ensure nondiscrimination; terminal accessibility standards;
and technical changes to terminology and compliance dates.

The Department has also frequently issued guidance that interprets or
explains further the text of the rule. These interpretations have been
disseminated in a variety of ways: preambles to regulatory amendments,
industry letters, correspondence with individual carriers or
complainants, enforcement actions, web site postings, informal
conversations between DOT staff and interested members of the public,
etc. This guidance, on a wide variety of subjects, has never been
collected in one place. Some of this guidance would be more accessible
to the public and more readily understandable if it were incorporated
into regulatory text.

There have also been changes in the ways airlines operate since the
original publication of Part 382. For example, airlines now make
extensive use of web sites for information and booking purposes.
Preboarding announcements are not as universal as they once were. Many
carriers now use regional jets for flights that formerly would have been
served by larger aircraft. Security screening has become a
responsibility of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
rather than that of the airlines. In this rulemaking, the Department is
updating Part 382 to take these and other changes in airline operations
into account.

The over 17-year history of amendments and interpretations of Part 382
have made the rule something of a patchwork, which does not flow as
clearly and understandably as it might. Restructuring the rule for
greater clarity, including using \`\`plain language\'\' to the extent
feasible, is an important objective. To this end, Part 382 has been
restructured in this rule, to organize it by subject matter area.
Compared to the present rule, the text is divided into more subparts and
sections, with fewer paragraphs and less text in each on average, to
make it easier to find regulatory provisions. The rule uses a
question-answer format, with language specifically directing particular
parties to take particular actions (e.g., \`\`As a carrier, you must \*
\* \*\'\'). We have also tried to express the (admittedly sometimes
technical) requirements of the rule in plain language.

The Department recognizes that some users, who have become familiar and
comfortable with the existing organization and numbering scheme of Part
382, might have to make some adjustments as they work with the
restructured rule. However, the structure of this revision is consistent
with a Federal government-wide effort to improve the clarity of
regulations, which the Department has employed with great success and
public acceptance in the case of other significant rules in recent
years, such as revisions of our disadvantaged business enterprise and
drug and alcohol testing procedures rules.[^2] Many of the provisions of
the current Part 382 are retained in this rule with little or no
substantive change. To assist users familiar with the current rule in
finding material in the new version of the rule, we have included a
cross-reference table in Appendix B to the final rule.

In addition to this general revision and update, the Department in this
rule is making important substantive changes to the rule in three areas:
coverage of foreign carriers, accommodations for passengers who use
oxygen and other respiratory assistive devices, and accommodation for
deaf or hard-of-hearing passengers.

The original 1986 ACAA covered only U.S. air carriers. However, on April
5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (AIR-21) amended the ACAA specifically to include foreign
carriers. The ACAA now reads in relevant part:

> *In providing air transportation, an air carrier, including (subject
> to \[49 U.S.C.\] section 40105(b)) any foreign air carrier, may not
> discriminate against an otherwise qualified individual on the
> following grounds:*
>
> *(1) The individual has a physical or mental impairment that
> substantially limits one or more major life activities.*
>
> *(2) The individual has a record of such an impairment.*
>
> *(3) The individual is regarded as having such an impairment.*

Section 40105(b) provides as follows:

> *(b) Actions of Secretary and Administrator.---*
>
> *(1) In carrying out this part, the Secretary of Transportation and
> the Administrator---*
>
> *(A) shall act consistently with obligations of the United States
> Government under an international agreement;*
>
> *(B) shall consider applicable laws and requirements of a foreign
> country; and*
>
> *(C) may not limit compliance by an air carrier with obligations or
> liabilities imposed by the government of a foreign country when the
> Secretary takes any action related to a certificate of public
> convenience and necessity issued under chapter
> [411](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sup_01_49_10_VII_20_A_30_ii_40_411.html)
> of this title.*
>
> *(2) This subsection does not apply to an agreement between an air
> carrier or an officer or representative of an air carrier and the
> government of a foreign country, if the Secretary of Transportation
> disapproves the agreement because it is not in the public interest.
> Section
> [40106](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00040106----000-.html)
> [(b)(2)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00040106----000-.html#b_2)
> of this title applies to this subsection.*

In response to the AIR-21 requirements, the Department on May 18, 2000,
issued a notice of its intent to investigate complaints against foreign
carriers according to the amended provisions of the ACAA. The notice
also announced the Department\'s plan to initiate a rulemaking modifying
Part 382 to cover foreign carriers. On November 4, 2004, the Department
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to apply the ACAA rule to
foreign carriers (69 FR 64364). The NPRM sought to apply Part 382 to
foreign carriers in a way that achieves the ACAA\'s nondiscrimination
objectives while not imposing undue burdens on foreign carriers. This
NPRM also proposed revisions to a number of other provisions of 14 CFR
Part 382 and generally reorganized the rule. The Department received
about 1300 comments on this NPRM. In this preamble to the final rule,
this proposed rule is called the "Foreign Carriers NPRM" or the "2004
NPRM."

On September 7, 2005, the Department published a second NPRM, on the
subject of medical oxygen and portable respiratory assistive devices (70
FR 53108). The Department received over 1800 comments on this proposed
rule, which is referred to in this preamble as the "Oxygen NPRM." On
February 23, 2006, the Department published a third NPRM, concerning
accommodations for passengers who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or
deaf-blind. The Department received over 700 comments on this proposed
rule, which is called the deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) NPRM in this
preamble. This document addresses the over 3800 comments received on all
three NPRMs. The section-by-section analysis will describe each
provision of the combined final rule.

In this preamble, when we mention the "present," "current," or
"existing" rule, we mean the version of Part 382 that is in effect now.
It will remain in effect until a year from today, when it will be
replaced by the provisions that are published in this final rule.

**COMMENTS AND RESPONSES**

**General Regulatory Approach**

A number of airline industry commenters\-- principally, but not only,
foreign carriers \-- criticized the Foreign Carriers NPRM's approach as
being too detailed and prescriptive. Many of these commenters said they
preferred a more general approach, in which an overall objective of
nondiscrimination and service to persons with disabilities was stated,
with the details of implementation left to the discretion of carrier
policies, guided by codes of recommended practice issued by various
governments or international organizations.

It is the Department's experience, over the 21 years since the enactment
of the Air Carrier Access Act, that in order to ensure that carriers are
accountable for providing nondiscriminatory service to passengers with
disabilities, detailed standards and requirements are essential. If all
that carriers are responsible for is carrying out, in their best
judgment, general objectives of nondiscrimination and good service, or
best practices or recommendations, or regulations that are not
enforceable by the Department, then effective enforcement of the rights
Congress intended to protect in the ACAA becomes impracticable. It is
understandable that carriers would wish to implement their goals through
policies of their own devising and to limit potential compliance issues.
However, the Department is responsible for ensuring consistent
nondiscriminatory treatment of passengers with disabilities, including
implementation of the variety of specific accommodations that are
essential in providing such treatment. We must structure our response to
this mandate in a way that allows for for clear and consistent
implementation by the carriers, and clear and consistent enforcement by
the

Department. Consequently, we are convinced that the approach taken in
the NPRM, reflecting the Department's years of successful experience in
carrying out the ACAA, is appropriate.

**Coverage and Definition of "Flight"**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to cover the activities of foreign
carriers with respect to a "flight," defined as a continuous journey, in
the same aircraft or using the same flight number that begins or ends at
a U.S. airport. The Foreign Carriers NPRM included several examples of
what would or would not be considered covered "flights." One of these
examples proposed that if a passenger books a journey on a foreign
carrier from New York to Cairo, with a change of plane or flight number
in London, the entire flight would be covered for that passenger. When
there is a change in both aircraft and flight number at a foreign
airport, the rule would not apply beyond that point. Another example
proposed that the rules applying to U.S. carriers would apply to a
flight operated by a foreign carrier between foreign points that was
also listed as a flight of a U.S. carrier via a code sharing
arrangement.

Commenters, including foreign carriers, generally conceded that it was
acceptable for the rule to cover foreign carriers' flights that started
or ended at a U.S. airport. Some carriers said that it was burdensome
for them to continue to observe Part 382 rules for a leg of a flight
that did not itself touch the U.S. (e.g., the London-Cairo leg in the
example mentioned above). We note that only service and
nondiscrimination provisions of the rule apply in such a situation, not
aircraft accessibility requirements.

Foreign carriers' main objection, however, centered on codeshare flights
between two foreign points. They said that it was an inappropriate
extraterritorial extension of U.S. jurisdiction to apply U.S. rules to a
foreign carrier just because the foreign carrier's flight between two
foreign points carried passengers under a code-sharing arrangement with
a U.S. carrier. In response to these comments, the Department has
changed the applicable provision of the final rule. If a foreign carrier
operates a flight between two non-U.S. points and the flight carries the
code of a U.S. carrier, the final rule will not extend coverage to the
foreign carrier for that flight segment and the foreign carrier will not
be responsible to the Department for compliance with Part 382 for that
segment. Rather, with respect to passengers ticketed to travel under the
U.S. carrier's code, the Department regards the transportation of those
passengers to be transportation by a U.S. carrier, concerning which the
U.S. carrier is responsible for Part 382 compliance. If there is a
service-related violation of Part 382 on a flight between two non-U.S.
points operated by a foreign carrier, affecting a passenger traveling
under the U.S. carrier's code, the violation would be attributed to the
U.S. carrier, and any enforcement action taken by the Department would
be against the U.S. carrier. We note that the aircraft accessibility
requirements would not apply in such a situation. U.S. carriers can work
with their foreign carrier codeshare partners to ensure that required
services are provided to passengers.

**Conflict of Law Waivers and Equivalent Alternative Determinations**

One of the most frequent comments made by foreign carriers and their
organizations was that implementation of the proposed rules would lead
to conflicts between Part 382 and foreign laws, rules, voluntary codes
of practice, and carrier policies. These conflicts, commenters said,
would lead to confusion and reduce efficiency in service to passengers
with disabilities. Many commenters advocated that the Department should
defer to foreign laws, rules, and guidance, or accept them as equivalent
for purposes of compliance with Part 382.

In anticipation of this concern, and in keeping with the Department's
obligation and commitment to giving due consideration to foreign law
where it applies, the Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed a conflict of laws
waiver mechanism. Under the proposal, a foreign carrier would be
required to comply with Part 382, but could apply to DOT for a waiver if
a foreign legal requirement conflicted with a given provision of the
rule. If DOT agreed that there was a conflict, then the carrier could
continue to follow the binding foreign legal requirement, rather than
the conflicting provision of Part 382. Foreign carriers commented that
this provision was unfair, because it would force them to begin
complying with a Part 382 requirement allegedly in conflict with a
foreign legal requirement while the application for a waiver was
pending. Some commenters also objected to DOT making a determination
concerning whether there really was a conflict between DOT regulations
and a provision of foreign law.

In order to determine whether a foreign carrier should be excused from
complying with an otherwise applicable provision of Part 382, the
Department has no reasonable alternative to deciding whether a conflict
with a foreign legal requirement exists. The Department cannot rely
solely on an assertion by a foreign carrier that such a conflict exists.

Comments from a number of foreign carriers asked the Department to
broaden the concept of the proposed waiver, by allowing foreign carriers
to comply with recommendations, voluntary codes of practice, etc. We do
not believe such a broadening is necessary to comply with the
Department's legal obligations. Nor would it be advisable from a policy
point of view, as it would not provide the consistency that passengers
with disbilities should expect, regardless of the identity or
nationality of the carrier they choose.

We therefore want to make clear, for purposes of this waiver provision,
what we mean by a conflict with a provision of foreign law. By foreign
law, we mean a legally binding mandate (e.g., a statute, regulation, a
safety rule equivalent to an FAA regulation) that imposes a
nondiscretionary obligation on the foreign carrier to take, or refrain
from taking, a certain action. Binding mandates frequently can subject a
carrier to penalties imposed by a government in the event of
noncompliance. Guidance, recommendations, codes of best practice,
policies of carriers or carrier organizations, and other materials that
do not have mandatory, binding legal effect on a carrier cannot give
rise to a conflict between Part 382 and foreign law for purposes of this
Part, even if they are published or endorsed by a foreign government. In
order to create a conflict, the foreign legal mandate must require
legally something that Part 382 prohibits, or prohibit something that
Part 382 requires. A foreign law or regulation that merely authorizes
carriers to adopt a certain policy, or gives carriers discretion in a
certain area that Part 382 addresses, does not create a conflict
cognizable under the conflict of laws waiver provision.

For example, Part 382 says that carriers are prohibited from imposing
number limits on passengers with disabilities. Suppose that Country S
has a statute, or the equivalent of an FAA regulation, mandating that no
more than three wheelchair users can, under any circumstances, travel on
an S Airlines flight. S Airlines would have no discretion in the matter,
since it was subject to a legal mandate of its government. This would
create a conflict between Part 382 and the laws of Country S that could
be the subject of a conflict of laws waiver. However, suppose that the
government of Country S publishes a guidance document that says limiting
wheelchair users on a flight to three is a good idea, has a regulation
authorizing S Airlines to impose a number limit if it chooses, or
approves an S Airlines safety program that includes a number limit. In
these cases, the conflict of laws waiver would not apply, since in each
case there is not a binding government requirement for a number limit,
and S Airlines has the discretion whether or not to adopt one.

We note one exception to this point. If a foreign government officially
informs a carrier that it intends to take enforcement action (e.g.,
impose a civil penalty) against a carrier for failing to implement a
provision of a government policy, guidance document, or recommendation
that conflicts with a portion of the Department's rules, the Department
would view the government action as creating a legal mandate cognizable
under this section.

While retaining the substance of the conflict of laws provision of the
NPRM, the Department has, in response to comments, modified the process
for considering waiver requests.. We agree with commenters that it would
be unfair to insist that carriers comply with a Part 382 provision that
allegedly conflicts with foreign law while a waiver request is pending.
Consequently, we have established an effective date for the rule of one
year after its publication date. If a carrier sends in a waiver request
within 120 days of the publication date of the final rule, the
Department will , to the maximum extent feasible, respond before the
effective date of the rule. If we are unable to do so, the carrier can
keep implementing the policy or practice that is the subject of the
request until we do respond, without becoming subject to enforcement
action by the Department. The purpose of the 120-day provision is to
provide an incentive to foreign carriers to conduct a due diligence
review of foreign legal requirements that may conflict with Part 382 and
make any waiver requests to DOT promptly, so that the Department can
resolve the issues before the rule takes effect.

What a foreign carrier obtains by filing all its conflict of laws waiver
requests within the first 120 days is, in effect, a commitment from DOT
not to take enforcement action related to implementing the foreign law
in question pending DOT's response to the waiver request. For example,
if S Airlines filed a waiver request with respect to an alleged
requirement of a Country S law requiring number limits for disabled
passengers within 120 days of the rule's publication, then the
Department would not commence an enforcement action relating to an
alleged violation of Part 382's prohibition of number limits that
occurred during the interval between the effective date of Part 382 and
the date on which DOT responds to S Airline's waiver request. This would
be true even if the Department later denies the request.

However, if S Airlines did not file its request until 180 or 210 days
after the rule is published, DOT could begin enforcement action against
the carrier for implementing number limits inconsistent with Part 382
during the period between the effective date of the rule and the
Department's response to the waiver request. If the Department granted
the waiver request, any enforcement action relating to the carrier's
actions during that interval would probably be dismissed. However, if
the waiver request were denied, the enforcement action would proceed. S
Airlines thus would have put itself at somewhat greater risk by failing
to submit its waiver request on a timely basis.

We also recognize that laws change. Consequently, if a new provision of
foreign law comes into effect after the 120-day period, a carrier may
file a waiver request with the Department. The carrier may keep the
policy or practice that is the subject of the request in effect pending
the Department's response, which we will try to provide within 180 days.
Again, the carrier would not be at risk of a DOT enforcement action
relating to the period during which the Department was considering the
waiver request concerning the new foreign law.

Carriers should not file frivolous waiver requests, the stated basis for
which is clearly lacking in merit or which are filed with the apparent
intent of delaying implementation of a provision of Part 382 or abusing
the waiver process. In such cases, the Department may pursue enforcement
action even if the frivolous waiver request has been filed within 120
days. As a general matter, a carrier that does not file a request for a
waiver, or whose request is denied, cannot then raise the alleged
existence of a conflict with foreign law as a defense to a DOT
enforcement action.

Many foreign carriers and their organizations also said that a conflict
of laws waiver, standing alone, was insufficient. They said that their
policies and approaches to assisting passengers with disabilities, or
laws or policies relating to disability access of foreign carriers'
countries (either single-country laws or those of, for example, the
European Union) should be recognized as equivalent to DOT's rules.
Compliance with equivalent foreign laws and carrier policies, they said,
should be sufficient to comply with Part 382.

U.S. disability law includes a concept -- equivalent facilitation \--
that can address these comments to a reasonable degree. This concept,
which is embodied in such sources as the Department's Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations and the Americans with Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), states that a transportation or
other service provider can use a different accommodation in place of one
required by regulation if the different accommodation provides
substantially equivalent accessibility. The final rule permits U.S. and
foreign carriers to apply to the Department for a determination of what
the final rule will call an "equivalent alternative." (We use this term
is used in place of "equivalent facilitation" to avoid any possible
confusion with the use of "equivalent facilitation" in other contexts.).
If, with respect to a specific accommodation, the carrier demonstrates
that what it wants to do will provide substantially equivalent
accessibility to passengers with disabilities than literal compliance
with a particular provision of the rule, the Department will determine
that the carrier can comply with the rule using its alternative
accommodation. This provision applies to equipment, policies,
procedures, or any other method of complying with Part 382

It should be emphasized that equivalent alternative determinations
concern alternatives only to specific requirements of Part 382. The
Department will not entertain an equivalent alternative request relating
to an entire regulatory scheme (e.g., an application asserting that
compliance with European Union regulations on services to passengers
with disabilities was equivalent to Part 382 as a whole). It should be
emphasized that the fact that a carrier policy or foreign regulation
addresses the same subject as a provision of Part 382 does not mean the
carrier policy or foreign regulation is an equivalent alternative. For
example, both Part 382 and various carrier policies address the
transportation of service animals. A policy or regulation that was more
restrictive than Part 382 would not be viewed as an equivalent
alternative, since it provided less, rather than substantially
equivalent, accessibility for passengers who use service animals.

As with the conflict of laws waiver, if a carrier submits a request for
an equivalent alternative determination within 120 days of the
publication of this Part, the Department will endeavor to have a
response to the carrier by the effective date of the rule. If the
Department has not responded by that time, the carrier can implement its
proposed equivalent alternative until and unless the Department
disapproves it. However, with respect to a request filed subsequent to
that date, carriers must begin complying with the Part 382 provision
when it becomes effective, and could not use their proposed equivalent
alternative until and unless the Department approved it.

**Other International Law Issues**

A number of foreign carriers said that application of the rule alike to
U.S. and foreign carriers was unfair, in that U.S. carriers receive
Federal funds to support their operations, while European and other
foreign carriers do not. Commenters also argued that it was unfair for
DOT to allow U.S. carriers to avoid civil penalties if they have
introduced programs that go beyond minimum requirements.

The Department disagrees with both these comments. The very reason for
the existence of the ACAA is that the Supreme Court, in [Paralyzed
Veterans of America]{.underline} v. [Civil Aeronautics
Board]{.underline}, 477 U.S. 597 (1986), determined that, with minor
exceptions not germane to the issue raised by commenters, U.S. carriers
do [not]{.underline} receive Federal financial assistance. For this
reason, the Court said, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 --
which applies only to entities receiving Federal financial assistance --
largely does not cover U.S. air carriers. Congress then enacted the ACAA
to ensure that U.S. air carriers provided nondiscriminatory service to
passengers with disabilities, notwithstanding the absence of Federal
financial assistance. The situation that the Court saw in 1986 remains:
U.S. carriers engaging in international transportation do not receive
Federal financial assistance.

The second of these comments appears to be a somewhat inaccurate
reflection of a DOT enforcement policy that, in some cases, allows a
carrier to invest part of a civil penalty to improve services for
passengers with disabilities above and beyond what the ACAA requires,
rather than paying the amount of this investment to the Department. For
example, if a carrier were assessed a \$1.5 million civil penalty for
failure to provide timely and adequate assistance to passengers who use
wheelchairs, the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings might require a cash payment of only \$200,000 if the
carrier agreed to use the remaining \$1.3 million to enhance
accessibility for passengers with mobility impairments in ways that go
beyond the requirements of Part 382. Since this enforcement approach
applies equally to foreign and U.S. carriers, continued implementation
of this policy will not result in any inequity between U.S. and foreign
carriers.

Numerous foreign carriers and organizations complained that the Foreign
Carriers NPRM was inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 40105(b), which directs
the Secretary to "act consistently with obligations of the United States
government under an international agreement" and to "consider applicable
laws and requirements of a foreign country." In the context of this
rule, the Department believes that the conflict of laws waiver provision
effectively discharges the statutory obligation imposed on the
Department by the language of subsection (b)(1)(B), since the Department
would "consider" foreign requirements in implementing its waiver
authority when a Department regulatory provision that was shown to
conflict with a foreign legal mandate. In addition, The Department has
also provided greater flexibility in the rule through incorporating an
equivalent alternative provision, which covers policies and practices
that are not mandated by foreign laws and requirements. This provision
will facilitate our efforts to implement ACAA requirements smoothly in
the context of our international relationships.

A related argument that many foreign carriers made is that the Foreign
Carriers NPRM proposed provisions inconsistent with international
agreements binding on the U.S., thereby violating subsection (b)(1)(A).
In particular, commenters cited provisions of the Chicago Convention
(e.g., Articles 1 and 37 and Annex 9). Article 1 concerns the
sovereignty of signatory states with respect to aviation; Article 37
authorizes the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to adopt
standards and recommendations in a variety of areas, and Annex 9
includes a series of standards and recommendations concerning
transportation of persons with disabilities.

In the Department's view, Article 1 is fully consistent with the
adoption of requirements that affect flights to and from the U.S., a
point with which many commenters agreed. The one area in which the
Foreign Carriers NPRM was said by many commenters to assert
extraterritorial jurisdiction -- coverage of foreign carriers with
respect to flights carrying passengers under the code of a U.S. carrier
-- has been changed in the final rule, as described above.

The authority of ICAO under Article 37 to issue standards and
recommendations does not purport to pre-empt a signatory state's
authority to issue rules concerning air commerce to and from its
airports. Nor do the standards and recommendations of Annex 9 with
respect to transportation of passengers with disabilities purport to
occupy the field, such that member states are pre-empted from issuing
their own rules in this area. Indeed, the ICAO recommended practices
suggest that member states [should]{.underline} take their own
implementing actions. It is reasonable to state that the provisions of
the ACAA and Part 382 faithfully carry out these recommendations, making
concrete many of the suggestions that ICAO makes to member states.

The two ICAO standards in Annex 9 related to transportation of
passengers with disabilities are the following:

> [Standard 8.27]{.underline}. *Contracting States shall take the
> necessary steps to ensure that airport facilities and services are
> adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities*.
>
> [Standard 8.34]{.underline}. *Contracting States shall take the
> necessary steps to ensure that persons with disabilities have adequate
> access to air services.*

The ACAA rule does not conflict with these standards, it supports them.
The rule requires that airport facilities and services involving
transportation to and from the U.S. provide nondiscriminatory service to
passengers with disabilities. The rule includes a variety of steps
necessary to ensure that passengers with disabilities have
nondiscriminatory access to air services, again in transportation to and
from the U.S.

Some commenters alleged that requirements of the Chicago Convention
regarding "notification of differences" should apply to the rulemaking
and that the Department had failed to comply with them. The relevant
language is the following:

> [Notification of differences]{.underline}. *The attention of
> Contracting States is drawn to the obligation imposed by Article 38 of
> the Convention by which Contracting States are required to notify the
> Organization of any differences between their national regulations and
> practices and the International Standards contained in this Annex and
> any amendments thereto. Contracting States are invited to extend such
> notification to any differences from the Recommended Practices
> contained in this Annex, and any amendments thereto.*

The requirement for a notification of differences applies only to
differences between Standards and national regulations. As noted above,
there are no differences between the ICAO Standards and the ACAA rule.
The Convention's language says that States are "invited" to extend
notification to ICAO with respect to any differences from Recommended
Practices. Obviously, an "invitation" falls well short of a legal
mandate. In any event, the ACAA requirements have the effect of carrying
out the Recommended Practices. We reject any assertion that, by making
specific accommodations mandatory (e.g., by saying "must" instead of
"should") or by limiting airline discretion to provide poorer rather
than better accommodations for passengers (e.g., with respect to service
animals), the rule is creating "differences" with International
Standards cognizable under provisions of the Chicago Convention.

In connection with their Chicago Convention-related arguments, a number
of foreign carriers or organizations cited [British Caledonian
Airways]{.underline} v. [Bond]{.underline}, 665 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir.,
1981). This case arose from the crash of a DC-10 that FAA traced to
cracks in engine pylons that were exacerbated by faulty maintenance
procedures. FAA issued an emergency Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) grounding all DC-10s of U.S. carriers. FAA then issued a similar
SFAR prohibiting foreign carriers' DC-10s from operating in U.S.
airspace. Shortly before FAA rescinded the SFARs in question, their
purpose having been achieved, several foreign carriers sought judicial
review of the foreign carrier SFAR. The Court found that the SFAR
conflicted with Article 33 of the Chicago Convention, which provides
that certificates of airworthiness or licenses issued by the State in
which the aircraft is registered must be recognized as valid by other
contracting States, unless the country of registration is not observing
"minimum standards."

This case concerns solely Article 33 and its relationship to the
validity of carrier airworthiness certificates issued by foreign
governments. This rulemakong, on the other hand, has nothing to do with
Article 33 or airworthiness certificates. The case therefore is
irrelevant to the rulemaking. It may be that commenters were arguing
that DOT regulatory actions in general that conflict with the Chicago
Conventions are vulnerable to court challenges; however, as noted above,
this regulation is fully consistent with relevant portions of the
Chicago Convention.

Other comments from foreign carriers and organizations were more
policy-oriented in nature, asking for consultation through ICAO or other
channels prior to publication of a rule which, while carefully limited
to matters affecting service to and from the U.S., had implications for
the international aviation system. Comments asked for greater focus on
international harmonization. In fact, the Department consulted
extensively with other interested parties. The volume and detail of
comments from foreign carriers and organizations testify to the
extensive opportunity non-U.S. parties have had to participate in this
rulemaking. This final rule reflects the Department's consideration of
this participation (and we note that participation between the time of
the Foreign Carriers NPRM and the final rule is just as valid as
participation before issuance of the Foreign Carriers NPRM). DOT
officials also met and had phone conferences with organizations
representing European and Asian governments and/or carriers. It would be
unreasonable to contend that this extensive participation somehow does
not count.

The Department is willing to continue discussions with foreign carriers
and international organizations with respect to harmonization of U.S.
and other standards in the area of transportation of passengers with
disabilities. Meantime, the Department has a responsibility to carry out
its statutory mandate to apply the ACAA to foreign carriers, and we
cannot make working with other parties on harmonization matters a
condition precedent to carrying out what Congress has mandated.

Some comments alluded to the regulatory negotiation process that
preceded the issuance of the original ACAA NPRM, complaining that there
was not a similar process prior to the issuance of the November 2004
NPRM. Regulatory negotiation, is, of course, a wholly voluntary process
on the Department's part. There can be no implication that, because the
Department chose to use such a process in the 1980s, the Department was
in any sense required to do so again for this rulemaking. Nor is there
any such requirement in the statutory amendment applying the ACAA to
foreign carriers. It is worth noting, in any event, that the original
ACAA NPRM was not the product of consensus resulting from the regulatory
negotiation. That negotiation terminated short of consensus, because of
intractable disagreements on some issues between carriers and disability
groups. The original NPRM, like the 2004 NPRM, was wholly the
Department's proposal. The variety of disagreements among commenters
concerning the November 2004 NPRM suggests, in retrospect, that the
likelihood of achieving consensus on the application of the ACAA to
foreign carriers in a manner consistent with the Department's
obligations under the ACAA would have been very low. Moreover, in the
years since the original ACAA regulatory negotiation, disability groups
have expressed some skepticism about the utility of the regulatory
negotiation process for nondiscrimination rules of this kind, making it
questionable whether they would have chosen to participate in such a
venture.

**Accessibility of Airport Terminals and Facilities**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM (sec. 382.51) proposed that both U.S. and
foreign carriers, at both U.S. and foreign airports, would be
responsible for ensuring the accessibility of terminal facilities they
own, lease, or control. The responsibility of foreign carriers at
foreign airports would extend only to facilities involved with flights
to or from the U.S. U.S. airports must meet applicable accessibility
requirements (e.g., the ADAAG) under the ADA and section 504. The
Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed a performance standard for foreign
airports, since U.S. accessibility standards do not apply there. This
performance standard would require carriers to ensure that passengers
with disabilities could readily move through terminal facilities to get
to or from boarding areas. Carriers could meet this performance standard
by a variety of means. A related provision (sec. 382.91) proposed that,
at both U.S. and foreign airports, both U.S. and foreign carriers would
have to provide assistance to passengers with disabilities in moving
through the terminal and making connections between gates.

Some comments appear to have misunderstood the Foreign Carriers NPRM to
propose that DOT wished U.S. accessibility standards, like the ADAAG, to
apply to foreign airports. The Foreign Carriers NPRM did not make such a
proposal. Those comments aside, the most frequent comment made by
foreign carriers and their organizations on this subject was that the
Foreign Carriers NPRM's proposals for airport facility accessibility did
not sufficiently take into account the fact that foreign governments or
airport operators, not airlines, controlled matters relating to
accessibility at many foreign airports. For example, it was pointed out
that under recent European Union regulations, airport operators are
given most of the responsibility for accommodating passengers with
disabilities in airports.

The Department recognizes that this may often be the case, and the final
rule should not be understood to require carriers to duplicate the
accommodations made by airport operators at foreign airports. Where
foreign airport operators provide accessibility services or accessible
facilities, foreign carriers may rely on the airport operators' efforts,
to the extent that those efforts fully meet the requirements of this
Part. What happens, though, if the foreign airport operators' efforts do
not fully provide the accessibility that this rule requires (e.g., the
airport operator is responsible for providing wheelchair assistance to
passengers within the terminal, but does not provide connecting service
between gates for wheelchair users who are changing planes on flights
covered by the rule)? In such a case, this rule requires air carriers to
supplement the services provided by the airport operator, by providing
the supplemental services itself or hiring a contractor to do so. If the
carrier cannot legally do so (e.g., the airline is legally prohibited
from supplementing the airport's services to passengers with
disabilities), the carrier could seek a conflict of laws waiver.

The Foreign Carriers NPRM asked whether the final rule should require
automated kiosks operated by carriers in airports or other locations
(e.g., for ticketing and dispensing of boarding passes) to be
accessible, and, if so, what accessibility standards should apply to
them. Disability community commenters generally expressed support for
this proposal; carriers and their organizations generally expressed
concern about the cost and technical feasibility of accessible kiosks.
The Department believes that all services available to the general
public should be accessible to people with disabilities. Nevertheless,
the comments concerning kiosks were not sufficient to answer our
questions about cost and technical issues. Consequently, the Department
plans to seek further comment about kiosks in a forthcoming supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). The preamble to the SNPRM will
discuss this issue in more detail. On this subject, the Department
intends to coordinate with the Access Board, which also has work under
way that could affect kiosks.

As an interim measure, the final rule will require a carrier whose
kiosks are not accessible to provide equivalent service to passengers
with disabilities who cannot use the kiosks. For example, suppose a
passenger with a disability having only carry-on luggage wants to use a
kiosk to get a boarding pass without standing in line with passengers
checking baggage. If, because the kiosk is not accessible, the passenger
cannot use it, the carrier would have to provide equivalent service,
such as by having carrier personnel operate the kiosk for the passenger
or allowing the passenger to use the first class boarding pass line.

We recognize that some disability community commenters have expressed
concern about the latter approach, thinking that it might call undue
attention to the individuals receiving the accommodation. We agree that
assisting the passenger at the kiosk is preferable. In our view,
however, a potentially awkward accommodation is preferable to none at
all (e.g., in a situation where personnel were not available to assist
the passenger at the kiosk). We urge carriers to provide such an
accommodation with sensitivity to passengers' potential concerns about
looking as though they have been singled out for special treatment.

U.S. airports are governed, for disability nondiscrimination, by several
Federal laws and rules, all of which coexist on the same airport real
estate. The ACAA and DOT's ACAA rules apply to terminal facilities
owned, leased, or controlled by a carrier, specifically facilities that
provide access to air transportation (e.g., ticket counters, baggage
claim areas, gates). Title II of the ADA, and the Title II rules of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) apply to terminal facilities owned by public
entities like state and local airport authorities. DOT's rules under
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to those same
facilities owned by public entities, if they receive DOT financial
assistance (i.e., under the FAA's airport improvement program). In some
cases, DOT's 504 rules could apply to airport facilities of airlines
(e.g., those air carriers who receive essential air service program
funds from DOT). DOT's Title II ADA rules apply to transportation
services provided by public entities (e.g., a parking shuttle service
run by the airport authority) or public transportation services that
serve the airport (e.g. a public rail or bus transit link to the
airport) DOT's Title III ADA rules apply to private transportation
serving the airport (e.g., private taxi, demand-responsive shuttle, or
bus service). DOJ's Title III ADA rules also apply to places of public
accommodation on airport grounds that serve the general public (e.g.,
hotels, restaurants, news and gift stores).

Fortunately, ascertaining the practical obligations of various parties
at the airport is a good deal less confusing than this summary of
overlapping authorities might make it seem. In a November 1996 amendment
to its existing ACAA rule, the Department clarified these relationships,
and this understanding of the relationship carries over into the new
ACAA rule (see 61 FR 56417-56418, November 1, 1996). Basically,
regardless of which statutory or regulatory authority or authorities
apply to a particular facility or portion of a facility, Title II ADA
requirements apply to public entity spaces and Title III ADA
requirements apply to private entity spaces. The Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) are the physical
accessibility standards that apply throughout the airport (note,
however, that until DOJ completes its adoption of the 2004 ADAAG, the
1991 ADAAG continues to apply spaces controlled by DOJ regulations).

**Enplaning, Deplaning, and Connecting Assistance**

The original Part 382, issued in 1990, required U.S. carriers to provide
enplaning and deplaning assistance, and it assigned to the arriving
carrier the responsibility for providing assistance in making
connections and moving between gates. The Foreign Carriers NPRM built on
this existing requirement, proposing to require carrier assistance
between the terminal entrance and gate, as well with accessing ticket
and baggage locations, rest rooms, and food service concessions. The
Foreign Carriers NPRM asked whether carriers should be permitted to
require advance notice for these accommodations, and it proposed that
enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance be provided "promptly."

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed requiring carriers, in the course of
providing this assistance, to help passengers with disabilities with
carry-on and gate-checked luggage. It also proposed requiring carriers
to make a general announcement in the gate area offering preboarding to
passengers with disabilities.

Some carriers said that while they would voluntarily provide assistance
to passengers with disabilities in moving through the terminal when
practical and feasible, they opposed a regulatory requirement to provide
this assistance. The Department does not believe that, under the ACAA,
it is appropriate to tell passengers that they must learn to rely on the
kindness of strangers. One of the purposes of Part 382 always has been,
and remains, to create legally enforceable expectations upon which
passengers with disabilities can consistently depend. Reliance on purely
voluntary action by carriers does not achieve this objective.

One of the issues discussed most often in comments concerned the
proposed requirement that enplaning, deplaning, and connecting
assistance be provided promptly. Many commenters, particularly people
with disabilities and organizations representing them, thought that the
rule should specify maximum times for assistance -- 5, 10, or 15 minutes
-- rather than having a more general requirement for promptness. Some
disability community comments also said that the rule should prohibit
carriers from waiting until everyone else had left the plane before
providing deplaning assistance to passengers with disabilities (e.g., to
deplane a person needing assistance at the same time as persons in
adjacent rows leave), or at least that the rule should require carriers
to assist passengers with disabilities in deplaning no later than the
time the aircraft aisle is free of other passengers. Carriers, on the
other hand, opposed such specificity, saying that it was impractical and
potentially costly. Some carriers wanted a less specific term than
"promptly," preferring a concept like "as soon as reasonably possible
under the circumstances."

The Department has decided to adopt the "promptly" language as proposed.
The Department is concerned that, given the wide variety of situations
in different airports and flights, adopting a specific time limit as
some commenters advocated would be unrealistic. On the other hand,
having no standard would have the effect of reducing the requirement, as
a practical matter, to "whenever the carrier gets around to it." We
understand "promptly" to mean, in the case of deplaning, that personnel
and boarding chairs should be available to deplane the passenger no
later than as soon as other passengers have left the aircraft. We
believe that halting the boarding process for everyone behind, for
example, Row 15, until a wheelchair user in Row 15 was transferred to a
boarding chair and assisted off the aircraft, could unduly inconvenience
a considerably greater number of persons. The requirement for prompt
service imposes a reasonable performance requirement on carriers without
creating unnecessarily rigid timing requirements which, in some
situations, carriers operating in the best of faith might be unable to
meet.

Many carriers suggested that they be allowed to require advance notice
(e.g., of 24 or 48 hours) from passengers wanting enplaning, deplaning,
and connecting assistance. This would make the logistics of providing
the service easier for carriers to deal with, they said, and would
ensure better service for passengers. We agree that it is highly
advisable for passengers who want assistance to tell the airline about
their needs in advance, and we urge passengers to communicate with
carriers as soon as possible to set up assistance. We also noted
comments from some carriers that, at some airports, particular locations
have been established at which passengers arriving without prior notice
can obtain assistance more easily and quickly than might otherwise be
the case. This appears to be a good idea that carriers might consider
using more widely. Nevertheless, being able to receive assistance in
moving through the airport is so fundamental to access to the air travel
system that the Department does not believe that allowing carriers to
require -- as distinct from recommending -- advance notice would be
consistent with the nondiscrimination objectives of the ACAA. Passengers
with disabilities, like other passengers, sometimes must travel on short
notice for business or personal reasons, and it would not be consistent
with the ACAA to limit their access to needed assistance in moving
through the terminal.

Carrier comments also mentioned, in this context, the relationship
between carriers and many foreign airports, where airports often have
the major responsibility for providing assistance in the terminal. As
noted elsewhere in the preamble, carriers can rely on airports' efforts
with respect to assistance in the terminal, supplementing the assistance
that airports provide as necessary to meet fully the requirements of
Part 382. If carriers are precluded by law from supplementing the
airport-provided assistance, carriers can request a conflict of laws
waiver.

The Foreign Carriers NPRM, like the existing rule, assigns
responsibility for connecting assistance to the carrier on which the
passenger arrives. One foreign carrier mentioned that, per agreements
with other carriers in at least some airports, its arriving passengers
would be assisted to a connecting carrier's gate by personnel of the
connecting carrier. As noted elsewhere, the Department does not object
to contractual agreements between carriers that would delegate the
connecting assistance function to the connecting carrier. However, under
the rule, the arriving carrier would retain responsibility for ensuring
that the function was properly carried out.

Many carriers objected to having to allow passengers they are assisting
to stop at a restroom or food service location, saying that this would
delay service and increase personnel costs. Passenger comments, to the
contrary, suggested that it was unfair for assistance personnel to
insist on wheeling a passenger who needed to go to the bathroom or who
was hungry past a conveniently located restroom or food concession, at
which ambulatory passengers could stop at their discretion. Their
comments pointed out that eating and relieving oneself are basic life
activities that people must do from time to time. This issue has become
increasingly significant in recent years due to the need for early
arrival at the airport for security screening and cutbacks in airline
meal service.

The final rule is structured to accommodate both sets of concerns. If an
airline or contractor employee is assisting a passenger from, for
example, the ticket counter to the gate, and they come to a restroom or
food service location on the route they are taking, the employee is
required to allow the passenger a brief stop, if the passenger
self-identifies as a person with a disability needing this service. The
employee is not required to detour to a different route, provide
personal care attendant services to the passenger, or incur an
unreasonable delay. A delay which would result in the passenger not
getting to a connecting flight would obviously be unreasonable. With
respect to food service locations, the kind of brief stop the Department
envisions is one sufficient to pick up a prepared carry-out item or
fast-food sandwich, as distinct from eating at a sit-down restaurant.
Even in the case of a carry-out or fast-food location, a long line might
create an unreasonable delay.

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed that persons with disabilities who
need assistance in boarding be provided an opportunity to preboard. It
also proposed requiring a general preboarding announcement to this
effect in the gate area. Disability community comments generally
supported the proposed requirements. Carrier comments did not object to
the proposed requirement to provide an opportunity for persons with
disabilities to preboard, though some carriers did object to making the
general announcement of the opportunity in the gate area, mostly out of
concern that too many ineligible people would try to preboard, thereby
slowing the boarding process. The Department believes that preboarding
is an important way in which carriers can facilitate transportation by
passengers with disabilities. Indeed, some portions of Part 382 (e.g.,
with respect to on-board stowage of accessibility equipment) are
premised on the availability of preboarding. The final rule will include
this requirement. However, we will not make final the proposed provision
requiring a general announcement of this opportunity in the boarding
area. Some carriers make such an announcement as a matter of policy.
Even where this is not the case, carrier personnel are generally
responsive to requests from passengers with disabilities to preboard and
often scan the boarding area to determine if there are passengers for
whom preboarding would be appropriate. Passengers who want to ensure
that they can preboard should ask gate personnel for the opportunity. It
is reasonable to expect passengers to take this step.

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed that carriers, in the course of
providing assistance to passengers with a disability in moving through
the terminal, would assist them in transporting carry-on and
gate-checked baggage. A number of carrier comments opposed this
proposal, saying that it would impose staffing and cost burdens on them.
If a passenger wanted to have someone carry his or her bags, at least
one comment suggested, the passenger should hire porter service. Other
commenters said that such service should be limited to wheelchair users
or persons with severe hearing or vision impairments.

The Department notes that, in many cases, passengers with disabilities
do not need extensive extra assistance in dealing with carry-on items.
It is commonplace for wheelchair users to carry their briefcases or
purses on their laps when being assisted through the terminal, for
example. Proper-size carry-on and gate-checked items are, by definition,
limited in size, and they are not the kind of items that passengers in
general need to use a skycap and a cart to move through the airport. It
would not be appropriate, in the context of a nondiscrimination rule, to
effectively require passengers with disabilities to hire such service.
We agree with commenters, however, that passengers who can carry their
own items should do so, and we have added language saying that this
service need be provided only to those passengers who cannot do so
because of their disability. Carrier or contractor personnel can request
credible verbal assurances from a passenger that he or she cannot
transport the item in question or, in the absence of such credible
assurances, require documentation as a condition of providing the
service.

**Number Limits**

A number of foreign carriers commented that being able to limit the
number of passengers with disabilities on board a given flight was
important for safety, particularly in the context of an emergency
evacuation. In some cases, carriers mentioned that laws or regulations
of their governments either permitted or required them to impose limits
on the numbers of either passengers with disabilities or assistive
devices in the cabin.

A number limit permits a carrier to say to a passenger, in effect "As a
person with a disability, we will deny you transportation on this flight
solely because some number of other persons with disabilities are on the
flight." Such a response to a passenger is intrinsically discriminatory.
The Department discussed this issue in the preamble to the original ACAA
rule (55 FR 8025-8028; March 6, 1990), and our view of the matter has
not changed. If anything, our view of the matter has been strengthened
by the fact that, during the 17 years since the original rule was
issued, we are not aware of any instances of safety problems resulting
from the existing rule's prohibition on number limits. As mentioned
elsewhere, a foreign carrier can apply for a conflict of laws waiver
concerning number limits. The final rule also retains the existing
provision permitting a carrier to require advance notice for a group of
10 or more passengers with disabilities traveling together, so that the
airline can make appropriate preparations for the group (e.g., a team
traveling to a competition for wheelchair athletes).

**[Safety Assistants/Attendants]{.underline}**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed retaining, with minor modifications,
the existing Part 382 limitations on the ability of carriers to require
passengers with disabilities to travel with attendants. One
terminological change we proposed was to refer to attendants that
airlines could require in certain specified situations for safety
purposes as "safety assistants." The use of this term is intended to
emphasize that the only reason a carrier may require another person to
travel with a passenger with a disability is safety. It would never be
permitted for a carrier to require someone to travel with a passenger
with a disability as a personal care attendant; that is, as someone who
is present to assist the passenger with personal needs such as eating,
drinking, and elimination.

A number of foreign carriers asserted that they should retain the
discretion to require attendants for passengers with disabilities. They
gave several reasons for this desire. Some commenters did not want to
have to rely on passengers' self-assessments of their ability to travel
independently. Some cited provisions of carrier manuals or government
guidance that were contrary to the proposed regulation. Some feared that
crew members might be pressed into performing personal care functions.
Others argued that, on lengthy overseas flights, it was reasonable to
require attendants for personal care purposes, since otherwise
passengers with disabilities would be unable to perform personal
functions for long periods, with harm possibly resulting to themselves
or others. Some comments said that the requirement to allow a safety
assistant to fly free if the carrier disagreed with the passenger's
self-assessment could lead to abuse by clever passengers trying to get
free flights for someone. Some of these comments suggested providing
discounted, rather than free, transportation for the attendant in these
situations.

Disability community commenters generally supported the Foreign Carriers
NPRM proposals, and a number of comments were particularly supportive of
the change to the "safety assistant" term, believing that it helped to
clarify the meaning of the provision. Some comments from people with
disabilities, however, objected to the provision to the extent that it
would ever permit carriers to insist on an attendant over the
passenger's objections. These commenters did not trust the carriers'
judgments about passengers' capabilities and were concerned that
carriers would impose attendant requirements arbitrarily, increasing the
costs and difficulty of flying for passengers with disabilities.

The limits on carrier requirements for attendants were a significant
issue in the original ACAA rulemaking, and the Department's discussion
of that issue in the preamble to the 1990 ACAA rule remains relevant
(see 55 FR 8029-8032; March 6, 1990). Passengers with disabilities, for
the most part, are the best judges of their capabilities, and providing
broad discretion to carriers to override that judgment does carry with
it a significant risk of arbitrary burdens being placed on passengers.
On the other hand, carriers have ultimate responsibility for the safety
of passengers, and we believe that the balance struck in the original
ACAA rule is a sensible one. Passengers have the primary responsibility
for making the determination if they can travel independently, but
carriers can overrule that determination, in a carefully limited set of
circumstances, and require a safety assistant. If it is really an
overriding safety reason that compels a carrier to overrule a
passenger's decision and insist that he or she travel with a safety
assistant, then it is appropriate for the carrier to bear the cost of
the safety judgment that it makes. In the 17 years that the Department
has implemented this provision under the existing ACAA rule, this
requirement has not resulted, to the best of our knowledge, either in
safety problems or frequent or significant abuse by passengers.

Even on long flights, passengers with disabilities, under a
nondiscrimination statute, have the right to determine whether they will
incur the discomfort involved with not having someone available to
assist them with personal functions. A passenger may choose to forego
the airline's food and beverage service. A passenger may dehydrate
himself and avoid the need to urinate. The Foreign Carriers NPRM, like
the present rule, emphasizes that flight attendants and other carrier
personnel are never required to perform personal care functions for a
passenger. To ensure that passengers who make the choice to fly
unaccompanied have the opportunity to be fully informed of the
implications of their decision, the information to which passengers are
entitled (see sec. 382.41(f)) includes a description of services that
are or are not available on a flight.

For these reasons, the Department is adopting the proposed provision and
thereby retaining the substance of the existing provision of Part 382.
The Department has made a few modifications in the rule text, however.
In a situation where the carrier insists on a passenger traveling with a
safety assistant, contrary to the passenger's self-assessment, we are
deleting the proposed language that would require the carrier to make a
good-faith effort to find someone to perform the safety assistant
function. This language was not part of the original 1990 rule, and we
do not think it is essential to add it. As stated in the preamble to the
1990 rule (see 55 FR 8031), the carrier can play an important role in
selecting a safety assistant (e.g., a deadheading crew member, a
passenger volunteer), which can be useful from the carrier's point of
view if the carrier is worried about a passenger with a disability
trying to abuse the system. If the carrier does not designate an
employee or volunteer to be the safety assistant, the carrier cannot
refuse to accept someone designated by the passenger (i.e., with the
result that no one would be available to act as the safety assistant),
as long as that person is capable of assisting the passenger in an
evacuation.

With respect to passengers who have mobility impairments, we have
clarified the criterion relating to safety assistants to say that the
passenger with a disability must be capable of "physically" assisting in
his or her own evacuation. This clarification is made to avoid the
possibility that someone could claim he is assisting in his own
evacuation merely by calling for help. Finally, given that the rule will
now apply to foreign carriers, we have added to the provisions
concerning persons with mental disabilities and deaf-blind individuals a
notation referring to briefings required by foreign government
regulations, as well as those of the FAA.

Consistent with the approach taken in the current rule and the Foreign
Carriers NPRM, we proposed in the DHH NPRM to allow carriers to require
any passenger who has severe hearing and vision impairment or is
deaf-blind to travel with a safety assistant if communication adequate
for transmission of the required safety briefing cannot be established.
(We use the term "severe hearing and vision impairment" to include the
entire spectrum of this disability, including the extreme of
"deaf-blind," unless we expressly indicate otherwise.) We proposed to
require both the carrier's personnel and the disabled passenger to make
reasonable attempts to establish adequate communication, beginning with
self-identification on the passenger's part. We further proposed that if
the carrier disagrees with the passenger's assessment that he or she is
capable of traveling independently, the carrier must transport the
safety assistant free of charge and must also make reasonable efforts to
locate such an assistant. We solicited comments on the proposed joint
responsibility, on what might qualify as reasonable attempts to
communicate, on whether our proposal is specific enough for all parties
concerned to understand their responsibilities, and on whether a
different standard might be more appropriate. We also solicited comments
on the costs of compliance.

The carriers and carrier associations that filed comments all supported
the proposed requirement that passengers with severe hearing and vision
impairment self-identify. Most opposed being required to find a
voluntary safety assistant if they disagree with the disabled
passenger's self-assessment of being able to travel without one, and all
opposed being required to transport the safety assistant without charge.
They contend that not only would the requirement to transport the safety
assistant without charge create incentives for fraudulent assertions of
independence, but using voluntary safety assistants would raise serious
insurance and liability issues, and requiring free transportation would
saddle them with undue costs. Most sought clarification of carriers'
responsibility for making reasonable efforts to establish communication
with passengers whose hearing and vision are severely impaired. For
flights of twelve hours or more, some carriers said, inexperienced
passengers may not be aware of what needs may arise for them during
their flight.

Of the disability organizations that filed comments, one supported joint
responsibility for reasonable efforts to establish communication to
determine the need for a safety assistant. Others maintained that the
rule should ensure that persons with severe hearing and vision
impairment are not denied travel because a carrier's employees lack
adequate training in or knowledge of basic communication techniques.

In response to the comments we received, we are modifying the proposed
rule in some respects. In so doing, we are maintaining the basic
principle that has worked effectively in the domestic airline industry
since the original 1990 rule: if a passenger is able to establish
adequate communication with the carrier for purposes of receiving the
safety briefing, and the carrier nonetheless decides to overrule the
passenger's assessment that he or she can travel independently, the
carrier cannot charge for the transportation of the safety assistant
that the carrier requires.

To allow the carrier an opportunity to confirm that the passenger had
such a means of communication available, the final rule provides that
the carrier can require the passenger to self-identify 48 hours before
the flight. As part of this notification, the passenger would explain to
the carrier how communication can be established (e.g*.*, via tactile
speech-reading by touching the speaker's lips, cheek and throat). If the
passenger does not notify the carrier 48 hours before the flight, the
rule nonetheless requires the carrier to accommodate the passenger as
far as is practicable.

For example, if a passenger with severe hearing and vision impairments
does not notify the carrier 48 hours before the flight of his or her
intent to travel alone and of his or her ability to communicate
adequately for transmission of the safety briefing, the carrier could
refuse to transport the passenger without a safety assistant. If,
however, the same passenger does not provide advance notice but is
taking a nonstop flight, brings an interpreter to the airport, and is
able to establish communication (in the gate area) adequate for the
transmission of the safety briefing and to receive instruction during an
emergency evacuation, the carrier must allow the passenger to travel
without a safety assistant..

The FAA requires that the safety briefing be provided before each
takeoff, so communication to permit transmission of this briefing must
be established for each flight segment of the passenger's itinerary.
Passengers can use a variety of means to establish the needed
communication. A passenger could, for example, bring a companion to the
airport to serve as a go-between with carrier personnel there. That
individual can interpret for the passenger during the safety briefing
and can help the passenger agree with carrier personnel on physical
signals---touching the passenger's hand in a specific manner, for
example---for use during evacuation or other emergencies. Another means
by which the passenger may establish communication is to give carrier
personnel an instruction sheet for communicating with him or her.

While we are not requiring carriers to make safety briefing information
available on Braille cards, they are free to do so. The carrier may not
require the passenger to demonstrate his or her ability to communicate
or that he or she has understood the safety briefing. For example, there
could not be a quiz on the contents of the safety briefing or a
demonstration of lip reading or finger spelling ability.

In the case of codeshare flights, the carrier whose code is used must
inform the operating carrier that a passenger with severe hearing and
vision impairment has provided notice 48 hours in advance of his or her
intent to travel without a safety assistant. If there is sufficient time
before the 48-hour deadline for the passenger to directly contact the
operating carrier, the carrier whose code is being used could, as an
alternative, provide the passenger a number where he or she could
contact the operating carrier to impart this information.

Consistent with the treatment of this issue in the rest of the rule, in
cases where carriers disagree with a passenger's self-assessment that he
or she can travel alone, we will continue to require that they transport
the safety assistant without charge. Of course, any carrier that wishes
to accommodate a passenger with severely impaired vision and hearing by
designating a safety assistant from among, say, non-revenue passengers,
its airport personnel, ticketed passengers on the same flight who
volunteer to serve in that capacity, or a person accompanying the
disabled passenger to the airport is free to do so.

This requirement of free transportation for the safety assistant also
applies in cases when the disabled passenger who believes that he or she
does not need a safety assistant proposes to establish communication by
means of tactile signing or finger spelling, but no member of the
carrier's flight crew can communicate using these methods. Carriers may
decide as a practical matter that providing free transportation for a
safety assistant in these cases is less costly than training personnel
to communicate using such methods.

Finally, with respect to a passenger with a mental impairment (e.g.,
someone with Alzheimer's disease), the Department wants carriers and
passengers to understand that it is the passenger himself, not someone
accompanying the passenger to the airport, who must be able to
understand safety instructions from the crew.

**Medical Certificates/Communicable Diseases**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to continue, and apply to covered
flights of foreign carriers, the existing Part 382 limits on the extent
to which carriers can exclude or restrict passengers with communicable
diseases and the situations in which carriers can require a passenger to
get a medical certificate from a physician before traveling.

Many air carrier comments asked for greater guidance on how to apply the
provisions of these sections. Some of these suggested incorporating past
DOT guidance that spelled out that a combination of severity of health
consequences and easy transmission of a disease in the aircraft cabin
environment would create an appropriate situation for restrictions on an
individual's travel and/or a requirement for a medical certificate.
Commenters asked whether such conditions as the common cold, SARS,
tuberculosis, or AIDS would meet the requirements of the proposed rule
for permitting restrictions on travel or the requirement for a medical
certificate. Some comments also asked how directives or recommendations
from public health authorities would play into carrier decisions under
the rule.

There were a number of comments about the concept of "direct threat,"
which is defined as a significant risk to the health or safety of others
that cannot be eliminated by a modification of polices, practices, or
procedures or eliminated by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.
Disability community commenters expressed the concern that use of this
term \-- derived from the Americans with Disabilities Act -- would make
it too easy for carriers to use their discretion to exclude passengers,
perhaps in a discriminatory fashion. Some carriers believed, to the
contrary, that it would make it too difficult to exercise the discretion
they need to protect the health of travelers or that it would be too
burdensome for their personnel to make judgments on this basis. A
medical group suggested that a direct threat be defined as a condition
that would be seriously exacerbated by the flight itself or a serious
communicable disease that could be transmitted to another person in
flight.

Some carriers questioned the objectivity or qualifications of a
passenger's physician to make a sound determination of whether it was
safe for a passenger to travel. Some carriers preferred that their own
medical staffs make these determinations, or at least have the ability
to evaluate and override medical certificates provided by passengers'
physicians. Generally, carriers preferred to have wider discretion to
restrict passengers' travel than they perceived the provisions of the
Foreign Carriers NPRM as giving them.

In response to comments, the Department has made some modifications in
the final rule provisions on these subjects. We have included the
substance of the DOT guidance. Under this provision, carriers would have
the ability to impose travel restrictions and/or require a medical
certificate if a passenger presented with a communicable disease that
was [both]{.underline} readily transmitted in the course of a flight and
which had serious health consequences (e.g., SARS, but not AIDS or a
cold). In addition, carriers could conduct additional medical reviews of
a passenger and, notwithstanding a medical certificate, restrict travel
under some conditions. This additional review would have to be conducted
by medical personnel (e.g., members of the carrier's medical staff or
medical personnel to whom the carrier referred the passenger), and this
provision is not a license for non-medically trained carrier staff to
disregard medical certificates presented by passengers from their own
physicians. Nor would it be appropriate for carrier staff to exclude or
discriminate against passengers because the passengers' appearance might
disturb or upset other persons (see also sec. 382.19(b)).

Existing language of the regulation, which will be carried forward,
permits a carrier to require a medical certificate from a passenger when
there is reasonable doubt that the individual can complete the flight
safely without requiring extraordinary medical assistance. This language
accommodates the comment that one aspect of a direct threat is a
passenger's having a condition that would be seriously exacerbated by
the flight itself. We disagree with a commenter's assertion that a
carrier should be able to ask for a medical certificate if
[any]{.underline} medical attention might be needed. This suggestion
goes too far in the direction of granting carriers discretion to demand
medical documentation for potentially minor medical conditions or for
disabilities that do not entail any acute medical condition.

We have added language permitting carriers to rely on instructions
issued by public health authorities (e.g., the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control or Public Health Service; comparable agencies in other
countries; the World Health Organization) in making decisions about
carrying passengers with communicable diseases. For example, if CDC or
WHO issues an alert or directive telling airlines not to carry a
particular individual who poses a serious health risk (e.g., an
individual with multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis), or persons
exhibiting symptoms of a serious health condition (e.g., SARS), we would
expect carriers to follow the public health agency's instructions.
Carriers could do so without contradicting the requirements of this
Part.

**Aircraft Accessibility Features**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed extending to foreign carriers
requirements for aircraft accessibility features based, with some
modifications, on provisions in the existing ACAA rule. These features
include accessible lavatories, movable aisle armrests, provision of
on-board wheelchairs, and space to store wheelchairs and other mobility
aids in the cabin. A few commenters apparently misunderstood the
proposal as requiring retrofit of existing aircraft. This is not the
case; no such requirement has ever existed or been proposed.

1\. [Movable aisle armrests]{.underline}

The current rule requires U.S. carriers using aircraft with 30 or more
seats to have movable aisle armrests on at least half the passenger
aisle seats. Such armrests need not be provided on emergency exit row
seats or on seats on which movable aisle armrests are not feasible. The
carrier is required to provide a means to ensure that individuals with
mobility impairments or other passengers with disabilities can readily
obtain seating in rows having movable aisle armrests. The requirement
applies to new aircraft ordered or delivered after the rule went into
effect (retrofitting was not required) or to situations in which
existing seats are replaced by newly manufactured seats.

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed retaining these requirements and
applying them to foreign carriers, with some modifications and
clarifications. The exception for seats on which movable aisle armrests
are not feasible was not included in the Foreign Carriers NPRM
regulatory text, and a new requirement was proposed that would call on
U.S. and foreign carriers to ensure that movable aisle armrests were
proportionately provided in all classes of service. The information
provided by carriers about the location of movable aisle armrests would
have to be specified by row and seat number.

A number of carriers and aircraft manufacturers commented that the
proposed deletion of the feasibility exception and the requirement to
have movable aisle armrests in each class of service were problematic.
They said that some seats and seat console designs for first and
business class seats in fact did make movable armrests infeasible or too
costly. Moreover, they said, the wider seat pitches in first and
business class cabins often permitted horizontal transfers of passengers
from boarding chairs to aircraft seats, making movable armrests
unnecessary in these cases.

The Department agrees that, if in a given aircraft, seats and seat
pitches are configured so as to permit a horizontal transfer of a
passenger from a boarding wheelchair to the aircraft seat (i.e., a
transfer that can be accomplished without lifting the passenger over the
aisle armrest), it would not be necessary to have a movable aisle
armrest at that location. Consequently, if a carrier can show, through
an equivalent alternative request, that such transfers are feasible with
a given cabin configuration, the Department would grant the request for
the carrier's aircraft using that configuration. The underlying rule,
however, will be adopted as proposed, because without a means of making
a horizontal transfer into aircraft seats, passengers who board using
boarding wheelchairs will have to use the less comfortable, safe, and
dignified method of being lifted over the armrest. Carriers that are
unable to demonstrate an equivalent alternative would have to provide
movable aisle armrests even in first and business class.

Some commenters also said that putting seats with movable armrests into
existing aircraft should be required only when newly designed or
developed types of seats are installed, as distinct from newly
manufactured seats of the same type that formerly occupied the space.
Consistent with other provisions of the ACAA, ADA, and section 504, when
a feature of a vehicle or facility is replaced, it must be replaced with
an accessible item. (We note that, according to information referred to
in the regulatory evaluation, movable aisle armrests are now standard
features of at least some seat manufacturers' products.) This obligation
is not limited to new models of a feature placed into a space where
older models formerly were used. Indeed, adopting the commenters'
suggestion would create a means for carriers to avoid providing movable
aisle armrests on existing aircraft when newly manufactured armrests are
installed, since carriers could simply order older seat models whenever
they replaced the seats. When carriers remove any of the old seats on
existing aircraft and replace them with newly manufactured seats, half
of the replacement aisle seats must have movable armrests.

Disability community commenters generally favored the Foreign Carriers
NPRM proposal, but suggested some modifications. Some comments said that
emergency exit rows should be made part of the base from which the 50
percent calculation should be made. The Department believes, however,
that the existing formula, which excludes those rows from the
calculation, will result in sufficient rows being equipped with movable
aisle armrests. Other comments suggested requiring some rows
(presumably, in economy as well as business or first-class sections) to
have wider seat pitches, the better to accommodate service animals or
assistive devices, or to remove some rows entirely and provide
securement devices so that passengers could sit in their own
wheelchairs. The Department regards these suggestions as impractical and
potentially too costly to airlines, as they would reduce seating
capacity on the aircraft. The latter suggestion, in addition, would be
inconsistent with FAA safety rules concerning passenger seats on
aircraft, since aircraft seats must be certified to withstand specified
g-forces.

One comment suggested requiring that in new aircraft or those subject to
a cabin refit, the bulkhead row always have a movable aisle armrest.
While we do not believe it is necessary to be this specific in the
regulatory text, we believe that this is a good idea that carriers and
manufacturers should consider, except when a bulkhead row is unavailable
to passengers with disabilities because of FAA safety rules (e.g., a
bulkhead row that is also an exit row). Bulkhead rows are often used by
people with disabilities (see the seating accommodations section of this
Part).

2\. [Accessible lavatories]{.underline}

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to retain the existing requirement
that cabins of aircraft with more than one aisle (e.g., a twin-aisle
aircraft like a 747) have an accessible lavatory. As under the existing
rule, this requirement would apply to new aircraft (i.e., aircraft
ordered/delivered after the effective date of the rule). If a carrier
replaced an inaccessible lavatory on an existing twin-aisle aircraft, it
would have to do so with an accessible lavatory. The Foreign Carriers
NPRM also proposed to clarify that if a carrier replaced a component of
an existing, inaccessible lavatory on a twin-aisle aircraft (e.g., a
sink) without replacing the entire lavatory, the new component would
have to be accessible.

Many disability community commenters believed the existing and proposed
requirements concerning accessible lavatories were inadequate. They said
that accessible lavatories should be required in all aircraft, including
the much more common single-aisle aircraft. The absence of accessible
lavatories makes travel uncomfortable and difficult for passengers with
disabilities, they said. Airline industry commenters, on the other hand,
said that adding a requirement for accessible lavatories on single-aisle
aircraft would be overly costly and burdensome.

Particularly given that single-aisle aircraft often make lengthy flights
(e.g., across North America, some trans-oceanic flights), it is clear
that providing accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft would be a
significant improvement in airline service for passengers with
disabilities. One of the organizations that commented on the Foreign
Carriers NPRM is in the process of working with carriers and
manufacturers to develop an accessible lavatory design for single-aisle
aircraft that would minimize seat loss. At the present time, however,
the Department is concerned that the revenue loss and other cost impacts
of requiring accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft could be too
great. Consequently, we are not imposing such a requirement at this
time. Providing accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft remains a
matter of interest to the Department, and we will look carefully at
ongoing developments in this area to determine if future rulemaking
proposals may be warranted.

Some comments objected to the proposed requirement to use accessible
components (e.g., a sink) when replacing a component of a lavatory on a
twin-aisle aircraft. Cost concerns aside, the main point of these
comments was that lavatories typically are sold and installed as a unit,
and that it is unusual to replace a single component of a lavatory. Even
when this happens, because the lavatory is an integrated unit, only a
given component that is dimensionally consistent with its original
design is likely to fit. The Department believes that this comment has
merit, and we are deleting the sentence in question.

Several foreign carriers objected to the application to them of the
existing rule's requirement that when an inaccessible lavatory unit was
being replaced on a twin-aisle aircraft, it must be replaced with an
accessible lavatory. Their main concern was that since the accessible
lavatory unit would require more space than its inaccessible
predecessor, they would have to remove or forego seats, causing revenue
loss. One carrier made very high estimates of seat loss from such a
change (e.g., eight seats on some aircraft) and suggested that
alternative means (e.g., a curtain) could provide as adequate restroom
facilities as an accessible lavatory. Consequently, these commenters
urged, the rule should require an inaccessible lavatory to be replaced
with an accessible lavatory only in the context of a change in cabin
layout.

Since the original ACAA rule (see 55 FR 8020-8021; March 6, 1990), the
Department has drawn a distinction between single-aisle and twin-aisle
aircraft for purposes of accessible lavatory requirements. While the
Department has acknowledged since the time of the original rule that
requiring accessible lavatories in twin-aisle aircraft involves direct
costs and revenue losses (though some seat loss estimates, like the one
referred to above, appear overstated), the Department determined then
and continues to believe now that the requirement is justified in
twin-aisle aircraft. The cabins of these aircraft are physically larger,
affording somewhat greater flexibility than single-aisle aircraft in
placing accessible lavatory units. They tend to be used on
longer-distance flights and carry more people, making the presence of
accessible lavatories all the more important to passengers. U.S.
carriers have been subject to the same requirement for many years, and
it is important to maintain a level playing field between U.S. carriers
and their foreign carrier competitors in terms of such a requirement.
Contrary to one foreign carrier comment, requiring accessible lavatories
on twin-aisle aircraft does not discriminate against foreign carriers;
U.S. carriers, no less than their foreign counterparts, use twin-aisle
aircraft on long-distance international routes.

Several commenters requested a clarification with respect to the
accessible lavatory requirement in a twin-aisle airplane, to the effect
that only one accessible lavatory need be installed. For example, if a
carrier was refitting a cabin, and replacing all its old inaccessible
lavatories, it would only have to install one accessible lavatory unit.
We believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of the requirement,
and we will use this interpretation as we implement and enforce the
rule. However, we do not believe that additional regulatory language is
necessary.

3.  [Stowage Space for Wheelchairs]{.underline}

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to retain with some modifications,
and to apply to foreign carriers' aircraft, the existing requirement
that aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats have a priority space to
stow at least one passenger wheelchair. The modifications proposed from
the existing rule were to add dimensions of a wheelchair that would fit
without disassembly into the priority space and to delete the
application of this section to electric wheelchairs.

As with other aircraft accessibility provisions of the Foreign Carriers
NPRM, the proposed requirement concerning on-board stowage of
wheelchairs would apply to new aircraft. Contrary to concerns expressed
by a number of carriers, the Foreign Carriers NPRM did not propose a
retrofit requirement. Nor would the requirement apply to "all types of
aircraft," as several comments asserted. It would apply only to aircraft
with 100 or more seats.

Comments from disability community commenters generally supported the
proposed requirement, though several of these comments said that the
dimensions proposed for wheelchairs to be carried in the cabin should be
enlarged, given the size of many current types of mobility devices. Many
foreign carrier comments said either that all wheelchairs should be
carried in the cargo compartment or that carriers should have discretion
concerning whether or not to carry a wheelchair in the cabin. Some
comments expressed the concern that carriers could not fit a space for a
folding wheelchair into their cabin configurations without losing
seating capacity. One foreign carrier added that crew luggage should
have priority over a passenger's wheelchair.

The reasons for storing a wheelchair in the cabin are twofold. First, it
can often be more convenient for a passenger to have the wheelchair
close at hand when he or she leaves the aircraft and to be able to get
as close as possible to the aircraft door on boarding before having to
transfer. Second, as pointed out in the preamble to the original ACAA
rule (55 FR 8035; March 6, 1990), passengers with disabilities have the
same concerns as other passengers about loss of or damage to their
property when it is checked. While, as some comments pointed out,
requiring space for one wheelchair does not completely solve this
problem for all passengers with disabilities, doing so does help at
least one such passenger per flight. A bit of added inconvenience to
non-disabled passengers or crew who might have to stow their carry-on
items elsewhere seems an acceptable price to pay, in the context of a
nondiscrimination rule, for this service to passengers with respect to
their means of mobility.

For these reasons, the Department is adopting the proposed requirement.
We recognize that some foreign carriers are used to exercising their
discretion about where to carry passengers' wheelchairs, as were U.S.
carriers prior to the adoption of the original ACAA rule. U.S. carriers,
with appropriate oversight from DOT, have successfully adapted to this
requirement, and foreign carrier comments did not contain any compelling
reasons why they could not do so as well. It is important to remember
that foreign carriers will not be required to modify existing cabins
just for the purpose of creating a space for passengers' wheelchairs.

There is a wide variety of wheelchairs and mobility devices on the
market. It would not be practical to require spaces that can handle
every sort of device. The rule's requirement is now limited to spaces
for folding manual wheelchairs, the present and proposed language
concerning cabin stowage of power wheelchairs having been deleted in
response to comments expressing concern about the adequacy of space,
problems arising from the disassembly and reassembly of wheelchairs in
the context of transportation in the cabin, and potential issues
concerning stowage of batteries. Of course, since only folding manual
wheelchairs are permitted in the cabin, large, motorized
mobility-assistive devices of any type -- not just power wheelchairs, as
such -- would not have to be carried in the cabin.

Based on the Department's experience, the dimensions in the Foreign
Carriers NPRM should be sufficient to handle a considerable majority of
models of folding wheelchairs. Consequently, while we agree that this
required space will not be sufficient for all models, we believe it is a
reasonable compromise between the needs of passengers and the space
constraints of carriers. We note that, under the final rule, carriers
are not required to carry electric wheelchairs in the cabin.

One matter that some comments raised was the so-called "seat-strapping"
method of carrying wheelchairs in cabins. This involves strapping down a
wheelchair across a row of seats in an aircraft that does not have the
required space for stowing a folding wheelchair in the cabin. While
nowhere mentioned or authorized in the current Part 382, this practice
has been permitted by DOT enforcement policy in some cases. Some
comments supported allowing this approach as an alternative to providing
a stowage space in the cabin. The Department does not believe that this
is an appropriate alternative to endorse in the rule, because it is a
more awkward way of carrying a wheelchair and because it can, on a given
flight, reduce seating capacity for other passengers. This is a more
important consideration than ever, given frequently high load factors on
many flights. However, because DOT practice has allowed this measure in
the past, we do not believe it is fair to ban the practice altogether.
Consequently, seat-strapping will not be permitted as an alternative to
designated stowage spaces on new aircraft ordered by or delivered to
carriers after two years from the rule's effective date. The
Department's policy will not change with respect to existing aircraft.

4.  [On-board wheelchairs]{.underline}

The existing rule requires that, on aircraft with more than 60 seats,
the carrier must provide an on-board wheelchair in any case if the
aircraft has an accessible lavatory, and on a passenger's advance
request even if the aircraft does not have an accessible lavatory. The
rationale for the latter requirement is that some passengers with
limited mobility may be able to use an inaccessible lavatory on their
own but may need to be assisted down the aisle to the lavatory in an
on-board wheelchair. The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed that this
requirement apply on aircraft with 50 or more seats, as distinct from
the criterion of more than 60 seats in the existing regulation. The
reason for this proposal was that 50-seat regional jets are becoming an
increasingly important component of the fleets of many carriers, and the
accommodation provided by this section should be made available to
passengers who use those aircraft.

Carriers and their associations objected to the application of the
provision to 50-seat aircraft. Carriers cited cost as one reason for
their position. In addition, they said, 50-seat aircraft typically have
only flight attendant on board. If that attendant is assisting a
passenger using an on-board wheelchair, he or she will be unable to
carry out other duties. This could create difficulties if an emergency
occurred while the flight attendant was assisting a user of an on-board
wheelchair, which might also obstruct the aisle in an emergency
situation. In addition, carriers questioned whether the interior of a
50-seat regional jet could be configured to provide storage space for
the on-board wheelchair when it was not in use.

While the cost estimates of commenters for on-board wheelchairs appear
to be overstated, we believe that the operational concerns of carriers
with respect to the use of on-board wheelchairs on 50-seat aircraft with
one flight attendant have merit. In addition, the typically very
confined spaces in lavatory units on these aircraft make their use by
persons with limited mobility problematic. Consequently, the final rule
will retain the existing rule's provision applying on-board wheelchair
requirements to aircraft with more than 60 seats.

**Stowage of Wheelchairs and Mobility Aids**

The current rule requires wheelchairs that cannot be carried in the
cabin to be checked, carried as baggage, and returned to users as
closely as possible to the door of the aircraft. These devices have
priority over other items in the baggage compartment. Carriers must
accept battery-powered wheelchairs (and other battery-powered mobility
aids) in baggage, subject to applicable hazardous materials rules.
Wheelchairs powered by lithium batteries may not be permitted under the
hazardous materials rules depending on the lithium content of the
battery. Generally, non-spillable batteries do not need to be removed
from wheelchairs and separately packaged, if the batteries are securely
attached to the wheelchair and the batteries or their housing, if any,
are clearly marked as being non-spillable. Wet cell batteries which are
not non-spillable may require removal from the wheelchair if the
wheelchair cannot be loaded and stowed in an upright condition and
secured against movement in the cargo compartment. Carriers may
establish a one-hour advance check-in time to process battery-powered
wheelchairs. Wheelchair users may provide written instructions
concerning assembly and disassembly of their devices. On domestic
flights, U.S. carriers must fully compensate passengers for loss of or
damage to wheelchairs, without regard to rules limiting liability for
lost or damaged baggage.

The Foreign Carriers NPRM essentially proposed to continue these
provisions and apply them to foreign as well as U.S. carriers.
Commenters made a number of points in response. One commenter asserted
that the requirement to carry power wheelchairs in the baggage
compartment was inconsistent with ICAO technical standards and IATA
dangerous goods rules. While virtually identical in many respects, the
DOT and ICAO/IATA standards differ, the commenter said, because the
latter gives carriers discretion to refuse to carry such mobility aids
while the former does not. The Department, according to the commenter,
cannot impose a lesser requirement than the international standard. In
the Department's view, there is no conflict. As cited by the commenter,
the ICAO/IATA standard gives carriers the discretion to carry
battery-powered wheelchairs. The DOT requirement tells carriers to
exercise the discretion permitted them by the ICAO/IATA standard by, in
fact, carrying the wheelchairs. The DOT rule does not require anything
that the ICAO/IATA rule does not allow. It would not be accurate to call
the Department's requirement a "lesser" standard than that of ICAO/IATA.
Indeed, it is more properly regarded as a higher standard, since it
ensures service to passengers with disabilities that the ICAO/IATA
materials leave to carrier discretion.

On October 5, 2007, the Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Administration (PHMSA) issued a special permit in response to an IATA
request. The permit, which granted an exemption from portions of the
Department's hazardous materials rules concerning battery-powered
mobility aids, was revised in response to ATA's request on October 30,
2007. Under the special permit, the current term of which expires
January 31, 2009, a non-spillable battery that is completely enclosed
and protected from short circuits in a rigid case integral to the
mobility aid would not have to be disconnected and its terminals further
protected from short circuits to be carried on an aircraft. This special
permit should make handling of some battery-powered wheelchairs easier
for carriers to which the permit applies. It is PHMSA's intention to
issue a rulemaking in the future that will extend the provisions of this
exemption to all carriers. Due to the many instances of wheelchair
damage resulting from disconnecting battery cables, the Department will
require carriers not to disconnect the cables on non-spillable batteries
unless a PHMSA or FAA safety regulation, or the safety regulation of a
foreign government, requires them to do so.

Carriers and passengers with disabilities had differing views on the
existing and proposed requirements for carriers to permit passengers to
provide written instructions about the disassembly and reassembly of
wheelchairs. Some of the former suggested requiring passengers to
provide the manufacturer's instructions; some of the latter suggested
that the airline employee who disassembles the wheelchair provide
written instructions that would go forward to the employee who
reassembles the wheelchair at its destination telling that employee how
to put the device back together.

The Department believes that both suggestions have some merit. To the
extent that there are relevant manufacturer's instructions, it seems
useful for passengers to provide a copy to carriers. We do not think it
would be appropriate to require the provision of manufacturer's
instructions, since they may not exist in all cases and may not apply to
specialized or customized features of a particular passenger's device.
It also seems plausible that a user of a particular device would be in a
good position to provide experience-based instructions to the carrier.
Likewise, to the extent that a carrier employee at the passenger's
originating airport can write down a "here's how I took it apart and
here's how it goes back together" note to his counterpart at the
destination, the information could be helpful to the latter. However,
the employee may not have time to do so, and some passengers may prefer
that the employee does not do so (i.e., out of concern that the employee
could get it wrong). Consequently, we do not believe it advisable to
change the proposed language.

Some carrier comments said that Warsaw/Montreal convention provisions
controlled payments for items carried as baggage and that the Department
should not attempt to alter compensation requirements for international
flights. We agree, and the Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to make
compensation requirements for lost or damaged mobility aids applicable
only to U.S. domestic passenger trips. The final rule will do the same.

Some commenters suggested that the advance check-in time for persons
delivering mobility aids for transportation in the baggage compartment
should be 60 minutes before the regular check-in time for passengers,
rather than 60 minutes before scheduled departure time. We agree, and we
have changed the rule accordingly.

Some carrier comments noted that the existing and proposed regulatory
language concerning luggage that doesn't make a flight because of the
space taken by a wheelchair calls for the carrier to make best efforts
to deliver the luggage within four hours. Commenters said that this
often was not practical in international service, where flights may be
scheduled at intervals of one a day or less. This is a fair comment; we
have changed the language to say that such luggage must be placed on the
carrier's next flight. We believe this is a reasonable standard for
domestic as well as international flights.

The Department recognizes that there may be some circumstances in which
it is not practical to stow an electric wheelchair, or some other sort
of assistive device, in the baggage compartment. Only devices that fit
and that meet all applicable hazardous materials and other safety
regulations need be carried.

Some wheelchairs -- such as those equipped with securely mounted
non-spillable batteries or those for which the carriers remove the
batteries and stow them separately under 49 CFR 175.10(a)(15) and (16)
-- are capable of being stowed in other than an upright position without
damage to the wheelchair or batteries. However, if the physical size of
the compartment -- its actual dimensions, not crowding caused by other
items -- do not permit a wheelchair to be carried upright safely without
risk of serious damage to the wheelchair, or a load imbalance caused by
a large wheelchair in a small baggage compartment may violate weight and
balance safety requirements, carriers could legitimately decline
transportation of the item on that flight and should assist the
passenger in identifying a flight using an aircraft that can accommodate
the chair.

Given that the rule allows the carrier to require 48 hours' advance
notice with respect to carrying electric wheelchairs, the carrier should
use this time period to find an arrangement that will get the passenger
and his or her chair to the intended destination. For example, when a
change to a smaller aircraft the day before the flight's departure will
preclude the passenger's wheelchair from being accommodated in the cargo
hold (e.g., the cargo space dimensions are too small for the chair to
fit), the carrier must either offer the passenger alternative
transportation at a different time or provide a fare refund. In
circumstances where the passenger accepts alternative transportation on
a flight of a different carrier, the first carrier must, to the maximum
extent feasible, provide assistance to the second carrier in providing
the accommodation requested by the individual from the first carrier.

A disability group also raised the concern -- which could apply to
manual as well as electric wheelchairs -- that if several wheelchair
users were traveling on a small aircraft, like a commuter aircraft or a
regional jet, there might not be room in the baggage compartment for
everyone's wheelchair. This situation could occur, but we do not see a
regulatory solution to it. If a group is traveling together, providing
as much notice as possible to the carrier to work the problem is
advisable. Otherwise, the carrier would probably have to put some
passengers' wheelchairs on a subsequent flight. A carrier association
said that carriers should only have to carry one motorized mobility
device per passenger. We do not believe it is necessary to provide for
this situation in the regulatory text. However, in a situation like the
above where there was not room for all disabled passenger's wheelchairs,
we agree that it would make sense for the carrier to take one mobility
device for each passenger on the flight before taking a second device
for some passengers.

**Seating Accommodations**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed carrying forward and applying to
foreign carriers the seating accommodations requirements of the current
ACAA rule. These provisions would require carriers to make available
certain seat locations to individuals with certain types of disability
calling for a particular seating accommodation.

Some disability community commenters suggested that, if adequate seating
accommodations for a person with a disability were not present, the
individual should be seated in business or first class without
additional charge. Carriers generally opposed this idea. Under the
current rule, carriers are not required to provide accommodations in a
seating/service class for which a passenger has not bought a ticket (see
section 382.38(i)). The final rule continues this approach. Carriers are
responsible for making seating accommodations in the seating/service
class for which someone has bought a ticket, but are not required to
provide a higher level of seat or service because doing so would be more
comfortable or convenient for a passenger with a disability. Likewise,
the Department is continuing its existing approach that a person who
requires two seats for any reason (e.g., because of obesity or a
disability) can be required to pay for two seats.

Some carriers asked for an advance notice requirement for passengers
needing a seating accommodation (e.g., 48 hours). While it is always a
good idea for passengers and carriers to communicate about
accommodations as early as possible, the Department's ACAA regulations
and nondiscrimination policies have discouraged advance notice policies
as an undue limitation of the ability of passengers with disabilities to
travel freely and without discrimination. The experience of U.S.
carriers with the existing seating accommodations provision suggests
that carriers can provide needed seating accommodations without
additional advance notice.

There were several miscellaneous comments concerning seating
accommodations. One carrier commented that persons with fused legs could
be transported more comfortably in a rear window seat rather than a
bulkhead seat in some aircraft configurations. This approach appears
consistent with section 382.81 of the final rule, which requires
carriers to seat a passenger with a fused leg in a bulkhead seat "or
other seat that provides greater legroom than other seats."

Another carrier mentioned that because it provides "soft bulkheads" and
"inflatable seatbelts" in some seats, national safety regulations
prohibit seating some persons with disabilities in those seats. In this
case, the carrier would then have to accommodate a passenger with a
fused leg in any other seat on the aircraft offering greater legroom. If
due to a particular aircraft model's design, no seat on that model other
than those prohibited by national regulations offered greater legroom,
the carrier would have to apply for a conflict of law waiver. We do not
believe it is appropriate, as some disability groups suggested, to
require bulkhead row seating to be made available to all wheelchair
users. The apparent rationale for this request was to make it more
convenient for such passengers to access their personal wheelchairs
quickly in order to transfer to another flight or exit the airport. The
rationale of the bulkhead seating accommodation for people with fused
legs, however, is to make seating on the flight itself less difficult or
uncomfortable for passengers, rather than easing the passenger's exit. A
disability group asked the Department to clarify that wheelchair users
are not limited to sitting in aisle seats. We agree, like the existing
ACAA rule, the final rule does not allow carriers to limit seating
options for passengers with disabilities, except where needed to comply
with applicable safety rules (e.g., concerning exit rows).

**[Accommodations for Passengers Who Use Oxygen Devices]{.underline}**

**A. Passenger-Owned Respiratory Devices**

[1. Covered Entities]{.underline}

In the Oxygen NPRM, we proposed that the requirements concerning the
evaluation and use of passenger-owned electronic devices that assist
passengers with respiration apply to all operations worldwide of U.S.
air carriers that conduct passenger carrying service other than
on-demand air taxi operators. The Oxygen NPRM proposed to cover foreign
carriers operating flights to and from the United States in as similar a
fashion as possible to U.S. air carriers. We also specifically requested
comment as to whether the Department should limit coverage of this
section to carriers operating larger than 60-seat aircraft and whether
flights operated by commuter carriers should be covered.

Consumers argued against an exception for aircraft with 60 or fewer
seats and favored a regulation of general applicability because many
carriers that operate "hub and spoke" service as well as many carriers
that service smaller cities and less frequently traveled routes use
small aircraft. Consumers also asserted that it would frustrate the
purpose of the regulation to exempt flights operated by commuter
carriers as many individuals who use medical oxygen fly on commuter
carriers from small regional airports to larger airports to connect to a
flight to their ultimate destination. However, small carriers supported
an exception for aircraft with 60 or fewer seats because of the costs
associated with the regulation, particularly the cost of testing to
determine if the electronic respiratory assistive devices interfere with
the navigation or communication systems of each model of aircraft
operated by the carrier. These carriers explained that testing would be
more costly for small carriers because they do not have the technical
knowledge or personnel necessary for testing, necessitating the hiring
of subcontractors for compliance testing. Small carriers also indicated
concern with the onboard service obligations associated with permitting
passengers to use electronic respiratory assistive devices on an
aircraft since there is no flight attendant on aircraft with fewer than
20 seats and only one flight attendant on aircraft with 20 to 50 seats
Further, small carriers asserted that allowing a passenger to use an
electronic respiratory device such as a portable oxygen concentrator
(POC) onboard small aircraft is of limited benefit because they contend
that many regional flights are one hour in length and carriers can
prohibit the use of electronic devices during take-off and landing which
can take a total of approximately forty minutes, leaving the passenger
with only twenty minutes to use his/her device.

After fully considering the comments received regarding the
applicability of section 382.133 to carriers, the Department believes
that it is reasonable to apply the requirements of this section to U.S.
and foreign carriers that conduct passenger carrying service other than
on-demand air taxis and not to exempt carriers that only operate
aircraft with 60 or fewer seats. The contention of small carriers that
the costs associated with the requirements in this section would be
unduly burdensome to them no longer carries the same weight, since this
final rule shifts the responsibility for electromagnetic interference
testing of the four types of electronic respiratory assistive devices
from the carriers as proposed in the Oxygen NPRM to the manufacturers of
these devices, as the manufacturers have a market incentive to test such
devices. (See the discussion of industry comments on this issue in the
section below entitled "Testing and Labeling of Electronic Respiratory
Assistive Devices.") The Department is also not persuaded that there are
onboard service obligations associated with permitting passengers to use
electronic respiratory assistive devices that require the assistance of
a flight attendant. We also find unpersuasive the argument that
electronic respiratory devices such as POCs are of limited use onboard
small aircraft because they tend to operate shorter flights during which
passengers could only use their devices for a small portion of the total
flight time as it presumes that the devices cannot be used during ascent
and descent. A device's use during a particular phase of a flight (e.g.,
ascent and descent) should be prohibited only if the device cannot be
safely used during that phase (e.g., interferes with navigation or
communications equipment). Absent evidence of such interference gained
from the required testing, this rule requires carriers to allow
passengers to use their electronic respiratory assistive devices,
including POCs approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
during all phases of flight if safe.

[2. Types of Electronic Respiratory Assistive Devices]{.underline}

We proposed in the Oxygen NPRM to address the carriage of four types of
portable electronic respiratory assistive devices excepted from coverage
under applicable FAA regulations, e.g., 14 CFR 121.306, 135.144,
121.574, 135.91 and Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 --
ventilators, respirators, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)
machines and portable oxygen concentrators. We sought information from
foreign governments, foreign carriers and other interested parties
regarding any foreign safety restrictions affecting the carriage and use
of these electronic respiratory assistive devices. While commenters did
not conclusively identify any particular device as being specifically
prohibited by foreign safety rules, there was a suggestion that certain
governments may view all POCs as containing hazardous materials and may
not permit their carriage or use onboard aircraft. Commenters also
identified a number of foreign carriers that prohibit the use of
electronic devices (including the aforementioned electronic assistive
devices) during take-off and landing. The commenters noted that most of
these foreign carriers are required to submit their aircraft passenger
policies to a government agency for approval and expressed concern that
the Department may not consider a foreign carrier's prohibition on use
of electronic devices during ascent and descent which has been approved
by its government to be a foreign government safety requirement.

The Department recognizes that foreign carriers operate under a variety
of laws and regulations. We have revised section 382.133 to clarify that
foreign carriers need to permit the carriage and use of a ventilator,
respirator, CPAP machine and POC only if among other things, the device
can be stowed and used in the passenger cabin consistent with applicable
TSA, FAA, and PHMSA regulations and ***the safety or security
regulations of its government.***. In addition, section 382.9 allows a
foreign carrier to petition the Department for a waiver of compliance
with any provision in Part 382, including section 382.133, if an
applicable foreign law or regulation precludes a foreign carrier from
complying with that provision. As noted earlier in this document, the
Department employs a narrow definition of the phrases "the safety or
security regulations of its government" and "foreign law or regulation."
A carrier's policy, even if approved by its government, would not be
considered a foreign nation's law and would not exempt the carrier from
compliance with Part 382.

[3. Testing and Labeling of Electronic Respiratory Assistive
Devices]{.underline}

In the Oxygen NPRM, we proposed that a U.S. carrier that conducts
passenger-carrying service other than an on-demand air taxi operator
perform the necessary evaluation and testing of a ventilator,
respirator, CPAP machine or FAA-approved POC to determine if the device
causes interference with the navigation or communication systems of each
model of aircraft the U.S. carrier operates. We also proposed requiring
a foreign carrier that conducts passenger-carrying service other than an
on-demand air taxi operator to perform the necessary evaluation and
testing of these devices to ascertain whether such device can be used
safely by passengers during a flight on each aircraft that the foreign
carrier operates on flights to and from the U.S.

Industry commenters as well as some consumers said that the burden of
testing should be shifted away from the carriers. The Air Transport
Association and other industry commenters proposed that carriers only be
required to permit the use of an electronic respiratory assistive device
that has been tested and marked as approved by RTCA, Inc. (formerly the
Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics). These commenters argued
that if carriers have the option of refusing to carry any device that is
not tested and marked as approved by the RTCA then the device
manufacturers would have an incentive to test their devices and produce
safety testing results for the carriers to review. Other commenters
suggested that the device manufacturers and the aircraft manufacturers
should be required to conduct the testing and then label the device as
approved for use aboard aircraft, as manufacturers have the greatest
incentive to test devices. Industry commenters also requested that the
FAA create a generic safety standard for testing respiratory devices as
well as a uniform labeling system for all approved devices to cut down
on confusion by carriers and passengers.

Having considered all of these comments, the Department is persuaded
that responsibility for electromagnetic interference testing of the four
types of electronic respiratory assistive devices covered in the Oxygen
NPRM should be borne by the manufacturers of such devices rather than
the carriers. However, this regulation does not mandate manufacturer
testing. The FAA is considering whether to issue an NPRM in which the
agency would propose to require manufacturers that want to market their
ventilators, respirators, CPAP machines, and FAA-approved POCs for
passenger use on aircraft to test those devices against FAA-prescribed
performance standards and affix a label to each device stating that it
meets the applicable standards prescribed in the federal aviation
regulations. If the FAA decides to issue such an NPRM, the NPRM would
clarify that those manufacturers that do not intend to market their
devices for use on aircraft would be under no obligation to conduct any
testing and would not be permitted to affix a label indicating FAA
approval. The manufacturers that want to market such devices for use on
aircraft but whose devices fail to meet the performance standards would
also not be permitted to affix a label indicating FAA approval.
Moreover, the FAA will consider whether to include other proposals in
that NPRM, including specifying how a carrier would \"verify\" whether
the aforementioned electronic respiratory assistive devices meet FAA
performance standards.

In this rulemaking, we are strongly encouraging manufacturers that
market their electronic respiratory assistive devices for use by
passengers on aircraft to test their devices to determine whether they
meet FAA electromagnetic and radio frequency interference emission
standards set forth in FAA Advisory Circular No. 91.21-1B, and if they
do so, to label the devices as FAA-compliant. The label should indicate
that the device is approved for air travel (i.e., the device can be used
safely during all phases of travel). The FAA generally prohibits the
operation of portable electronic devices aboard U.S. registered civil
aircraft while operating under instrument flight rules. See 14 CFR
91.21. However, the FAA through its Advisory Circular No. 91.21-1B
[allows]{.underline} U.S. carriers to permit passengers to use onboard
the aircraft specified portable electronic devices (including the four
types of respiratory devices addressed in this rulemaking) that have
been tested by the manufacturer and found to not exceed the maximum
level of radiated radio frequency interference as described in section
21, Category M of RTCA Document (DO)-160 while in all modes of
operation, without any further testing by the carrier to establish
compliance with this performance standard. It is worth noting that the
FAA does not have a prohibition on the operation of portable electronic
devices aboard civil aircraft registered in a country other than the
United States.

This rule [requires]{.underline} U.S. carriers to permit individuals to
use electronic respiratory assistive devices in the passenger cabin so
long as the devices have been tested and labeled by their
manufacturer(s) as meeting the applicable FAA requirements for medical
portable electronic devices as described in FAA Advisory Circular No.
91.21-1B (the FAA-approved POCs would also be subject to the
requirements of Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106) and the device
can be stowed consistent with FAA cabin safety requirements. At present,
a label indicating that the device complies with RTCA standards meets
FAA requirements and need not specifically state that the device is FAA
approved.

The final rule also [requires]{.underline} foreign carriers to permit
individuals to use electronic respiratory assistive devices in the
passenger cabin if certain conditions are met. First, the device must
have been tested and labeled by its manufacturer as meeting the
requirements for medical portable electronic devices set by the foreign
carrier's government. If the foreign carrier's government does not have
applicable requirements, then the carrier may elect to apply
requirements for medical portable electronic devices set by the FAA for
U.S. carriers. It would be a violation of our rules for a foreign
carrier to prohibit a passenger from using his/her ventilator,
respirator, CPAP machine, or POC in the passenger cabin because its
government has not issued applicable rules on the testing or labeling of
electronic respiratory assistive devices. We encourage foreign carriers
to apply FAA requirements for medical portable electronics where the
foreign carriers' government has not issued applicable rules. Otherwise,
it is not clear how the foreign carrier can be assured that the
electronic respiratory assistive device that it is accepting for use in
the cabin is safe. Also, the electronic respiratory assistive device
must be stowed and used in the passenger cabin consistent with any
applicable U.S. regulations and the regulations of the carrier's
government.

We expect that both U.S. and foreign carriers will inspect the device
label at the departure gate to ensure that it is labeled by the
manufacturer in accordance with the applicable regulations. U.S.
carriers' internal procedures must ensure that approved devices bearing
labels indicating that they meet the FAA requirements are accepted. For
foreign carriers, devices containing labels indicating that the device
meets requirements set by the foreign carrier's government or, if no
such requirement exists, the requirements for medical portable
electronics set by the FAA for U.S. carriers, should be accepted.

[4. Passenger Information]{.underline}

We explained in the Oxygen NPRM that carriers would be required to
inform passengers, on request, about any restrictions on using their
personal respiratory assistive devices aboard the carrier's flights
(e.g., device can only be used after takeoff and before landing,
availability of electrical outlets). In this regard, we indicated that
we thought carriers would need to maintain some type of list of approved
or disapproved devices and sought comments as to what extent carriers
should be required to provide information to disabled air travelers. We
also asked about the issues that are raised if carriers are required to
provide information on the limitation of the carriers' codeshare
partners to accommodate the use of respiratory devices.

The Department received a number of comments from consumers strongly
urging that a centralized list of approved and disapproved devices be
provided by carriers, airports and/or the government. Industry comments
varied, with some carriers indicating a willingness to provide this
information, while others believed a list of approved and disapproved
devices would be difficult to maintain and would open the airline up to
liability. Many carriers suggested that the Department provide a list of
approved devices through its website and by phone. Carriers also
expressed concern about any requirement to provide information on the
limitation of its codeshare partners to accommodate the use of
respiratory devices. According to these carriers, some carriers have up
to ten codeshare partners and the burden of knowing the limitation of
its codeshare partners' ability to provide accommodations would be
substantial.

Because this final rule shifts the responsibility for testing the
electronic respiratory assistive devices from the carriers to the
manufacturers of such devices and requires carriers to permit passengers
to use these devices aboard aircraft only if appropriately labeled, we
do not see a need for carriers or any other entity to produce a central
list of approved or disapproved devices. A passenger can simply look to
see if the label on his/her electronic respiratory assistive device
indicates that the device has been approved for air travel (i.e., no
restriction on the device's use during any phase of travel).

However, we do see a need for carriers, during the reservation process,
to inform passengers who express a desire to use a respirator,
ventilator, CPAP machine, or FAA- approved POC aboard an aircraft of the
conditions that must be met before these devices can be approved for
such use. For instance, this final rule requires carriers through their
reservation agents to inform passengers of the maximum weight and
dimensions of a device that can be accommodated in the aircraft cabin,
the requirement that an electronic respiratory assistive device be
labeled appropriately, any requirement for advance check-in, any
requirement for the individual to contact the carrier before the
scheduled departure to learn the expected maximum duration of his/her
flight, the requirement to bring an adequate number of fully charged
batteries (i.e., battery is charged to full capacity) to power the
electronic respiratory device and to ensure that extra batteries are
packaged properly, and the requirement that an individual who wishes to
use a POC provide a physician's statement. While a carrier can require a
physician's statement (i.e., medical certificate) from an individual who
wishes to use a POC during flight, we note that it normally would not be
appropriate for a carrier to ask for such a certificate from someone
wishing to use a ventilator, respirator or CPAP machine aboard a flight.
Consistent with section 382.23, a medical certificate should be required
of an individual who uses a ventilator, respirator or CPAP machine only
if the individual's medical condition is such that there is reasonable
doubt that the individual can complete the flight safely, without
requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight.

The Department understands the concerns expressed by carriers regarding
the difficulty and the costs associated with providing information to
passengers about the limitation on the ability of its codeshare partners
to accommodate users of respiratory devices. The Department also
believes that it is imperative that users of electronic respiratory
assistive devices receive, in advance, accurate information concerning
any limitation on the ability of the carrier to accommodate their need
to use such a device in the cabin of the aircraft. The Department has
tried to balance these somewhat conflicting concerns/needs. The final
rule requires that, in a codeshare situation, the carrier whose code is
used on the flight must either advise an individual who inquires about
using his/her electronic respiratory assistive device onboard an
aircraft to contact the carrier operating the flight for information
about its requirements for use of such a device in the cabin, or provide
such information on behalf of the codeshare carrier operating the
flight. For example, consider a passenger who buys a codeshare ticket
from carrier A for a connecting itinerary from New York to Cairo through
London ,where carrier A operates the New York to London leg and carrier
B operates the London to Cairo leg under carrier A's designator code. In
this example, carrier A must upon inquiry from the passenger: (1) inform
the passenger about carrier A's requirements for the use in the cabin of
a ventilator, respirator, CPAP machine or POC and (2) inform the
passenger about carrier B's requirements for the use in the cabin of the
aforementioned devices or tell the passenger to contact carrier B
directly to obtain this information.

[5. Advance Notice]{.underline}

We sought comments in the Oxygen NPRM about operational reasons, if any,
in support of permitting carriers to require a passenger with a
disability to provide advance notice of his or her intention to use a
battery-operated CPAP machine, an approved POC, a respirator or a
ventilator aboard a flight. We also asked whether carriers should be
permitted to require a passenger to provide advance notice of his or her
intention to use the aircraft electrical system as well as what would be
a reasonable amount of advance notice.

Industry commenters provided a number of operational reasons why they
said there should be advance notice requirements for individuals who
wish to use electronic respiratory assistive devices aboard a flight.
These commenters explained that advance notice is needed to: (1) ensure
the device is approved for use onboard the aircraft; (2) ensure that a
passenger brings an adequate battery supply to power his/her device; (3)
ensure that the respiratory device is medically necessary; (4) ensure
the pilot in command is apprised when a passenger is using a POC; and
(5) ensure that the passenger has talked with his/her physician
regarding fitness to fly with the respiratory assistive device. Many
consumers also indicated that they were comfortable with an advance
notice requirement for individuals who wish to use a battery-operated
CPAP machine, an approved POC, a respirator or a ventilator aboard a
flight. There was, however, disagreement as to what would constitute a
reasonable amount of advance notice. While most consumer and industry
comments indicated that 48 hours is a reasonable amount of advance
notice, some industry comments asked for 96 hours advance notice for
international flights and a few consumers stated that 24 hours is
sufficient notification.

With respect to electrical outlets, industry comments strongly urged
that electrical outlets not be relied upon by respiratory device users.
According to these commenters, electronic device users cannot depend on
the presence of an outlet, as most aircraft do not have electrical
outlets; the electrical outlets that are available on aircraft may not
be compatible with the passenger's device, as most respiratory assistive
devices require more wattage; electrical outlets may be turned off
during takeoff and landing; and the carrier may switch aircraft and use
aircraft with no outlets at the last minute.

Based on the comments received and the Department's belief that
providing 48 hours' advance notice would not be burdensome for
consumers, this final rule permits carriers to require up to 48 hours'
advance notice from individuals who wish to use electronic respiratory
assistive devices aboard a domestic or international flight. The
Department believes that a 48 hour advance notice is reasonable as that
time period provides sufficient time for carriers to prepare for the
accommodation. Further, in other sections of this Part where a carrier
has been permitted to require a qualified individual with a disability
to provide advance notice of his or her need for certain accommodations
or of his or her disability as a condition of receiving the requested
accommodation, that advance notice has been limited to 48 hours. The
Department also believes, as comments provided by the industry
representatives contend, that electrical outlets are generally not
reliable sources of power for electronic respiratory assistive devices.
Of course, if a carrier is confident that the electrical outlet on the
aircraft is reliable (e.g., uninterrupted service), nothing in this rule
prohibits the carrier from permitting a passengers to plug his/her
electronic respiratory assistive device into such an outlet, consistent
with applicable FAA safety rules.

[6. Advance Check-in Time]{.underline}

The proposed rule asked questions about operational reasons, if any, for
requiring passengers who request to use their respiratory assistive
devices to comply with an advance check-in deadline. It also asked about
issues passengers who use respiratory assistive devices would face if
carriers were permitted to require an advance check-in deadline, as well
as what would be a reasonable length of time for the advance check-in.

Comments provided by the industry to justify the need for advance
check-in are similar to the justifications provided for advance notice
(e.g., to ensure the device is safe for use on board, to ensure proper
packaging of batteries, ensure an adequate supply of batteries).
Consumers questioned whether advance check-in is necessary if a
passenger provides advance notice of his/her intention to bring and use
the electronic respiratory assistive devices. The consumers noted that
they have other obligations and restrictions on their time and that
advance check-in places significant burdens on their time. If advance
check-in is required, consumer commenters favored a one hour advance
check-in requirement. Industry comments supported one hour advance
check-in for all domestic flights but two hour advance check-in for
international flights. Carrier comments also sought the authority to
deny boarding if a passenger has failed to comply with the carrier's
procedural instructions on using electronic devices onboard.

The Department believes that it is necessary to permit carriers to
require advance check-in to enable the carrier personnel to inspect the
label on the electronic respiratory assistive device to ensure that it
was labeled by the manufacturer in accordance with the applicable
regulations and to ensure that a passenger is carrying an adequate
number of properly packaged batteries to power his/her assistive device.
The Department generally believes that one hour advance check-in is
reasonable for both domestic and international flights, especially since
"advance check-in" as used in this rule means checking in one hour
before the carrier's normal check-in time for the general public. Thus,
for example, if a carrier's normal check-in deadline for all passengers
for an international flight is one hour before scheduled departure time,
the carrier is free to require passengers who wish to use electronic
respiratory assistive devices to check in two hours before scheduled
departure time. That having been said, it would not be reasonable for a
carrier to require one hour advance check-in in situations where a
passenger is not able to check-in one hour in advance because the
passenger's connecting flight arrived late. Consider the example, of a
codeshare connecting itinerary from Washington, D.C. to Johannesburg
through Rome, where carrier A operates the segment from Washington, D.C.
to Rome and carrier B operates the segment from Rome to Johannesburg. If
carrier B has a one hour advance check-in requirement and the passenger
checks in for the flight to Johannesburg less than an hour before
departure due to carrier A's late arrival in Rome, the passenger must be
accepted on the flight to Johannesburg up until carrier B's general
check-in deadline for all passengers on that flight. The Department is
not persuaded by consumer comments that one hour advance check-in would
be a significant burden on them, particularly since this rule would not
permit carriers to require a one hour advance check-in for a passenger
who is not able to meet that requirement due to his/her connecting
flight arriving late. The Department is also not persuaded by industry
comments that a two hour advance check-in is needed for international
flights, in part because the information that the carrier personnel will
be verifying at the departure gate does not change based on whether the
flight is a domestic flight or an international flight.

[7. Seating Accommodations]{.underline}

In the Oxygen NPRM, we asked whether a passenger who uses a ventilator,
respirator, CPAP machine or an FAA-approved POC should be given priority
over users of other types of electronic equipment that are not assistive
devices (e.g., laptops) with respect to obtaining power for the device
from the aircraft's electrical outlets. Virtually all of the consumer
comments stated that upon request airlines should be required to seat a
passenger who self identifies as using an electronic respiratory
assistive device next to an electrical outlet, if one is available on
the aircraft. Industry comments on this issue varied. Some carriers
supported providing priority seating while other industry commenters
opposed this proposal. The industry commenters that opposed providing
priority seating asserted that access to seats with electrical outlets
is an aircraft amenity based on other considerations (e.g., frequent
flier status) and explained that the cost of ensuring access to electric
outlets is burdensome. Some of the costs attributed to implementing the
proposed seating accommodation include the cost to a carrier of updating
its seating maps to indicate the presence of electric outlets, updating
its reservation system to allow blocking of seats near outlets for
qualified disabled passengers, and training flight attendants and others
regarding the location of each aircraft's electrical outlets. Also, as
noted above, many industry comments emphasized that not all aircraft
have outlets and the unreliability of electrical outlets on aircraft
that do have them (e.g., outlets turned off during take off and landing,
outlets often don't have sufficient wattage to power respiratory
devices).

The Department is not convinced by the industry arguments opposing
priority seating on the basis of costs associated with such a seating
accommodation but is convinced that, for safety reasons, it would not be
good policy to have any requirements concerning the use of electrical
outlets when electrical outlets are not available on a number of
aircraft and are generally not reliable sources of power for electronic
respiratory assistive devices. Therefore, this rule does not mandate
that carriers allow users of respiratory assistive devices to plug their
devices into the aircraft's power supply or to provide priority seating
near such outlets. The Department does encourage carriers to permit
passengers to hook up the four types of respiratory assistive devices to
the aircraft electrical power supply in circumstances where the carrier
is confident that the electrical outlet on the aircraft is reliable
(e.g., uninterrupted service).

[8. Batteries]{.underline}

The Oxygen NPRM sought information about whether the rule should allow
carriers to require users of electronic respiratory devices to carry a
certain number of batteries. It also solicited comments about what
action the Department should authorize the carrier to take if a
passenger does not bring a sufficient number of batteries to power an
electronic respiratory assistive device or a passenger does not ensure
that the batteries for the device are packaged in a manner to allow them
to be transported safely in the cabin.

Consumers generally agreed that it would be appropriate to require users
of electronic respiratory assistive devices to carry a sufficient number
of batteries to power the device for 1.5 times the length of the flight.
Some carriers suggested that users of electronic respiratory assistive
devices should carry enough batteries to power the device for the length
of the flight plus an additional two hours. Other comments suggested
enough batteries to power the device for 1.5 times the length of the
flight plus one additional battery. There were also comments
recommending that the passenger's physician should indicate the
appropriate number of batteries in the prescription that indicates the
passenger's medical need for the device. A number of carriers asked for
the authority to refuse to carry a passenger who does not have an
adequate number of batteries. A few carriers asked to be able to charge
the passenger who does not carry a sufficient number of batteries for
the cost of any resulting emergency action that may be required. Many
industry comments also suggested that PHMSA and FAA should be involved
in the discussion of the appropriate number of batteries to carry in the
cabin to ensure that an excessive number of batteries is not carried
onboard.

After fully considering the comments received and consulting with FAA
and PHMSA personnel, the Department has determined that there is no need
to place a limit on the number of batteries users of electronic
respiratory devices transport in the cabin of an aircraft. The FAA and
PHMSA are confident that batteries that are protected against short
circuits and wrapped in strong outer packagings can safely be
transported in the passenger cabin provided there are sufficient
approved stowage locations available. On March 26, 2007, PHMSA published
a safety advisory to inform the traveling public and airline employees
about the importance of properly packing and handling batteries and
battery-powered devices when they are carried aboard aircraft. Federal
regulations require that electrical storage batteries or battery-powered
devices carried aboard passenger aircraft be properly packaged or
protected to avoid short-circuiting or overheating. In its safety
advisory, PHMSA suggested various practical measures for complying with
the regulations and minimizing transportation risks. Recommended
practices include keeping batteries installed in electronic devices;
packing spare batteries in carry-on baggage; keeping spare batteries in
their original retail packaging; separating batteries from other
metallic objects such as keys, coins and jewelry by packing individual
batteries in a sturdy plastic bag; securely packing battery-powered
equipment in a manner to prevent accidental activation; and ensuring
batteries are undamaged and purchased from reputable sources.

The Department has decided to allow a carrier to require an individual
who uses a ventilator, respirator, CPAP machine or FAA-approved POC to
bring an adequate number of fully charged batteries onboard to operate
the device for not less than 150% of the expected maximum flight
duration. The appropriate number of batteries should be calculated using
the manufacturer's estimate of the hours of battery life while the
device is in use and the information provided in the physician's
statement (e.g., flow rate for POCs). The expected maximum flight
duration is defined as the carrier's best estimate of the total duration
of the flight from departure gate to arrival gate, including taxi time
to and from the terminals, based on the scheduled flight time and
factors such as (a) wind and other weather conditions forecast; (b)
anticipated traffic delays; (c) one instrument approach and possible
missed approach at destination; and (d) any other conditions that may
delay arrival of the aircraft at the destination gate. This rule also
makes it clear that a carrier may deny boarding, on the basis of safety,
to an individual who does not carry the number of fully charged
batteries prescribed in the rule or an individual who does not properly
package the extra batteries needed to power his/her device. Information
for passengers on how to safely travel with batteries is available at
safetravel.dot.gov . However, a carrier may not deny boarding due to an
inadequate number of batteries unless the carrier can provide
information from a reliable source demonstrating that the number of
batteries that the passenger has supplied will not provide adequate
power for 150% of the expected maximum flight duration based on the
battery life indicated in the manufacturer's specification when the
device is operating at the flow rate specified in the physician's
statement. It is also worth noting that the requirement to bring an
adequate number of batteries to continuously operate the device for up
to 150% of the expected maximum flight duration does not apply in
circumstances where the passenger will be using an FAA approved POC
while boarding or disembarking from the aircraft and will not be relying
on the POC during flight because the passenger has contracted for
carrier-supplied oxygen. In instances where the carrier denies boarding
to an individual, the carrier must provide the individual a written
statement of the reason for the refusal to provide transportation within
10 days of the incident.

**B. Carrier-Supplied Oxygen**

The Oxygen NPRM proposed to require certificated U.S. carriers operating
aircraft that conduct passenger-carrying service with at least one
aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more than 60 passengers
and foreign carriers operating to and from the United States that
conduct passenger-carrying service with at least one aircraft having a
designed seating capacity of more than 60 passengers to provide
passengers free in-flight medical oxygen in accordance with applicable
safety rules. The Department is committed to providing individuals
dependent on medical oxygen greater access to air travel, consistent
with Federal safety and security requirements. However, in order to
obtain additional information about the cost of carrier-supplied
in-flight medical oxygen, the Department is deferring final action on
this proposal.

Under existing Air Carrier Access Act interpretation and practice,
carriers are not required to make modifications that would constitute an
undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the carriers\'
service. As a matter of disability law, undue burden implies that there
may necessarily be some burden (a "due burden") in accommodating
someone's disability. Generally, an action is deemed to be an undue
burden if it would require significant difficulty or expense on the part
of the covered entity when considered in light of factors such as the
overall size of the business, the financial resources of the business,
the type of operation, and the nature and cost of the accommodation.
There is no hard and fast rule about what is or is not an "undue
burden." The portion of the cost of carrier-supplied oxygen that would
constitute an undue burden could differ among carriers and could differ
from one route to another with the same carrier. We do not currently
have sufficient information available to determine if requiring a
carrier to provide free in-flight medical oxygen would create an undue
burden. The Department will seek additional comment about the cost of
carrier-supplied oxygen in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) that it plans to issue. The preamble to the SNPRM will also
discuss comments received on the Oxygen NPRM with respect to this issue.
In the interim, carriers can continue to charge for in-flight medical
oxygen that they choose to provide.

**Service Animal Issues**

The subject that attracted the most comments on the Foreign Carriers
NPRM -- over 1100 of the 1290 received -- was service animals.
Interestingly, most of these comments did not pertain to anything in the
Foreign Carriers NPRM's proposed regulatory text, but rather to a
guidance document concerning transportation of service animals that the
Department had issued in May 2003. As an informational matter, this
existing guidance document was published as an appendix to the November
2004 NPRM. The paragraph in the document that was the focus of most of
the comments was the following:

> *If the service animal does not fit in the assigned location, you
> should relocate the passenger and the service animal to some other
> place in the cabin in the same class of service where the animal will
> fit under the seat in front of the passenger and not create an
> obstruction, such as the bulkhead. If no single seat in*
>
> *the cabin will accommodate the animal and passenger without causing
> an obstruction, you may offer the option of purchasing a second seat,
> traveling on a later flight or having the service animal travel in the
> cargo hold. As indicated above, airlines may not charge passengers
> with disabilities for services required by part 382, including
> transporting their oversized service animals in the*
>
> *cargo compartment.* (69 FR 64393)

During the one and a half years preceding the issuance of the Foreign
Carriers NPRM during which the guidance had been available, and during
the over three years since the Foreign Carriers NPRM has been issued,
there have been few if any instances brought to the attention of the
Department in which service animals have been denied transportation,
separated from their owners, or charged for an extra seat. Despite this
apparent lack of problems in the real world of air travel, hundreds of
comments expressed the fear that Department was proposing new
regulations that would unfairly limit the travel opportunities of
service animal users. Many of these comments suggested that there were
no circumstances under which a service animal should be denied
transportation in the cabin. If there were space limitations concerning
accommodating larger animals, some commenters said, airlines should
reconfigure their cabins to provide some larger spaces.

The Department believes that the fears of these commenters are largely
unfounded. Nevertheless, in order to avoid future misunderstanding, the
Department is republishing its service animal guidance later in the
preamble to this final rule and has revised the language in this
guidance document concerning carriage of larger, but otherwise
acceptable, service animals to read as follows:

> *The only situation in which the rule contemplates that a service
> animal would not be permitted to accompany its user at his or her seat
> is where the animal blocks a space that, per FAA or applicable foreign
> government safety regulations, must remain unobstructed (e.g., an
> aisle, access to an emergency exit) AND the passenger and animal
> cannot be moved to another location where such a blockage does not
> occur. In such a situation, the carrier should first talk with other
> passengers to find a seat location where the service animal and its
> user can be agreeably accommodated (e.g., by finding a passenger who
> is willing to share foot space with the animal). The fact that a
> service animal may need to use a reasonable portion of an adjacent
> seat's foot space---that does not deny another passenger effective use
> of the space for his or her feet―is not, however, an adequate reason
> for the carrier to refuse to permit the animal to accompany its user
> at his or her seat. Only if no other alternative is available should
> the carrier discuss less desirable options concerning the
> transportation of the service animal with the passenger traveling with
> the animal, such as traveling on a later flight with more room or
> carrying the animal in the cargo compartment. As indicated above,
> airlines may not charge passengers with disabilities for services
> required by Part 382, including transporting their oversized service
> animals in the cargo compartment.*

In modifying this paragraph in the guidance, we deleted the phrase
concerning the potential purchase of a second seat, since there are
probably no circumstances under which this would happen. If a flight is
totally filled, there would not be any seat available to buy. If the
flight had even one middle seat unoccupied, someone with a service
animal could be seated next to the vacant seat, and it is likely that
even a large animal could use some of the floor space of the vacant
seat, making any further purchase unnecessary. Of course, service
animals generally sit on the floor, so it is unlikely that a service
animal would ever actually occupy a separate seat.

We have not taken other steps recommended by some commenters, such as
mandating that airlines accommodate coach passengers with service
animals in first class or reconfigure cabins. We would regard such
mandates as potentially requiring a fundamental alteration of airlines'
operations, and consequently outside the scope of the statutory
authority for this rule.

A second category of comments concerned the relationship of service
animal requirements to Part 382's coverage of foreign carriers. Many
foreign carriers and their organizations stated that foreign carriers
often had policies more restrictive than those of the ACAA (e.g., only
dogs, or only dogs certified by recognized training schools or
associations, are accommodated; some carriers don't allow any animals in
the cabin; service animals may be seated only in certain designated
locations; there are number limits or advance notice requirements for
service animals in the cabin). These commenters generally wished to
maintain such restrictions.

As a general matter, foreign carrier policies with respect to service
animals, like other foreign carrier policies, are subject to the
conflict of laws waiver and equivalent alternative provisions of the
final rule. Otherwise, modifying carrier policies to accommodate U.S.
civil rights requirements is something foreign carriers must accept as
part of their obligation to comply with U.S. law when flying to and from
the U.S.

In addition to wishing to maintain existing policies restricting the
access of service animals, some commenters mentioned that some countries
have quarantine rules that severely delay or limit the entrance of
certain animals, or effectively prohibit, certain animals -- even
service animals -- from entering those countries. The Department agrees
that, if Country S prohibits a certain kind of animal from entering, an
airline serving an airport in Country S could apply for a conflict of
laws waiver to be relieved of carrying such an animal to that country.
Such a waiver would be country-specific; however. If the same airline is
asked to carry the same animal to Country R, which does not have such a
prohibition, the carrier would have to transport the creature. The final
rule also requires carriers to promptly take all steps necessary to
comply with such foreign regulations as are necessary to legally
transport service animals from the U.S. into foreign airports (e.g., the
United Kingdom's Pet Travel Scheme).

Commenters mentioned that some persons may have religious or cultural
objections to traveling in proximity to certain service animals. Other
commenters raised the issue of passengers who may have allergies to
certain animals. It has long been a principle of the Department's ACAA
and other disability regulations that it is improper for a
transportation provider to deny or restrict service to a passenger with
a disability because doing so may offend or annoy other persons (see for
instance current 14 CFR 382.31(b) and section 382.19(b) of the final
rule). This principle is again articulated in the final's rule service
animal section. Only if a safety problem amounting to a direct threat
can be shown is restricting access required by Part 382 justifiable.

This principle applies to concerns about passengers who have allergies
not rising to the level of a disability or cultural or personal
objections to being on the same aircraft with a certain service animal.
Their discomfort must yield to the nondiscrimination mandate of the
ACAA. As stated in the Department's service animal guidance, to which we
have added language concerning the handling of allergy issues, carriers
should do their best to accommodate other passengers' concerns by steps
like seating passengers with service animals and passengers who are
uncomfortable with service animals away from one other. We note that, on
flights operated by foreign carriers that are not subject to these
rules, the carriers may, of course, apply their own policies with
respect to carriage of service animals.

A number of commenters objected to the requirement that carriers accept
animals as service animals on the basis of the "credible verbal
assurances" of passengers, especially in the absence of credentials from
a training school that the carrier recognizes.

Under U.S. law (the ADA as well as the ACAA), it is generally not
permissible to insist on written credentials for an animal as a
condition for treating it as a service animal. It would be inconsistent
with the ACAA to permit a foreign carrier, for example, to deny passage
to a U.S. resident's service animal because the animal had not been
certified by an organization that the foreign carrier recognized. When
flying to or from the United States, foreign carriers are subject to
requirements of U.S. nondiscrimination law, though carriers may avail
themselves of the conflict of laws waiver and equivalent alternative
provisions of this Part. We acknowledge that some foreign carriers may
be unused to making the kinds of judgment calls concerning the
credibility of a passenger's verbal assurances that the Department's
service animal guidance describes, and which U.S. carriers have made for
over 17 years. However, the comments do not provide any persuasive
evidence that foreign carriers are incapable of doing so or that making
such judgment calls will in any important way interfere with the
operation of their flights.

A number of carriers commented that making provision for service animals
on long (e.g., trans-oceanic) flights was especially problematic. The
main concern focused on the animals' eating, drinking, and elimination
functions. They pointed out that health and sanitation issues could
arise. Some service animal users said that their animals were well
trained to avoid creating sanitation problems on even a very long
flight. The Department agrees that, on very long flights, carriers have
a legitimate concern about sanitation issues that could arise if animals
relieve themselves in the cabin. Consequently, the Department has added
a provision to the regulatory text pertaining to a flight segment
scheduled to take eight hours or more. For such a segment, the carrier
may, if it chooses, require the passenger using the animal to provide
documentation that the animal will not need to relieve itself on the
flight or that the animal can do so in a way that does not create a
health or sanitation issue. We agree with commenters that carriers
should not have any responsibility for assisting with the eating,
drinking, or elimination functions of service animals on board an
aircraft.

Another important issue that a number of commenters raised concerned
"emotional support animals." Unlike other service animals, emotional
support animals are often not trained to perform a specific active
function, such as pathfinding, picking up objects, carrying things,
providing additional stability, responding to sounds, etc. This has led
some service animal advocacy groups to question their status as service
animals and has led to concerns by carriers that permitting emotional
support animals to travel in the cabin would open the door to abuse by
passengers wanting to travel with their pets.

The Department believes that there can be some circumstances in which a
passenger may legitimately travel with an emotional support animal.
However, we have added safeguards to reduce the likelihood of abuse. The
final rule limits use of emotional support animals to persons with a
diagnosed mental or emotional disorder, and the rule permits carriers to
insist on recent documentation from a licensed mental health
professional to support the passenger's desire to travel with such an
animal. In order to permit the assessment of the passenger's
documentation, the rule permits carriers to require 48 hours' advance
notice of a passenger's wish to travel with an emotional support animal.
Of course, like any service animal that a passenger wishes to bring into
the cabin, an emotional support animal must be trained to behave
properly in a public setting.

We have also noted a concern that there could be differences, in the
airport terminal context, between the ACAA regulations that apply to
airlines, and their facilities and services, contrasted with public
accommodations like restaurants and stores. The DOJ Title III rules for
places of public accommodation govern concession facilities of this
kind. As a consequence, a concession could, without violating DOJ rules,
deny entry to a properly documented emotional support animal that an
airline, under the ACAA, would have to accept. On the other hand,
nothing in the DOJ rules would prevent a concession from accepting a
properly documented emotional support animal. We urge all parties at
airports to be aware that their services and facilities are intended to
serve all passengers. Airlines, airport operators, and concessionaires
should work together to ensure that all persons who are able to use the
airport to access the air transportation system are able equally to use
all services and facilities provided to the general public.

Because they make for colorful stories, accounts of unusual service
animals have received publicity wholly disproportionate to their
frequency or importance. Some (e.g., tales of service snakes, which grow
larger with each retelling) have become the stuff of urban legends. A
number of commenters nevertheless expressed concern about having to
accommodate unusual service animals. To allay these concerns, the
Department has added language to the final rule specifying that carriers
need never permit certain creatures (e.g., rodents or reptiles) to
travel as service animals. For others (e.g., miniature horses,
pot-bellied pigs, monkeys), a U.S.carrier could make a judgment call
about whether any factors (e.g., size and weight of the animal, any
direct threat to the health and safety of others, significant disruption
of cabin service) would preclude carrying the animal. Absent such
factors, the carrier would have to allow the animal to accompany its
owner on the flight. Any denial of transportation to a service animal
would have to be explained, in writing, to the passenger within 10 days.

While it is possible that foreign air carriers may have safety-related
reasons for objecting to service animals other than dogs, even ones that
have been successfully accommodated on U.S. carriers, these reasons were
generally not articulated in their comments to the docket. Nevertheless,
to give foreign carriers a further opportunity to raise any
safety-related objections specific to foreign airlines to carrying these
animals, the final rule does not apply the requirement to carry service
animals other than dogs to foreign airlines. However, foreign carriers
could not, absent a conflict of laws waiver, impose certification or
documentation requirements for dogs beyond those permitted to U.S.
carriers. We intend to seek further comment on this subject in the
forthcoming SNPRM.

A few comments suggested adding, to the section prohibiting carriers
from requiring passengers to sign waivers or releases of liability,
language specifically applying this prohibition to the loss, injury, or
death of service animals. We believe that this is a sensible suggestion,
and we have added the language.

**Information for Passengers**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed that, similar to the current rule,
carriers would have to make certain information available to passengers
with disabilities upon request concerning the accommodations that were
available to them for a particular flight. This includes the location of
seats with a movable armrest as well as seats (e.g., those in an exit
row) that are not available to passengers with a disability. It also
includes information about any service limitation as well as the ability
of an aircraft to accommodate people with disabilities (e.g.,
limitations on boarding assistance, limitations on storage areas for
mobility aids, presence or absence of an accessible lavatory). The
Foreign Carriers NPRM recognized that there were circumstances (e.g.,
change of aircraft because of weather or mechanical problems) that could
affect the accuracy of information provided at the time a passenger made
a reservation.

Disability community comments supported these proposals, which did not
propose significant substantive changes from the provisions of the ACAA
that have been in effect since 1990. Some carrier comments objected to
the provision to identify seats with movable armrests, saying that,
given the variety of cabin configurations and aircraft, it would be too
hard and too expensive to be able to know where these seats are located.

The final rule does not mandate that carriers reconfigure cabins on all
aircraft in order to meet this requirement, as some commenters
mistakenly appeared to conclude. Rather, carriers would provide the best
information available at the time a passenger made a reservation or
inquiry. If the location of movable armrest seats on the aircraft
actually providing the flight did not match the information previously
provided to the passenger, gate and flight crew personnel could modify
the passenger's seating assignment prior to or at the time of boarding
in order to ensure that the passenger could transfer to a seat with a
movable armrest.

A carrier could make the necessary information about seating
configurations of each aircraft available to its personnel for this
purpose, noting locations of movable armrest seats. We note that there
are at least two commercial web sites that make detailed information on
characteristics of each seat of each configuration of most carriers'
various aircraft models publicly available. While these sites do not
include information on movable armrests, the detailed information they
make available (e.g., the location of seats that have sockets available
to plug in laptops) suggests that doing so would not pose an
insurmountable technical problem. Carriers that found a computer-based
system too challenging could use a low-cost, low-tech means of
identifying the movable armrest seats for gate and flight crew
personnel, such as placing unobtrusive stickers on the seats or a
photocopied seating chart that flight attendants and gate agents could
use.

Another proposal carried over from the existing rule into the Foreign
Carriers NPRM would require carriers to make a copy of Part 382
available at all the airports that they serve (for flights to the U.S.,
in the case of foreign airports). The Department sought further comment
on this matter in the DHH NPRM. We also proposed to require all carriers
to give passengers information on how to obtain both a copy of Part 382
in an accessible format and disability-related assistance from the
Department (*i.e.*, via the Disability Hotline or directly from the
Aviation Consumer Protection Division). We solicited comment on our
proposals and on the potential costs to carriers and benefits to
passengers of a requirement that carriers have copies of Part 382 in
accessible formats available at all airports involved in service to,
from, or within the U.S.

A few disability community comments said that the rule should specify
that the document be made available in other accessible formats as well
as hard copy. Some foreign carrier comments objected to making copies of
a U.S. regulation available, though others did not. Most foreign
carriers, however, opposed any requirement that they have copies of Part
382 available at airports in accessible formats as unreasonably
burdensome and of little practical use to passengers who are not already
aware of this regulation. Some foreign carriers objected to being
required to have a copy of Part 382 at the foreign airports from which
they fly to the U.S., on the grounds that the foreign jurisdictions have
their own disability-related requirements for carriers serving them.
Virtually all of them took the position that any passenger desiring a
copy of Part 382 in an accessible format should obtain it from this
Department rather than from a carrier. Some suggested that passengers
should be made aware of Part 382 and its availability from the
Department at the time of booking or at some other point before they
actually go to the airport. One foreign carrier did not object to having
a copy of Part 382 available at airports in its home country from which
it flies to the U.S., but it did object to any requirement that it also
have copies available at third-country airports that could be the U.S.
passenger's origin or final destination. Another made a similar argument
concerning airports that are endpoints of flights operated on a
codeshare basis with a U.S. carrier.

While we agree that carriers should make a print copy of the rule
available, so that passengers can refer to it to assist them in
resolving any problems that arise at the airport, the final rule will
not require copies to be made available in other accessible formats, or
in languages other than English. We also will not adopt the proposed
requirement in §382.45 that carriers provide information on the
Department's Disability Hotline service or its Aviation Consumer
Protection Division to passengers with disability-related complaints or
concerns. Such a requirement is not necessary here, as other sections of
the rule require carriers to tell passengers of their right to contact
the Department as part of the resolution of complaints (*see* 14 CFR
§§382.153, 382.155). We agree with those commenters who suggest that
access to Part 382 is most useful to consumers before they reach the
airport. We are therefore requiring carriers to include notice on their
websites that consumers can obtain a copy of Part 382 in accessible
format from the Department and information on how this may be done. The
performance requirement that carriers effectively communicate with
passengers -- which carriers can meet in a variety of ways -- should be
sufficient to ensure that passengers can use the regulatory information.
Making a copy of the regulations available in an airport, for the cost
of a photocopy, should not unduly burden carriers.

Probably the most important proposal in this portion of the NPRM would
require carriers and their agents to make their web sites accessible to
people with vision impairments and other disabilities. Web sites are an
increasingly important way in which passengers get information about
airline service and make reservations. Some carriers make discounts
available to web site users, or charge extra fees to persons who make
reservations by other means. Disability community commenters strongly
supported the proposed requirements. Many carriers and carrier
organizations opposed it, primarily on the ground that it would be too
difficult and expensive to accomplish. Many of these comments said the
Department had underestimated the cost of web site accessibility.

The Department continues to believe that web site accessibility is
extremely important to nondiscriminatory access to air travel for people
with disabilities, and we note that many existing carrier web sites
provide a degree of accessibility. However, in order to obtain
additional information about the costs and any technical issues
involved, the Department is deferring final action on this proposal and
seeking additional comment in the SNPRM that we are planning to issue.
The preamble to the SNPRM will discuss comments on web site
accessibility and the issues they raise in greater detail. In the
meantime, in order to comply with the general nondiscrimination
requirement of Part 382, carriers will be prohibited from charging fees,
or not making web fare discounts available, to passengers with
disabilities who cannot use inaccessible web sites and therefore must
make phone or in-person reservations.

**TTY Use**

We proposed in the DHH NPRM to require carriers to ensure that the
service and response times are equal for TTY information and reservation
lines and non-TTY information and reservation lines, including the
provision of a queue for the former if one is provided for the latter.
(Since 1990, U.S. carriers that offer telephone reservations and
information service to the general public have been required by §382.47
to offer TTY service as well.) TTY users should not be subject to longer
wait times than other callers. We stated our belief that the cost to
carriers of installing queuing features on their TTY lines would not be
high. We solicited comments on this proposal.

The individuals and disability organizations that commented on this
issue mostly supported all of our proposals. The carriers and carrier
associations that filed comments expressed strong reservations about our
proposal. Some foreign carriers opposed TTY requirements on the grounds
that TTY access is technically infeasible in many countries. Some
opposed the requirement of a queuing system for TTY calls, claiming that
such systems are in fact quite costly and that the expense is not
justified given the low incidence and low frequency of TTY calls that
they receive (*i.e.*, no more than two to three calls per month). Some
asserted that deaf and hard of hearing consumers are using the internet
more and more to communicate with carriers and thus relying less and
less on TTYs. Some opposed the requirement that response time for TTY
users and other callers be "equivalent," arguing that the delay inherent
in typing text rather than speaking it makes equivalent response times
physically impossible.

The purpose of §382.43 is to put deaf and hard of hearing passengers on
a substantially equivalent footing with the rest of the public in their
ability to communicate with carriers by telephone regarding information
and reservations. We aim to ensure substantial equivalence in both
access to any carrier and wait time if an agent is not available when a
connection is first made.

Regarding access, both the comments and our own further investigations
into voice relay services have persuaded us that we need not require
carriers to make TTY service available *per se*. Instead, we are
requiring only that carriers make their telephone reservation and
information services available to individuals who use a TTY. Carriers
may of course meet this requirement by using TTYs themselves, but they
may also do so by means of voice relay or any other available technology
that permits TTY users to communicate with them. This requirement is set
forth in §382.43(a). We are also adding a new access requirement in
§382.43(a)(4) to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing passengers are
informed of how to reach carriers by TTY: in any medium in which a
carrier states the telephone number of its information and reservation
service for the general public, it must also state its TTY number if it
has one, or if not, it must specify how TTY users can reach the
information and reservation service (*e.g.*, via voice relay service).
Such media include, for example, web sites, ticket jackets, telephone
books, and print advertisements.

Regarding wait time, the comments and our own experiments with voice
relay systems have persuaded us not to require carriers that use TTYs to
implement a queuing system for TTY calls even if they do maintain one
for calls from the rest of the public. Calls from a TTY to a carrier via
a voice relay service are treated exactly the same as calls from
conventional telephones. If an agent is available to take the call, the
caller is connected to the agent. If not, if the carrier has a queuing
system the call goes into the queue along with non-TTY calls. (If the
carrier does not have a queuing system, any caller gets a busy signal.)
Therefore, a TTY caller who calls the carrier's TTY number and gets a
busy signal can hang up and immediately try the carrier's general public
number through a voice relay service, where all calls receive identical
treatment. We consider the timing in this scenario to be "substantially
equivalent" to the timing for the rest of the public, the extra call
notwithstanding. We do not intend for "substantially equivalent" to mean
"exactly the same." As long as disparities in wait times between TTY
users and the general public remain both low and infrequent, we will
consider the treatment of these groups to be substantially equivalent.
Of course, we can and will investigate allegations of routine or lengthy
disparities and require corrective action where appropriate.

We are concerned, moreover, that given the reportedly high cost of
implementing a TTY queuing service *vis-à-vis* the reportedly low
incidence of TTY calls, if we required queuing systems for TTYs,
carriers that currently maintain TTYs might have an incentive to
discontinue them, as this rule will permit them to do, and opt instead
to offer access to TTY callers only via voice relay. We do not wish to
create disincentives that may deprive those TTY users who may prefer
calling another TTY directly rather than using voice relay of this
option, especially when the record in this proceeding contains no
evidence that the incidence of busy signals in TTY-to-TTY calls is high
or even moderate. We would expect any carrier that operates TTY service
and whose TTY callers experience a high incidence of busy signals to
find some way of accommodating the TTY callers so as to avoid violating
the "substantially equivalent" standard. For example, rather than
acquire and maintain a queuing system, the carrier could allow a TTY
caller who cannot be accommodated immediately to leave a message and
then have an agent promptly return the call.

**In-Flight Audio and Video Services**

We proposed in the DHH NPRM to broaden the existing requirements for
accommodating individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing that apply to
video displays on aircraft. First, we proposed to require U.S. and
foreign carriers to caption all safety and informational videos on
aircraft within set periods of time. The current rule, §382.47(b), only
requires that U.S. carriers make safety briefings on the aircraft that
are presented by video accessible to persons who are deaf or hard of
hearing, and it exempts cases where open captioning or an inset would
interfere with the video presentation so as to render it ineffective or
if the captioning or inset would itself be unreadable. The proposed
rule, applicable to foreign carriers as well, would eliminate the
exemption, require high-contrast captioning of informational videos as
well as safety videos, require compliance for safety videos within 180
days of the rule's effective date, and require compliance for
informational videos within an additional 60 days. Until the new rule's
compliance dates, U.S. carriers would remain bound by the provisions of
the existing rule. We solicited comment on the elimination of the
exemption clause, on extending the captioning requirement to
informational displays, and on the technical feasibility of captioning
all safety and informational videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual
displays in such a way that they will still be useful to individuals
without hearing disabilities. We also solicited comment on the proposed
timetable.

Second, we proposed to require U.S. and foreign carriers to provide
high-contrast captioning on entertainment videos, DVDs, and other
audio-visual displays on new aircraft, or aircraft ordered after the
rule's effective date or delivered more than two years after that date.
Aircraft on which the audio-visual machinery is replaced after that date
would also be considered new for purposes of §382.69. We did not propose
requiring the captioning of entertainment videos on existing aircraft,
believing that the costs of such a requirement would exceed the benefits
that would follow. We solicited comment on the costs and feasibility of
both modifying and replacing equipment on existing aircraft and
complying with the proposed rule with new aircraft.

The carriers and carrier groups that filed comments generally objected
to the proposals. RAA opposes requiring videos on existing aircraft to
be captioned, contending that the costs of modification would greatly
exceed any potential benefits. One foreign carrier contended that this
provision should not apply to foreign carriers. Some faulted the
Department for not distinguishing between English and non-English
products and maintained that the latter should be excluded from any
captioning requirement. Some carriers argued that the exact content of
any safety briefing provided by video can always be found in print in
each seat pocket and maintain that the content of informational videos
can be found in print both in seat pockets and elsewhere in the cabin.
Most if not all carriers and carrier groups objected to allowing less
time for compliance with the safety-video requirement than with the
requirement for informational videos; some maintained that rather than a
specific deadline, carriers should be permitted to comply if and when
they replace video equipment in the normal course of operating the
aircraft. Some claimed to have no control over the content of
informational videos provided by third parties. Some opposed the
requirement that captioning be high-contrast---*i.e.*, white letters on
a consistent black background. Several commenters called for retention
of the current rule's exemption for captioning a safety video when the
captioning or inset would render the video ineffective.

All of the carriers and carrier groups opposed requiring captioning for
all in-flight entertainment, advancing several arguments: with existing
technology, the costs and difficulties of compliance are prohibitive;
for overhead screens, the size of captioning relative to the size of the
screen would degrade the entertainment value of the video presentation
for all passengers; on individual seat screens, current technology and
cost do not permit the installation of systems that would let individual
passengers choose whether to caption individual programs; captioning of
all entertainment videos, regardless of what type of screen the aircraft
features, is too costly and would increase the price of air
transportation; in-flight entertainment is beyond the Department's
jurisdiction to regulate, as it does not come within the purview of
access to air transportation; film owners' restrictions on DVDs could
make compliance impractical to impossible; in some cases, government
censorship could make compliance illegal; the proposal does not specify
whether or not captioning would be required in languages other than
English, which would increase the costs and difficulties of complying.
Many carriers endorsed the comments of the World Airline Entertainment
Association ("WAEA"), which are summarized below, and many called for
inclusion in any provision adopted of an exemption like the one in the
current rule for safety videos---*i.e.*, for cases where captioning
would interfere with the video presentation so as to render it
ineffective or if the captioning would itself be unreadable.

The individuals and disability organizations that filed comments
unanimously supported the proposed rule except insofar as they believed
the compliance dates to be too far in the future. None of these
commenters addressed the costs or difficulties of achieving compliance.

The WGBH Educational Foundation's National Center for Accessible Media
("the Center"), which reported that it is conducting a study on ways of
making airline travel more accessible to passengers with sensory
disabilities, filed comments on this proposal. The Center maintained
that all safety videos are already being captioned and that pre-recorded
informational videos are readily captionable, thus making the existing
exemption unnecessary. It maintained that due to current technologies,
the rule need not specify white letters on a black background to ensure
that captions can be read, and given the number of production techniques
available, a requirement that displayed text be "legible" or "readable"
should suffice. The Center stated that the next generation of in-flight
entertainment ("IFE") systems can be designed to accommodate captioning
in various ways and that it is advances in these systems, not new
aircraft, that will make captions readily available. It therefore
recommended that the rule be tied to changes in IFE systems and not the
purchase or modification of aircraft. Further, the Center reported that
captioning on next-generation IFE systems is a work in progress based on
new means of sending video signals through the aircraft cabin. Caption
data for broadcast and cable television, it stated, are incompatible
with the digital signals being routed to seat screens in the newest IFE
systems, and while the transformation of these data for use on in-flight
systems can be developed, the process is not yet automatic, nor is it
trivial. A further complication, according to the Center, lies in the
variety in types of video signals being provided in-flight. The Center
stated that despite the small size of seat screens, properly rendered
captions can be as effective on these screens as they are on home
television sets. It reported that the portable IFE systems that some
carriers use as alternatives to installed systems---for example, DVD
players or hard disks---can accommodate closed captions as readily as
installed systems can.

As mentioned above, the comments filed by WAEA were endorsed by many of
the carriers. WAEA stated that its members include both airlines and
suppliers to the IFE industry, the latter including aircraft
manufacturers, major electronics manufacturers, motion picture studios,
audio/video post-production labs, broadcast networks, licensing bodies,
communications providers, and others, worldwide. WAEA took the position
that some of the proposed captioning requirements and implementation
timelines would impose undue and unacceptable financial burdens on the
carriers and that some of the requirements are not even technologically
or operationally feasible given the following: technical limitations of
both old and new IFE systems, variations among proprietary IFE systems
currently in service and being installed, limited space for and
readability of captioning on both seat screens and on more distant
communal screens, the intrusion factor of open captions for passengers
without a sensory disability, limited cabin-server storage for
additional captioned video files to complement up to eight languages
offered onboard, and lengthy aircraft retrofit and fleet order cycles
and IFE system design and certification timelines.

Among other things, WAEA agreed with the Center that the implementation
of the proposed new requirements should be tied to IFE system
development and not the aircraft. Given the limitations of video files
that may be available on the aircraft, WAEA contended that the rule
should apply only to English-language videos and only to entertainment
videos exhibited "while in United States territory." WAEA reported that
current IFE systems are typically based on proprietary rather than
standard architectures and technologies and that they were not designed
to accommodate broadcast closed-captioning signals and technologies.
Given the limitations of IFE screens in terms of their size and distance
from the viewer, WAEA opposed the requirement that captioning be white
letters on a black background and supported instead the choice of using
the same process as subtitling, which, it said, provides readable
characters while keeping most of the picture visible and poses fewer
risks of copyright infringement.

Based on the comments, we have made several changes to the final rule.
We are retaining the requirement that safety and informational
audio-visual displays played on the aircraft be high-contrast captioned,
but we have revised the definition of that term to permit the use of
captioning that is at least as easy to read as white letters on a
consistent black background. The requirement will not apply, however, to
informational videos that were not created under the carrier's control.
The captioning need only be in the predominant language or languages in
which the carrier communicates with passengers on the flight. If the
carrier makes announcements both in English and another language,
captions must be in both languages. We are retaining the compliance
dates set forth in the DHH NPRM, based among other things on the
Center's report that all safety videos are already being captioned and
that pre-recorded informational videos can be captioned readily. This
report also undercuts the carriers' arguments for retaining the current
rule's exemption for cases in which captioning would interfere with the
video presentation so as to render it ineffective or would itself be
unreadable

We have reluctantly concluded, though, that we cannot adopt a regulation
governing entertainment displays at this time. We reject the contention
that access to in-flight entertainment falls outside the scope of the
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, as amended, and that we therefore have
no authority to regulate IFE. Remedial statutes such as the ACAA are
properly construed broadly, for the benefit of the protected class, as
we have consistently done via Part 382. (*See, e.g.*, §382.1 and
§382.11-13 \[formerly §382.7\].) No party challenging our jurisdiction
over IFE has provided any support for its position.

Notwithstanding our authority to regulate, however, the record in this
proceeding does not provide a basis for adopting a captioning
requirement for IFE at present. We cannot conclude on the basis of the
comments that providing high-contrast captioning for entertainment
displays is technically and economically feasible now, nor can we
ascertain a date by which it most likely will be. Therefore, we will
shortly be issuing an SNPRM to call for more current and more complete
information on the cost and feasibility of providing high-contrast
captioning for entertainment displays, information not only on current
technology but also on the nature and pace of technological
developments. Regarding the latter, we are aware that on March 6, 2007,
after the conclusion of the period for commenting on the DHH NPRM.
WAEA's Board of Directors adopted a new specification as part of an
ongoing effort to establish a standard digital content delivery system
for IFE. This new specification reflects progress toward development of
a common methodology for delivering digital content and greater
interoperability for in-flight entertainment systems.

[Other Information for Individuals with Hearing or Vision
Impairments]{.underline}

We proposed in the DHH NPRM to require carriers to provide the same
information to deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind individuals in
airport terminals that they provide to other members of the public. We
proposed that they must provide this information promptly when such
individuals identify themselves as needing visual or auditory
assistance, or both. The proposed rule set forth the following
non-exhaustive list of covered topics: flight safety, ticketing, flight
check-in, flight delays or cancellations, schedule changes, boarding,
the checking and claiming of baggage, the solicitation of volunteers on
oversold flights (*e.g.*, offers of compensation for surrendering a
reservation), individuals being paged by airlines, aircraft changes that
affect the travel of persons with disabilities, and emergencies (*e.g.*,
fire, bomb threat). We proposed that the rule apply to U.S. carriers at
each gate, baggage claim area, ticketing area, or other terminal
facility that they own, lease, or control at any U.S. or foreign
airport. The proposed rule would apply to foreign carriers at gates,
baggage claim areas, ticketing areas, or other terminal facilities that
they own, lease, or control at any U.S. airport and at terminal
facilities of foreign airports that serve flights beginning or ending in
the U.S. (We inadvertently neglected to include the phrase "that they
own, lease, or control" in the NPRM regulatory text on foreign carriers
at foreign airports.)

We explained in the DHH NPRM that we were proposing a performance
standard, namely "prompt," rather than requiring carriers to use a
particular medium (*e.g.*, LCD screens, wireless pagers, erasable
boards, or handwritten notes) to allow carriers to design their own
compliance plans in a manner that best suits their needs and serves
their passengers. We solicited comment on whether the term "prompt,"
which we believe to be a higher standard than "timely," is sufficiently
specific. We also stated our concern that methods of communicating with
deaf-blind individuals may not be readily available. We did not propose
to require carriers to use any of the following methods: using a finger
to trace block letters on the deaf-blind individual's palm or forearm,
using an index card with raised letters, with the communicator placing
the deaf-blind individual's index finger on each word's letters in
sequence, or tactile signing or finger spelling where the deaf-blind
individual places his or her hands on top of the signer's hands to feel
the shape of the signs. We solicited comment on other less specialized
methods of communicating with deaf-blind individuals and on whether, if
none exists, we should limit the promptness requirement to individuals
with vision *or* hearing impairments but not to apply it to an
individual who has both of these disabilities.

The carriers and carrier groups that filed comments all supported the
requirement that passengers needing special transmission of this
information identify themselves to carrier personnel. Most asked the
Department to use "timely" as a standard rather than "prompt." Some
complain that any such standard is too subjective to provide effective
guidance. One carrier suggested that the emphasis should be not on how
swiftly carriers can transmit the information to the disabled passenger
but on when the passenger needs to have it. Carriers shared considerable
concern over the costs of compliance, both in terms of having personnel
available at all of the areas listed in the proposal and in terms of
potential technical solutions. One carrier opposed making the
requirements applicable at foreign airports, arguing that foreign
carriers are not likely to have the leverage they would need to comply.
Several contended that the cost estimates in the initial Regulatory
Evaluation were unrealistically low. Some proposed limiting the required
"promptness" to individuals with either hearing or visual impairment,
not both, who are traveling without a companion; one stated that it
communicates the information at issue here to deaf-blind passengers
through their traveling companions. Some objected to the list of types
of information that must be provided promptly. (The list represents an
expansion of the list in the existing rule, 14 CFR §382.45(c), which up
to this time has applied only to U.S. carriers, and which is explicitly
not exhaustive.) One U.S. carrier association was particularly concerned
about the financial burdens that it assumes the rule would impose on its
regional-airline members. It asserted that adoption of much of the
technology discussed in the proposal is impossible at small airports and
states that in any case its members report very few deaf-blind
passengers flying from these airports. The costs of compliance, it
contended, far exceed any putative benefits and could result in the
reduction or even elimination of service.

The individuals and disability organizations that filed comments had a
very different perspective. Most of these commenters objected to the
requirement of self-identification. Many took the position that carriers
should have reliable methods in place for conveying information to all
passengers at all times. Several supported requiring simultaneous visual
transmission of any information disseminated over a public address
system. Some related that in the past self-identification has failed to
result in this type of information's being transmitted at all, much less
"promptly" or even in a "timely" manner.

Based on the comments, we have made several changes to the proposal in
the final rule. First, we are adding the language that we inadvertently
omitted in the proposed rule to limit the requirements for foreign
carriers at foreign airports to areas that these carriers own, lease, or
control. Second, we have determined that it is not appropriate at this
time to require carriers to provide the information covered in §382.53
to deaf-blind passengers. The information at issue is constantly
changing, and we know of no methods of communicating with deaf-blind
individuals that allow for prompt transmission of the information and do
not require highly specialized training. We do encourage members of the
public to petition the Department for a rulemaking to amend this rule in
the future if and when technology becomes available that would permit
the prompt and efficient transmission of the covered information to
deaf-blind individuals. We also encourage carriers to acquire and use
such technology on their own initiative.

Third, we have determined that the costs of requiring prompt
transmission of the covered information at all of the terminal areas
listed in the DHH NPRM exceed the benefits. We are therefore limiting
the requirement to gates, ticketing areas, and customer service desks.
For purposes of the rule, a customer service desk is a location in the
terminal that a carrier dedicates to addressing customer problems that
are not addressed at the gate or the ticket counter, most commonly the
rerouting of passengers affected by a delayed or canceled flight.
Fourth, we are adding a provision for information about baggage. This
information must be transmitted to passengers who have identified
themselves as having hearing or vision impairment no later than the time
that it is transmitted to the other passengers. For example, assuming
that information on collection of baggage is given to arriving
passengers at the baggage claim area, carriers can comply with this rule
by giving the information to self-identifying passengers before the
others---*e.g.*, onboard the flight or at the gate---or at the baggage
claim area at the same time as the others. Fifth, as in the case of
§382.51, in cases where a U.S. airport has actual control over the
gates, ticketing areas, and customer service desks, we are making the
airport and the carrier jointly responsible.

We are retaining the self-identification requirement, because we believe
that requiring simultaneous visual transmission of the information along
with each and every public-address announcement would saddle carriers
with undue costs. In this regard, passengers with impaired hearing or
vision must identify themselves to carrier personnel at the gate area or
the customer service desk even if they have already done so at the
ticketing area.

We are also retaining the "prompt" standard. It requires carriers to
provide the information to self-identifying passengers with hearing or
vision impairment as close as possible to the time that the information
is transmitted to the general public. For example, when gate agents
announce a flight cancellation or gate change, if they provide the
information to self-identifying passengers with impaired hearing or
vision either immediately before or immediately after they make a
general announcement, the carrier will be complying with §382.53. If a
gate change is announced fifteen minutes before a scheduled departure
but the gate agents do not provide effective notice to a passenger with
impaired hearing until it is too late for that individual to reach the
gate in time to board, or if they delay providing the information long
enough that the individual reasonably believes that he or she will
probably miss the flight, the carrier is violating the rule. The rule
requires that carrier personnel notify a self-identifying passenger with
impaired hearing that he or she has been paged immediately after making
the announcement over a public address system unless the same
information is displayed visually on a screen. If a flight is oversold
and the carrier is soliciting volunteers to relinquish their seats in
exchange for compensation, to comply with this rule carrier personnel
must notify self-identifying passengers with impaired hearing or vision
in time for them to take advantage of the offer---*i.e.*, well before
the quota has been filled by other volunteers. The rule does not require
carriers to provide a sign language interpreter in the gate area or
elsewhere to ensure that a deaf passenger receives all pertinent
information simultaneously with other passengers.

As for passengers with impaired vision, for example, the rule requires
carriers to notify a visually impaired passenger orally where his or her
baggage can be claimed if the information is otherwise only posted on
visual displays, and the notification must take place no later than the
posting. At the time when a visually impaired passenger identifies
himself or herself to an agent at the gate, the rule requires the agent
to notify him or her of any change that has occurred that affects his or
her itinerary even if the change has already been announced and is now
posted on a screen. If a gate change is posted on the screen but not
announced orally, as soon as possible after the posting a gate agent
must notify any passenger who has identified himself or herself as
having impaired vision.

We are retaining the entire list of types of information that carriers
must provide even though it contains more items than the list in the
current rule. In our view, since the list in the current rule is
expressly non-exhaustive, the new items on the list in this section were
never excluded obligations. Having them explicitly stated informs the
carriers more effectively of their responsibilities.

In the DHH NPRM, we proposed a somewhat similar requirement for
providing information aboard aircraft to the proposed requirements
pertaining to information in airport terminals. U.S. and foreign
carriers would be required, upon request, to provide deaf, hard of
hearing, and deaf-blind individuals with the same information provided
to other passengers in a prompt manner. We again proposed a
non-exhaustive list of types of information to be covered by the rule:
flight safety, procedures for take-off or landing, flight delays,
schedule or aircraft changes that affect the travel of persons with
disabilities, diversion to a different airport, scheduled departure and
arrival times, boarding information, weather conditions, beverage and
menu information, connecting gate assignments, baggage claim,
individuals being paged by airlines, and emergencies (*e.g.*, fire or
bomb threat). The proposal differs from the current rule in that it
changes the timing requirement from "timely" to "prompt" and expands the
current rule's list, also non-exhaustive, of covered types of
information. We solicited comment on whether the change from "timely" to
"prompt" is appropriate for providing information aboard the aircraft
and on the proposed new list.

The carriers and carrier groups that filed comments generally objected
to the proposal as too broad and too prescriptive, particularly the
expanded list of types of information for which accommodation would be
required. The Air Transport Association of America ("ATA") argued that
the expanded list would create a tension between crew members'
obligations to provide information to disabled passengers and their
duties related to safety and concluded that if busy crew members are
further burdened with having to transcribe every in-flight announcement
for passengers with impaired hearing, only safety announcements mandated
by the FAA will be made. Such a result, according to ATA, would work to
the detriment of all passengers and constitute an undue burden not
required by the ACAA. ATA proposed limiting the covered information to
critical flight and safety information. Some commenters contended that
they (or their members) already give passengers with hearing or vision
impairment the same relevant information that they announce aloud. The
International Air Transport Association ("IATA") contended that the
proposal would not allow carriers enough flexibility to make individual
assessments and that compliance would require retraining of all staff,
redrafting of training manuals, and dramatic changes in procedures at
high cost to the carriers and with little benefit to passengers. Some
carriers took the position that individuals who are not capable of
communicating with the flight crew orally or in writing should be
required to travel with a companion who can establish communication. RAA
characterized the scope of information in the proposed list as excessive
and maintained that the "prompt" standard should only apply to
information about flight safety procedures for take-off or landing. RAA
said that 80 percent of airplanes operated by regional carriers either
have only one flight attendant or none at all.

The individuals and disability organizations that filed comments
unanimously supported the proposed rule, including the expanded list of
topics. Most objected to the requirement that individuals with hearing
impairments identify themselves to the carrier and request
accommodation. Most supported a requirement that all oral announcements
made aboard the aircraft be simultaneously transmitted visually; some
claimed that in practice, sporadic requests for accommodation are not
honored.

With minor clarifying changes to the language of the proposed rule, we
are adopting its substance as proposed. As with §382.53, however, we
have determined that it is not appropriate at this time to require
carriers to provide the information covered in §382.119 to deaf-blind
passengers. As stated above, the information is constantly changing, and
we know of no methods of communicating with deaf-blind individuals that
allow for prompt transmission of information and do not require highly
specialized training. Also as with §382.53, we encourage members of the
public to petition the Department for a rulemaking to amend this rule if
and when technology becomes available that would permit the prompt and
efficient transmission of the information to deaf-blind individuals.

We are also following our approach in §382.53 with regard to maintaining
the self-identification requirement, the standard of promptness, and the
list of types of information that the rule covers. Here, as there, we
believe that at this time, requiring simultaneous visual transmission of
the information along with every spoken announcement would saddle the
carriers with undue costs. Here, as there, carriers must provide the
information to self-identifying passengers with hearing or vision
impairment as close as possible to the time that the information is
announced aloud. Here, as there, expanding the list in the current rule
does not impose additional requirements on U.S. carriers, because the
current rule's list is explicitly non-exhaustive and would thus cover
the items added here. Specifying our expectation informs the carriers
more completely of what the rule encompasses.

Finally, the carriers' concerns that compliance with the requirements of

section 382.119 could keep their flight crews from performing their
duties related to safety are misplaced. The rule expressly relieves the
crew from complying when this would interfere with their safety duties
under FAA and foreign regulations. There is similar language in §382.53,
though, given the duties of such personnel as gate agents, ticket
agents, and baggage claim personnel, the likelihood of any conflict
between normal duties and legally-mandated safety duties is probably
lower than in the air crew context, outside, perhaps of an unusual
emergency situation.

**Training**

The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed that carriers operating aircraft with
19 or more passenger seats must train its personnel to proficiency
concerning ACAA requirements and providing services to passengers with
disabilities. One element of the carrier's training efforts would be to
consult with organizations representing persons with disabilities in
developing training programs. Refresher training to maintain proficiency
would also be required. Complaints resolution officials (CROs) would
have to be trained in their duties by the effective date of the rule.
Training for current employees would generally have to be accomplished
within one year. New crewmembers would have to be trained before
starting their duties, and other new employees would have to be trained
within 60 days of starting their duties. For foreign carriers, training
requirements would apply only to employees who are involved with flights
to and from U.S. points. Carriers would incorporate procedures
implementing Part 382 requirements into their manuals, but they would
not need to submit these materials or a certification of compliance to
DOT for review.

Disability community commenters generally supported the proposed
training requirements, though several said that U.S. carriers were not
providing adequate training. Some commenters said that they had rarely,
if ever, encountered carrier personnel who, when asked, recalled getting
ACAA training. Some of these commenters, as well as some carriers, asked
for a stronger DOT role in providing training (e.g., preparing a
training curriculum, developing training materials, or providing funding
for training). One association representing foreign carriers suggested a
forum at which carriers and the Department could discuss implementation
issues before the effective date of the rule.

Some foreign carriers mentioned that they already had disability-related
training programs for their employees, and suggested that these programs
should be recognized as equivalent to the proposed requirements. A few
foreign carriers said that the proposed training time frames were too
short. Other foreign carriers objected to training their employees to
meet U.S. requirements, since they already trained their personnel to
meet applicable requirements of their home countries. Several of these
commenters particularly objected to consulting with disability groups,
some suggesting that the requirement should be waived if they could not
find a local disability group to consult. (Disability groups expressed
different views on this point, most suggesting such a waiver was
unnecessary because the U.S.-based staff of the airline could consult
with U.S. groups if necessary, while another group suggested such a
waiver could be acceptable if the carrier showed it had made good faith
efforts to consult.) An association of U.S. carriers cautioned that any
waiver available to foreign carriers should also be available to U.S.
carriers.

The Department regards thorough training of carrier personnel who
interact with passengers with disabilities as vital to good service to
those passengers and to compliance with the ACAA. We recognize that many
foreign carriers already have disability-related training programs.
Since specific ACAA requirements do not yet apply to these carriers, it
is very likely that these training programs would need to be amended,
for those personnel who serve flights to and from the U.S., in order to
ensure that the personnel understand ACAA requirements. Personnel
serving U.S.-related flights would not have to be retrained from
scratch, only provided additional training on ACAA-specific matters. To
respond to concerns about the time it would take to train employees, the
final rule provides foreign carriers a year from the effective date of
the rule to complete the process. Since there will be a year between
publication of the final and its effective date, any carriers still
concerned about the length of training time frames can get a head start
by beginning to train employees during the year prior to the effective
date.

While U.S. disability groups can undoubtedly be a useful resource for
both U.S. and foreign carriers, we do not believe it would be realistic
to require foreign carriers to seek out U.S. disability groups for
consultation (in many cases, U.S.-based personnel of these carriers
would be operations staff, not management and training officials).
Consequently, we have modified the language of this provision to refer
to seeking disability groups in the home country of the airline. If home
country disability groups are not available, a carrier could consult
individuals with disabilities or international organizations
representing individuals with disabilities. We do not believe that a
waiver provision is needed, since it is unlikely that a carrier would be
completely unable to find anyone -- home country or international
disability groups, individuals with disabilities -- with whom to
consult. As a matter of enforcement policy, however, the Department
would take into consideration a situation in which a carrier with an
otherwise satisfactory training program documented it had made good
faith efforts to consult but was unable to find anyone with whom to
consult.

The Department has posted a model training program based on the current
Part 382 at
[http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/training/index.htm](http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/index.htm),
and we will consider whether it would be useful to produce additional
training materials. Our staff have long experience in working with
carriers on training and compliance issues, and they will continue to
work with both U.S. and foreign carriers on training-related issues. We
believe the idea of one or more forums to discuss implementation issues
in the interval between the publication and effective dates of the rule
is a good one, and we are now planning to hold such a meeting in June
2008.

We understand the concern of disability group commenters that some
carrier personnel do not seem to have been trained to proficiency or at
all. In an industry environment in which there is considerable personnel
turbulence, carriers and the Department must both be vigilant to ensure
that training takes place as required.

Because of the concern that some carrier employees may not be current in
their knowledge of ACAA requirements, the final rule will require
refresher training at least every three years. Carriers will have to
develop a program for this purpose. Refresher training is intended to
assist employees in maintaining proficiency, both by reminding them of
ACAA requirements and their carriers' procedures for implementing them
and by providing updated information about new developments, additional
guidance etc. While the Department will not require such programs to be
submitted for approval, carriers will be required to retain records
concerning both initial and refresher training, including the
instructional materials and individual employee training records, for
three years. These records will be subject to inspection by the
Department.

We also think that it is important to understand the relationship
between compliance with the "trained to proficiency" requirement and
compliance with other provisions of the rule. In the Department's view,
a pattern or practice by a carrier of noncompliance with operational
provisions of the ACAA rule (e.g., wheelchair stowage in the cabin,
boarding or connecting assistance) may reveal that the carrier's
personnel have not been trained to proficiency with respect to the
provision in question. Training to proficiency seems inconsistent, on
its face, with systemic mistakes in providing required accommodations.
Consequently, where the Department sees widespread implementation
problems, our staff may also examine the adequacy of the carrier's
training, and we may take enforcement action and require corrective
action in the carrier's training activities.

Carriers generally supported the proposal to not require submission of
material in manuals and procedures to DOT for review. The Department
believes, based on the experience of reviewing carrier submissions at
the time the original Part 382 went into effect, that mandating such
submissions is not productive, so we will not impose such a requirement.
Some disability community commenters supported the idea of submitting
certificates of compliance. However, the Department believes that doing
so would result in increasing information collection burdens without
giving the Department a significant additional amount of information
about carriers' actual compliance status. We believe it is sufficient
for the Department to be able to review materials carriers have on file
as part of our compliance and enforcement process.

In the DHH NPRM, we proposed to require carriers to train their
employees to recognize the requests for communication accommodation by
passengers with impaired vision or hearing and to use the most common
methods that are readily available for communicating with these
passengers. The required training would be for proficiency in basic
visual and auditory methods for communicating with passengers whose
disabilities affect communication. We explained that we were not
proposing to require carriers to train their employees to use sign
language. Rather, employees would be trained in methods that are readily
mastered and of which one or more can be used as required to communicate
with an individual who is deaf or hard of hearing (*e.g.*, handwritten
notes). We solicited comment on whether the terms "common methods" and
"readily available" give carriers sufficient guidance for complying
fully with this training requirement. We also solicited comment on what
kind of training would meet the requirement and on the effect,
feasibility, and necessity of expanding the proposal to require that
employees also be trained to communicate with deaf-blind individuals.

The carriers and carrier associations that filed comments generally
characterized the proposed requirements as far too vague and potentially
too costly. Most objected to requiring training for all personnel and
contractors that deal with the traveling public. One carrier suggested
that a better approach would be to train all personnel to better
awareness of communications needs and give carriers discretion to choose
how to satisfy those needs---for example, by ensuring that proficient
communicators can be made available on short notice. Foreign carriers
generally argued that any training requirement should only apply to
their employees in the United States. One carrier association noted that
a person without training would naturally resort to writing to
communicate with a deaf person and wondered what more would be taught in
formal training. One carrier questioned the existence of universally
established or internationally accepted methods in which to train
carrier personnel. RAA asked that training requirements not apply to
aircraft carrying 30 or fewer passengers and that training to
communicate with deaf-blind individuals not be required.

The individuals and disability organizations that filed comments all
supported training requirements. One organization argued that training
in sign language should be required as well as training in how to
operate any technology used to provide visual access---for example,
captioning controls on video monitors or LCD terminals. One individual
called for carrier personnel to be trained in how to handle people with
service or guide dogs, including not to pet or feed the dogs. One
organization maintained that trainers of carrier personnel should be
individuals with hearing loss and that they should focus on imparting an
understanding of the barriers that deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind
passengers face. This organization also suggested that effective
communication might involve visual communication, appropriate seating
arrangements, lighting to ensure a clear line of sight to visual
information displays, and attention-getting techniques such as gentle
tapping on the shoulder.

In the final rule, we are retaining the proposed training requirement
with some clarification and one addition. Carriers must train those
employees who come into contact with passengers whose hearing or vision
is impaired or who are deaf-blind both to recognize these passengers'
requests for accommodation in communicating and to communicate with
these passengers in ways that are common and readily available. For
example, employees should be able to communicate with passengers whose
hearing or vision is impaired via written notes or clear enunciation,
respectively. We are adding a requirement that the training also cover
deaf-blind passengers. Examples of communication accommodations for the
latter include passing out Braille cards (which this rule does not
require), reading any information sheet that a passenger provides, and
communicating with the passenger through an interpreter. Given that what
we are requiring is fairly rudimentary, the training costs should not be
high, nor should compliance otherwise be burdensome.

**Complaints**

Like the existing rule, the Foreign Carriers NPRM emphasized the role of
CROs. These are individuals trained to be the carrier's experts in
ensuring that carrier personnel correctly implement ACAA requirements
and that problems of passengers with disabilities are resolved in a way
that is consistent with Part 382. The purpose of having a CRO is to
resolve passengers' problems as quickly as possible, without resort to
formal DOT enforcement procedures and, we hope, in many cases, before a
violation occurs.

Under the Foreign Carriers NPRM, there would have to be a CRO available
to passengers with disabilities at every airport the U.S. carrier serves
and at every airport where a foreign carrier operates a flight to or
from the U.S,, whether in person or by phone. Carrier personnel would
have to refer a passenger with a disability-related complaint or problem
to a CRO. The Foreign Carriers NPRM also would tell carriers to provide
the number of the DOT Disability Hotline to such passengers. CROs have
the authority to direct other carrier personnel (except
pilots-in-command with respect to safety matters) to take actions to
resolve problems so as to comply with the ACAA. Carriers and CROs would
have to respond to consumer complaints in a timely manner.

Disability community comments generally supported the proposed rule,
though some comments suggested that CROs and carriers should have to
respond faster to consumer complaints than the Foreign Carriers NPRM
proposed. Some carriers, on the other hand, thought that the time frames
in the Foreign Carriers NPRM were too short, especially if a lengthy
investigation were needed in order to respond. Disability community
commenters also strongly supported the proposal to direct carriers to
refer passengers who raise disability-related issues to a CRO, since
many individuals may not know about the availability of CROs otherwise.

A number of carriers said that they thought that having CROs available
to passengers at every airport was not cost-effective and that existing
customer service offices could meet the need. One foreign carrier
thought that its personnel could not be successfully trained to carry
out the CRO role. Some carriers thought that they should not have to
refer passengers to the DOT Hotline, saying that this would undermine
the purpose of having CROs resolve problems as close to the scene of the
action as possible.

Some commenters objected to providing TTY service as a means of
permitting hearing-impaired passengers to contact a CRO, saying that
this was impractical in some places (e.g., an airport in a country where
TTY service was unavailable). Some comments said the Foreign Carriers
NPRM's proposal to allow 18 months after the event for a passenger to
file a complaint with DOT was too long.

The final rule retains the role and functions of the CRO. Our experience
supports the proposition that the use of CROs is crucial to prompt and
efficient solution of passengers' problems. However, we are making a few
clarifications and changes in response to comments. Carriers may use
other accessible technologies in lieu of TTYs to permit hearing-impaired
passengers to communicate with CROs. The proposed requirement for
carriers to refer passengers to the DOT Hotline has been dropped. The
time frame for a carrier to respond to an oral complaint to a CRO has
been expanded to 30 days, making it consistent with the time frame for
responding to written complaints. The final rule clarifies that with
respect to CROs and complaint responses, carriers providing scheduled
service, and carriers providing nonscheduled service using aircraft with
19 or more passenger seats, are covered. When the rule speaks of
"immediate" responses by carriers, it means prompt and timely referral
to a CRO when passengers raise a disability-related problem or complaint
that cannot be quickly resolved by carrier personnel on the spot (e.g.,
a gate agent, a flight attendant). We have reduced from 18 months to six
months the period after an event in which a passenger may file a
complaint with DOT.

A few foreign carriers said that it was improper to permit non-U.S.
citizens to have access to the U.S. DOT through the complaint process.
In the commenters' view, this implied improper extraterritorial
jurisdiction under a law that was intended to create rights only for
U.S. citizens. We do not agree. First, the ACAA protects "individuals
with disabilities," with no limitation on the nationality of those
individuals. Second, the Department has a legitimate interest in
ensuring that its legal requirements are implemented. It does not matter
to the Department who brings a problem to its attention. Once we know
about the problem, it is up to the Department, working with the carrier,
to correct the problem, and civil penalties are one of the Department's
tools for helping to correct a problem.

An association representing U.S. carriers objected to a proposed
exception to the 45-day limitation on accepting written complaints for
complaints referred by the Department of Transportation. The commenter
also suggested that carriers be allowed to limit the means through which
a disability-related complaint is transmitted to them to the means used
to accept non-disability-related complaints. In the Department's view,
if we think a complaint is important enough to refer to an air carrier,
it is important enough for the carrier to respond. We also believe that,
in attempting to enforce rights under a nondiscrimination statute,
passengers should be able to send a complaint by any reasonable means
available to them, without limitations placed by carriers on the
transmission of other sorts of consumer complaints. These features of
the proposed rule will be included in the final rule without change.

**SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS**

The purpose of this portion of the preamble is to describe each of the
sections of the final rule. The focus of the descriptions is on new or
changed material.

**382.1 What is the purpose of this Part?** The section is amended to
include foreign carriers.

**382.3 What do the terms in this rule mean?** This definitions section
makes several additions or changes to the definitions in the current
rule. A new definition of "carrier" includes both U.S. and foreign
carriers. A new definition of "CPAP machine" or continuous positive
airway pressure machine, a type of respiratory assistive device, has
also been added. There are new definitions of "direct threat," which
concerns the standard that may permit carriers to take otherwise
prohibited actions with respect to passengers with a disability, and
"equivalent alternative," which concerns the standard used in 382.10 for
carriers to adopt policies, practices or other accommodations in lieu of
compliance with the letter of provisions of the rule. "Indirect air
carrier" refers to a person not directly involved with the operation of
aircraft who sells transportation services to the general public other
than as the agent of a carrier. Two agencies concerned with safety and
security aspects of flight are also recognized in this section: the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of DOT and the
Transportation Security Administration of the Department of Homeland
Security. In the definition of "qualified individual with a disability,"
the final rule specifically mentions the term "passenger with a
disability" that is frequently used throughout the rule. Finally, there
is a new definition of "portable oxygen concentrator" (POC), a device
used to provide oxygen to passengers who need it during flight.

We have also included in the final rule a definition of "commuter
carrier" and "on-demand air taxi" as an understanding of those terms is
essential to an understanding of the applicability of section 382.133.
The Department also decided to include a definition of "expected maximum
flight duration" in the final rule as commenters had a number of
questions regarding how a carrier should determine if a passenger has a
sufficient number of batteries available to power an electronic
respiratory assistive device. In this final rule, the Department
explains that a carrier may require an individual to bring enough fully
charged batteries to power the device for not less than 150% of the
expected maximum flight duration. The definition of "expected maximum
flight duration" provides carriers a list of factors that they must take
into account in determining the total length of a flight.

We proposed in the DHH NPRM to change the phrase, "telecommunication
device for the deaf," and its acronym, "TDD," to "text telephone" and
"TTY," respectively. All who commented on this proposal supported it, so
we are using the new phraseology in the final rule.

In the DHH NPRM, we proposed not to include a definition of "hard of
hearing, deaf, and deaf-blind" in the rule, reasoning that the
definition of an "individual with a disability" is broad enough to cover
individuals who are hard of hearing, deaf, or deaf-blind. We did,
however, solicit comments on this issue. We also proposed not to include
a definition of "captioning," but we solicited comments on this issue as
well. We further proposed not to include a definition of
"informational," but we stated in the preamble that we intended that
word to apply to all videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual displays that
do not qualify as safety or entertainment displays, including but not
limited to the following: videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual displays
addressing weather, shopping, frequent flyer programs, customs and
immigration information, carrier routes, and other general customer
service presentations. We also solicited comments on this issue.

Of those who commented on §382.3, the carriers and carrier associations
generally opposed a definition of "hard of hearing, deaf, and
deaf-blind," agreeing with the Department that such individuals are
covered by the definition of an "individual with a disability." They
opposed any definition of "captioning" that might be difficult to meet
or that would not allow for innovation, and they agreed that
"informational" need not be defined. One of the disability organizations
argued for a definition of "hard of hearing, deaf, and deaf-blind" in
order to cover the "entire spectrum" of hearing disabilities. All
disability organizations supported a definition of captioning that makes
all audio-visual displays easily readable, and they agreed with the
proposal to explain the purport of "informational" in the preamble. One
of these organizations asked the Department to add safety,
entertainment, and other materials that are communicated to passengers
who can see and hear normally.

The final rule includes a definition of the term "indirect air carrier."
For readers' information, an indirect air carrier is an entity that
indirectly engages in "air transportation" as that term is defined in
the governing statute by engaging the services of a "direct air
carrier"(an airline). For example, when a tour operator or an air
freight forwarder contracts for space on a wholesale level with an
airline and the tour operator or air freight forwarder then re-sells
space on that flight on a retail basis, setting his own price and terms,
bearing the entrepreneurial risk of profit or loss rather than acting as
an agent, and controlling the inventory and schedule, that tour operator
or air freight forwarder is acting as an "indirect air carrier" as
defined in the statute. Conversely, a retail travel agent who sells the
product of a disclosed principal (e.g., a seat on a scheduled airline or
on a charter flight), offering it at the price and terms set by that
principal, is acting as an agent rather than a principal and is not an
indirect air carrier. Nor are other participants in the air travel
system (concessionaires, suppliers) considered indirect air carriers.

The final rule will not include definitions of "hard of hearing, deaf,
and deaf-blind" or "informational." The comments have not persuaded us
of the need for a separate definition to cover hearing and vision
problems: the definition of an "individual with a disability" logically
includes individuals with the whole spectrum of hearing and vision
impairments. Similarly, the comments do not show a need for a definition
of "informational" in the rule. As we stated in the DHH NPRM, by
"informational" displays we mean all videos, DVDs, and other
audio-visual displays that do not qualify as safety or entertainment
displays, including but not limited to the following: videos, DVDs, and
other audio-visual displays addressing weather, shopping, frequent flyer
programs, customs and immigration information, carrier routes, and other
general customer service presentations. We exclude safety and
entertainment displays: these are covered elsewhere, in §§382.53,
382.69, and 382.119.

As for captioning, we have determined that we should consistently use
the term "high-contrast captioning" in the rule and define it in §382.3
rather than do so whenever it occurs elsewhere. In our definition we are
adopting a pragmatic approach. Defining "high-contrast captioning" as
"captioning that is at least as easy to read as white letters on a
consistent black background" not only ensures that captions will be
effective but also allows carriers to use existing or future
technologies to achieve captions that are as effective as white on black
or more so. Some of the comments indicate that such technology already
exists, and we think it would be poor public policy not to allow for
innovation and improvement. The high-contrast captioning may be either
open---*i.e.*, text that is recorded directly in the video and cannot be
turned off at a user's discretion---or closed---*i.e.*, text that can be
toggled on or off at the user's choice.

**382.5 When are U.S. and foreign carriers required to begin complying
with the provisions of this Part?** Both U.S. and foreign carriers must
begin complying with the new final rule on its effective date, which
will be a year from the date on which the rule is published in the
[Federal Register]{.underline}. This phase-in period is intended to give
carriers time to take the steps they need to comply as well as to submit
to the Department, in a timely fashion, requests for conflict of laws
waivers and requests for equivalent alternative determinations.

**382.7 To whom do the provisions of this Part apply?** The rule applies
to all U.S. carriers, regardless of where their operations take place,
except where otherwise provided in the rule. With respect to foreign
carriers, the application of the rule is more limited. Only flights of
foreign carriers that begin or end at a U.S. airport, and aircraft used
in these operations, are covered. A flight means a continuous journey of
a passenger in the same aircraft or using the same flight number. The
rule provides several examples of what constitutes a "flight" and what
does not. Notably, a foreign carrier is not covered under the rule with
respect to an operation between two foreign points, even if, under a
code-sharing arrangement with a U.S. carrier, the foreign carrier
transports passengers flying under the U.S. carrier's code. The U.S.
carrier, however, is covered under the rule with respect to the
passengers traveling under its code on such a flight, such that if there
is a violation of the Part 382 rights of a passenger traveling under the
U.S. carrier's code, the Department would hold the U.S. carrier, not the
foreign carrier, responsible. Finally, a charter flight on a foreign
carrier from a foreign airport to a U.S. airport and back would not be
covered if the carrier did not pick up any passengers in the U.S.

In the DHH NPRM, we proposed that the provisions concerning deaf, hard
of hearing, and deaf-blind passengers apply to all U.S. carrier
operations and to all flights operated by foreign carriers that begin or
end at a U.S. airport. We proposed that in the case of flights operated
by foreign carriers between two foreign points that are codeshared with
a U.S. carrier, the service-related requirements of the rule would apply
to the U.S. carrier whose code is used but not the aircraft
accessibility and equipment requirements. In addition, we observed in
the Preamble that §382.51, which governs audio-video displays at
airports, carves out an exception for U.S. and foreign carriers at
foreign airports: §382.51 applies by its terms only to U.S. airport
terminal facilities owned, leased, or controlled by U.S. or foreign
carriers. We solicited comments on the cost and feasibility of requiring
U.S. carriers to modify equipment, space, or both at foreign airport
terminals that they lease, own, or control.

Consistent with their comments on the Foreign Carriers NPRM, foreign
carriers and carrier associations that filed comments generally
criticized the Department, saying that it had acted unilaterally in this
area. Some contended that Part 382 should not apply to flights that are
not part of a single journey to or from the United States in the same
aircraft with the same flight number. One U.S. carrier, Delta, expressed
concern that its foreign codeshare partners might find the requirements
so onerous that they will end the code-sharing rather than comply,
precipitating declines in service and competition. One association of
U.S. carriers supported the applicability of Part 382 to foreign
carriers, as did the disability groups and individuals that commented.
The Regional Airline Association ("RAA") asked the Department to exempt
all aircraft of up to 30 seats from the rule because its requirements
will create excessive burdens for operators of small aircraft.

The individuals and disability organizations that filed comments
generally favored making the rule applicable to all foreign carrier
flights that originate or end at a U.S. airport and to foreign carrier
flights between two foreign airports that are codeshared with a U.S.
carrier.

We find unpersuasive the foreign carriers' suggestions that in applying
these requirements to them we are somehow exceeding our authority. As we
explained in the Foreign Carriers and DHH NPRMs, in the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21^st^ Century (AIR-21),
Congress amended the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) to include foreign
carriers in the prohibition against discriminating against otherwise
qualified individuals with disabilities. This rulemaking merely
implements that law. This Department's authority to issue regulations
that apply to foreign carriers is well-established. This general issue
is discussed at greater length in the "Response to Comments" portion of
the preamble above. In that section, the Department explains the final
rule's approach to the issue of code-sharing, which applies to deaf and
hard-of-hearing issues as well as to other provisions of Part 382.

The service-related requirements regarding deaf, hard of hearing, and
deaf-blind passengers that apply to U.S. carriers on codeshare flights
operated by their foreign-carrier partners between two foreign points
are those listed in §382.119. Although we are not applying these
requirements to the foreign carrier operating these flights, the U.S.
carrier will be subject to enforcement action if the foreign carrier
fails to provide the required information promptly to "qualified
individuals with a disability who identify themselves as needing visual
and/or hearing assistance" and whose tickets bear the code of the U.S.
carrier. The aircraft-accessibility requirements set forth in §382.69 do
not apply on such flights. Part 382 has no equipment requirements
specific to deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind passengers.

As for RAA's request, the evidence in the record does not provide a
basis for a blanket exemption from Part 382 for aircraft with 30 or
fewer seats. If an airport or aircraft operator does not use a
particular technology, sections concerning that technology would not
apply. Normal provisions concerning exemptions from Office of the
Secretary rules (see 49 CFR Part 5) could be used if a carrier or
airport believes an exemption is needed in a particular situation.

**382.9 What may foreign carriers do if they believe a provision of a
foreign nation's law prohibits compliance with a provision of this
Part?** This provision creates a conflict of laws waiver mechanism to
give appropriate consideration to requirements of foreign law applicable
to foreign carriers. It is important to note that this mechanism is
intended to apply only to genuine conflicts with legally binding foreign
legal mandates. A foreign law that requires a foreign carrier to do
something prohibited by this rule, or that prohibits a foreign carrier
from doing something required by this rule, is an appropriate subject
for a conflict of laws waiver. A foreign carrier's or foreign
government's policy, authorized practice, recommendation, or preference
is not. However, if a foreign government officially informs a carrier
that it plans to take enforcement action (e.g., impose a civil penalty)
against a carrier for failing to implement a provision of a government
policy, guidance document, or recommendation, the Department would view
the enforcement action as creating a legal mandate that could be
addressed under this section.

If,, as a legal matter, the foreign carrier has no choice but to act
contrary to this rule, the Department would grant a waiver. If the
foreign carrier, as a matter of law, has any discretion in the matter,
it must exercise that discretion by complying with this rule, even if
contrary to the carrier's policy or the recommendation of a foreign
government, and the Department would not grant a waiver. A waiver
request would have to include the carrier's proposal for an alternative
means of achieving the rule's objectives with respect to any provision
that is waived.

The Department wants to ensure that waiver requests are submitted and
granted or denied in a timely manner, avoiding the dilemma for foreign
carriers of having to choose between compliance with this rule and with
conflicting foreign laws when the rule goes into effect a year after its
publication. We encourage foreign carriers to make any waiver requests
within 120 days of the rule's publication. The Department commits to
deciding requests made in this time period before the rule goes into
effect. If we are late, then the foreign carrier may continue to carry
out the policy or practice involved until we do respond, and if the
request is denied the Department would not take any enforcement action
against the carrier with respect to activities that took place prior to
the denial. Even with respect to waiver requests submitted after the
120-day period, the Department will do its best to respond before the
effective date of the rule. Again, the carrier can choose to continue to
follow the policy or practice that is the subject of the request until
the Department does respond. However, if such a request is denied, the
carrier risks enforcement action with respect to the period between the
effective date of the rule and the date of the Department's response.
The Department has established this two-stage waiver consideration
process to help avoid a situation in which a foreign carrier would delay
submission of a waiver request until shortly before the effective date
of the rule, in an attempt to delay compliance with the rule while the
Department considered its late-filed request.

We also recognize that new foreign legal mandates can arise. If a new
mandate is created after the initial 120-day period following
publication of the rule ([not]{.underline} an existing legal mandate
that is subsequently discovered or goes into effect subsequently), then
a foreign carrier may submit a waiver request and continue to implement
the policy or practice involved until the Department responds. In this
case, the carrier would not be subject to enforcement action for the
period prior to the Department's response.

This section also notes that if a foreign carrier submits a frivolous or
dilatory waiver request, has not submitted a waiver request with respect
to a particular policy or practice, or continues to follow a policy or
practice concerning which a waiver request has been denied, the carrier
could be subject to DOT enforcement action. For example, if the
Department initiates enforcement action because we believe a foreign
carrier's practice is contrary to the rule, the carrier could not defend
against the enforcement by claiming a conflict with an existing foreign
legal mandate if the carrier had not previously submitted a waiver
request concerning the practice, or the request had been denied.

**382.10 How does a U.S. or foreign carrier obtain a determination that
it is providing an equivalent alternative to passengers with
disabilities?** While the concept of equivalent facilitation has been a
part of DOT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules since 1991 (see
49 CFR 37.7 -- 37.9), it has not previously been part of ACAA rules. The
use of "equivalent alternative" in this rule is somewhat broader than
the use of "equivalent facilitation" in DOT orf DOJ ADA rules or in the
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines issued by the
U.S. Access Board, which focused on "hardware" modifications to vehicles
and facilities. In the ACAA context, equivalent alternative can also
refer to policies, practices, or other accommodations to passengers with
disabilities.

The key point of this section is that, in order to be viewed as an
equivalent alternative, a policy, practice, accommodation, or piece of
equipment must really provide substantially equivalent accessibility to
passengers with disabilities than compliance with a provision of the
rule. It isn't enough for a carrier's proposed alternative to be
different from a provision of the rule. Alternatives that provide less
accessibility than the provisions of the rule, or that impose greater
burdens on passengers with disabilities, cannot be considered an
equivalent alternatives. Equivalent alternatives also pertain only to
specific requirements of the rule. The Department would not entertain an
equivalent alternative request that asked us to find that an entire
foreign regulatory scheme was equivalent to this rule, for example.

Similar to the conflict of laws waiver provision, the equivalent
alternative provision is structured to provide an incentive to carriers
to file timely requests. If a carrier submits its request within 120
days of the publication date of this Part, the Department will try to
respond before the effective date of the rule. The carrier can implement
the policy or practice it requests as an equivalent alternative
beginning on the effective date of the rule until the Department does
respond. (A U.S. carrier subject to the current rule could not begin
implementing an equivalent alternative it had requested within the
120-day time period until the new rule goes into effect, since the
current rule does not provide for equivalent alternatives.) If a carrier
submits its request after the 120-day period following publication, the
carrier must comply with the provision of the regulation pending the
Department's response.

**382.11 What is the general nondiscrimination requirement of this
Part?**

**382.13 Do carriers have to modify policies, practices, and facilities
to ensure nondiscrimination?** These sections are very similar to
section 382.7 of the current regulation. One difference is that the new
rule specifies that carriers may require preboarding as a condition of
receiving certain seating or in-cabin stowage accommodations. The
requirement to make modifications of policies, practices, and facilities
has been broken out into a separate section. This requirement recognizes
that there can be times when, in order to provide nondiscriminatory
service to a particular individual, carriers must change or make an
exception to an otherwise acceptable general policy or practice for that
individual. It should be emphasized that this provision is not intended
to require carriers to make generally applicable changes in policies for
all passengers, or all passengers with disabilities. The provision
focuses on the carrier doing what it needs to do -- short of incurring
an undue burden or making a fundamental alteration in its services -- to
make sure that a passenger with a disability can take the trip for which
he or she is ticketed.

**382.15 Do carriers have to make sure that contractors comply with the
requirements of this Part?** It is a basic principle of
nondiscrimination law that while a regulated party can contract out its
functions, it cannot contract away its responsibilities. Consequently, a
carrier that contracts out any functions concerning passengers with
disabilities must ensure that the contractors comply with the provisions
of this Part, just as if the carrier were performing the functions
itself. Assurances and contract conditions in the agreements between
carriers and their contractors are a key measure to carriers' compliance
with this section. Noncompliance with these contract conditions by the
contractor must be stated in the contract as being a material breach of
the contract. The Department expects carriers to monitor the performance
of contractors to ensure that the contractors' performance complies with
the requirements of this Part and to take appropriate contract action
against contractors that breach their contracts by failing to comply.
The Department would view a carrier's failure to do so as noncompliance
with the carrier's obligations under this rule, and a carrier cannot
defend against an enforcement action by the Department by claiming that
a contractor erred. The carrier remains responsible.

**382.19 May carriers refuse to provide transportation on the basis of
disability?** This section continues, and extends to foreign carriers,
the key nondiscrimination requirement of the ACAA and the existing Part
382. With narrow exceptions, a carrier is prohibited from denying
transportation to a passenger on the basis of disability. Carriers
retain their authority, under 49 U.S.C. 44902 and 14 CFR 121.533, to
deny transportation to any passenger, disabled or not, on the basis of
safety or whose carriage would violate FAA or TSA requirements.

If the carrier's reason for excluding a passenger on the basis of safety
is that the individual's disability creates a safety problem, the
carrier's decision must be based on a "direct threat" analysis. This
concept, grounded in the Americans with Disabilities Act, calls on
carriers to make an individualized assessment (e.g., as opposed to a
generalization or stereotype about what a person with a given disability
can or can't do) of the safety threat the person is thought to pose. In
doing so, the carrier must take into account the nature, duration and
severity of the risk; the probability that the potential harm will
actually occur; and whether reasonable mitigating measures can reduce
the risk to the point where the individual no longer poses a direct
threat. In using its authority to make a direct threat determination and
exclude a passenger, a carrier must not act inconsistently with other
provisions of Part 382. Direct threat determinations must not be used as
a sort of de facto exception to specific requirements of this Part
(e.g., the prohibition on number limits).

Exclusion of a passenger because his disability-related appearance or
involuntary behavior may offend, annoy, or inconvenience other persons
-- as distinct from creating a direct threat to safety -- is an
important part of this nondiscrimination mandate. The rationale for this
requirement was stated in the preamble to the 1990 ACAA rule, and it
remains valid (see 55 FR 8027; March 6, 1990).

**382.21 May carriers limit access to transportation on the basis that a
passenger has a communicable disease or other medical condition?** As a
general matter, carriers may not exclude or impose other requirements or
conditions on a passenger on the basis that the passenger has a
communicable disease. However, if the passenger poses a direct threat,
the carrier may take appropriate action to safeguard the health and
safety of other persons on the flight.

The Department has added regulatory language codifying the Department's
guidance on how airlines should determine whether someone's disease
presents a direct threat. To be a direct threat, a condition must be
both able to be readily transmitted by casual contact in the course of a
flight AND have severe health consequences (e.g., SARS, active
tuberculosis). If a condition is readily transmissible but does not
typically have severe health consequences (e.g., the common cold), or
has severe health consequences but is not readily transmitted by casual
conduct in the course of a flight (e.g., HIV), its presence would not
create a direct threat. Carriers may also rely on directives issued by
public health authorities (e.g., in the context of a future flu
pandemic).

If a passenger who is deemed to present a direct threat cannot travel at
his or her scheduled time as a result, the carrier must allow the
passenger to travel at a time up to 90 days from the date of postponed
travel at the same price or, if the passenger prefers, provide a refund.
Consequently, cancellation or rebooking fees or penalties would not
apply in this situation, and the passenger would not be subject to any
fare increases that may occur in the meantime or any increase in that
passenger's fare due to the non-availability of a seat in the fare class
on his or her original ticket.

**382.23 May carriers require a passenger with a disability to provide a
medical certificate?** Like the medical certificates section in the
current rule, this section generally prohibits carriers from requiring
medical certificates (i.e., written statements from a doctor saying that
a passenger is capable of completing a flight safely, without requiring
extraordinary medical assistance during the flight). People with
disabilities have functional impairments with respect to walking,
seeing, hearing etc. These impairments, by and large, are not sicknesses
requiring medical treatment or clearance (though, of course, persons
with disabilities can have illnesses like everyone else). At the same
time, airlines and their personnel are not medical service providers,
and it is not reasonable to expect them to perform medical services.
This provision is intended to balance these realities.

Oxygen users and, people traveling in a stretcher or incubator can be
required to produce a medical certificate. The situation that most
commonly would result in a call for a medical certificate is one in
which carrier personnel have a reasonable doubt that someone can
complete the flight safely, without requiring extraordinary medical
assistance. In such a case, carrier personnel can require a medical
certificate in order to provide assurance that the passenger will not
need such assistance. The rule clarifies that a medical certificate must
be recent (within 10 days of the passenger's departing flight).

There is also a relationship between this section and the communicable
diseases provision. Section 382.21 (a)(4) allows a carrier to require a
medical certificate if the carrier determines that the passenger has a
communicable disease that could pose a direct threat. Under section
382.23(c), the passenger would then have to produce a medical
certificate, to the effect that the passenger's condition would not be
communicable to other persons during the normal course of the flight. If
it is potentially transmissible during the flight but this can be
prevented if certain conditions or precautions are implemented, the
certificate would have to describe those conditions or precautions.
Unlike the situation with respect to medical certificates under
paragraph (b)(3), a medical certificate in the situation of a
communicable disease under paragraph (d) would have to be dated within
10 days of the flight for which it is presented (not 10 days prior only
to the passenger's initial departing flight). Under paragraph 382.21(c),
if the section 382.23(c)(2) medical certificate provides measures for
preventing the transmission of a disease, the carrier must provide
transportation to the passenger -- carrying out the prescribed measures
-- unless the carrier determines that it is unable to carry out the
measures. If the carrier is unable to do so, it can deny transportation
to the passenger. In this event, the carrier's written explanation to
the passenger under section 382.21(e) would include an explanation of
why it was not able to carry out the measures identified in the medical
certificate.

A carrier may elect to subject a passenger with a medical certificate to
additional medical review (e.g., by the carrier's physician) if the
carrier believes either that there has been a significant adverse change
in the passenger's medical condition since the issuance of the medical
certificate or that the certificate significantly understates the
passenger's risk to the health of other persons on the flight. If this
additional review shows that the passenger is unlikely to be able to
complete the flight without extraordinary medical assistance or would
pose a direct threat to other passengers, the carrier could,
notwithstanding the medical certificate, deny or restrict the
passenger's transportation.

We also note that, under section 382.117(e), airlines can require
passengers traveling with emotional support or psychiatric service
animals to provide certain documentation. This information is not a
medical certificate in the sense articulated in section 382.23, but
airlines are entitled to obtain this documentation as a condition of
permitting the emotional support or psychiatric service animal to travel
in the cabin with the passenger.

**382.25** **May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to
provide advance notice that he or she is traveling on a flight?**

**382.27 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice in order to obtain specific services in connection with a
flight?**

Carriers may not require a passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice of the fact that he or she is traveling on a flight. That
is, a carrier cannot say to a passenger, in effect, "You have a
disability; therefore, you must let me know in advance that you are
going to fly on my aircraft, Flight XXX."

On the other hand, there is a series of accommodations that many
passengers with disabilities may need or want that carriers reasonably
require time to arrange. For these services, carriers may require up to
48 hours' advance notice (i.e., 48 hours before the scheduled departure
time of the flight) AND a check-in time one hour before the check-in
time for the general public. That is, if passengers generally are told
to arrive at the gate one hour before the scheduled departure time of
the flight to check in, the carrier may tell passengers seeking one of
these listed accommodations to check in two hours before the scheduled
departure time for the flight. If the passenger with a disability meets
the advance notice and check-in time requirements, the carrier must
provide the requested accommodation. If not, the carrier must still
provide the accommodation if it can do so by making reasonable efforts,
without delaying the flight.

Most of the services or accommodations for which a carrier can require
advance notice are the same as under the existing regulation (e.g.,
transportation of an electric wheelchair on a flight scheduled to be
made on an aircraft with fewer than 60 seats, accommodation for a group
of 10 or more passengers with a disability who make reservations to
travel as a group). It is important to note that, with respect to the
onboard use of supplemental oxygen, advance notice can be required of a
passenger whether the carrier provides the oxygen (i.e., via POC or
containerized oxygen,) or the passenger brings his or her own POC for
use during the flight. It should also be noted that when requesting
carrier-supplied supplemental oxygen, advance notice of up to 48 hours
for domestic flights and up to 72 hours for international flights may be
required.

There are a few new situations in which the rule permits carriers to
require advance notice. These include transportation of an emotional
support or psychiatric service animal, transportation of any service
animal on a flight scheduled to take eight hours or more, and
accommodation of an individual who has both severe vision and hearing
impairments.

**382.29 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to travel
with a safety assistant?** The terminology of this section has been
changed from "attendant" to "safety assistant" to more accurately
reflect the role of the person accompanying the passenger. A safety
assistant is not a personal care attendant who looks after the personal
care needs of a passenger. A carrier cannot require a personal care
attendant to travel with a passenger with a disability. Rather, the
safety assistant is someone who would assist the passenger to exit the
aircraft in case of an emergency evacuation or to establish
communication with carrier personnel for purposes of the required safety
briefing. People like passenger volunteers, an individual selected by
the passenger, or deadheading crew members remain appropriate candidates
to act as safety assistants.

This section generally follows the model of the corresponding section of
the existing regulation. However, with respect to the situation of a
passenger with a severe mobility impairment, the criterion for
permitting the carrier to require a safety assistant has been clarified
to address circumstances where the passenger is unable to
[physically]{.underline} assist in his or her own evacuation. This
change is made to avoid potential confusion that a passenger could
assist in his or her own evacuation simply by calling for help.

The "Response to Comments" section of the preamble describes in greater
detail other changes, including a new advance notice requirement, that
would apply to passengers who have both severe vision and hearing
impairments. In section 382.29(b)(4), it is mentioned that a passenger
with both severe hearing and vision impairments is responsible for
explaining how he or she can establish communication adequate to permit
transmission of the safety briefing and to enable the passenger to
assist in his or her own evacuation of the aircraft in the event of an
emergency. The new 48-hours' advance notice requirement is intended to
give the carrier time to make any arrangements necessary to accommodate
the passenger following this explanation. The language in section
382.29(b)(4) concerning the ability of a passenger to assist in his or
her own evacuation refers to being able to establish, at or around the
time of the safety briefing, a means by which the passenger can receive
a instructions concerning an emergency evacuation. For example, the
passenger and air carrier could arrange a hand or touch signal that the
passenger knows means "get up and follow passengers to an emergency
exit."

When a passenger with a disability cannot travel on a flight because
there is no seat available for a safety assistant that the carrier has
determined to be necessary, the passenger must be compensated in an
amount to be calculated under the Department's denied boarding
compensation (DBC) rule, 14 CFR Part 250, where Part 250 applies. The
DBC rule applies to both U.S. and foreign carriers with respect to
domestic and international scheduled-service nonstop flight segments
departing from a U.S. airport. It does not apply to flights departing
from a foreign airport, whether operated by a U.S. or foreign carrier.

**382.31 May carriers impose special charges on passengers with a
disability for providing services and accommodations required by this
rule?** Carriers may not impose charges on passengers for accommodations
required by the rule. However, if a carrier voluntarily provides a
service that this rule does not require, the carrier may charge a
passenger with a disability for that service.

The issue of carrier web site accessibility requirements has been
deferred to a forthcoming SNPRM. While that issue is being considered,
the Department is adding a provision to address potentially
discriminatory effects of their web site-related policies on passengers
with disabilities who cannot use a carrier's web site because it is not
accessible. If a carrier charges people who make reservations by phone
or in person more than people who make reservations on the web site,
this surcharge cannot be applied to persons with disabilities who must
make reservations by another means because the web site is inaccessible
to them. Likewise, if there are "web only" discounts or special offers
made available to passengers on the carrier's web site, passengers with
disabilities who cannot use the web site must be offered the same terms
when they seek to book a flight by other means.

33. **May carriers impose other restrictions on passengers with a
    disability that they do not impose on other passengers?**

**382.35 May carriers require passengers with a disability to sign
waivers or releases?**

> Carriers must not impose requirements or restrictions on passengers
> with a

disability that they do not impose on other passengers, except where
this regulation explicitly permits the carrier to do so (e.g., advance
notice for certain services). We hope that many of the practices
specifically banned in this section are only of historical interest
(e.g., making passengers with disabilities sit on blankets or
restricting such passengers to so-called "corrals" in terminals), but we
believe they are still useful examples of the sort of discriminatory
treatment that is unacceptable in the context of a nondiscrimination
statute. Waivers of liability or releases either for passengers
themselves or for loss or damage of wheelchairs and other assistive
devices are among the forbidden practices, although as we have stated in
the past, carriers are free to note pre-existing damage to an assistive
device to the same extent that carriers do this with respect to other
checked baggage.

**382.41 What flight-related information must carriers provide to
qualified individuals with a disability?** This provision is very
similar to the corresponding provision of the existing rule. Carriers
must provide information about the accessibility features of aircraft
(e.g., the presence and location of seats that can be accessed through
movable armrests, and seats not available to passengers with
disabilities). In addition, carriers must provide information about any
service limitations in accommodating a passenger with a disability. When
level-entry boarding is not available on a particular flight, carriers
must also provide information about boarding assistance requiring the
use of a ramp or lift to all passengers who indicate that they will use
a wheelchair for boarding, whether or not they specifically ask for the
information.

As a general matter under Part 382, when an agent acting on behalf of an
airline provides inaccurate information to a passenger with a disability
concerning a disability-related accommodation, in most instances the
airline will be responsible for any resulting information-related
violation of the law. It should also be noted that when a carrier agrees
to provide a service not specifically required under this Part to
accommodate a particular passenger's disability, the carrier is obliged
to provide that service to the passenger or risk being found in
violation of section 382.41. .For example, if a carrier informs a
passenger that it will accommodate his or her peanut allergy by not
serving peanuts on his or her flight itinerary, the carrier must ensure
that peanuts are not served on those flights or it will be in violation
of section 382.41.

**382.43 Must information and reservation services of carriers be
accessible to individuals with hearing and vision impairments?** The
"Response to Comments" section of the preamble discusses the
requirements that will apply to carriers with respect to TTY or
telephone relay communication between users of TTYs and carriers. As
noted in that discussion, the purpose of §382.43 is to put deaf and hard
of hearing passengers on a substantially equivalent footing with the
rest of the public in their ability to communicate with carriers by
telephone regarding information and reservations. We aim to ensure
substantial equivalence in both access to any carrier and wait time if
an agent is not available when a connection is first made.

Carriers may meet this requirement by using TTYs themselves, but they
may also do so by means of voice relay or any other available technology
that permits TTY users to communicate with them. This requirement is set
forth in §382.43(a). We are also adding a new access requirement in
§382.43(a)(4) to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing passengers are
informed how to reach carriers by TTY: in any medium in which a carrier
states the telephone number of its information and reservation service
for the general public, it must also state its TTY number if it has one,
or if not, it must specify how TTY users can reach the information and
reservation service (e.g*.*, via call relay service). Such media
include, for example, web sites, ticket jackets, telephone books, and
print advertisements.

Based on comments to the docket, we are also adding §382.43(b), which
states that the requirements of §382.43(a) do not apply to carriers in
any country in which the telecommunications infrastructure does not
readily permit compliance.

Carriers that provide written information to passengers must ensure that
that this information can be communicated effectively to passengers with
vision impairments. This could be done through alternative formats or,
especially for brief or compact pieces of information that can be
comprehended and remembered effectively by a listener, through verbal
communication (e.g., the time and date of a specific flight, as distinct
from the airline's entire timetable for a city pair).

For foreign carriers, these requirements apply only with respect to
information and reservation services for flights covered by section
382.5. With respect to TTY services, the requirement applies to foreign
carriers only with respect to flights for which reservation phone calls
from the U.S. are accepted.

Please see the "Response to Comments" section for further information
about the requirement that a copy of Part 382 be made available in
airports served by carriers subject to this rule.

**382. 45 Must carriers make copies of this Part available to
passengers? U.S.** carriers must keep a copy of Part 382 at each airport
they serve and make it available to anyone who asks for it. Foreign
carriers must do this at any airport serving a flight that begins or
ends at a U.S. airport. An English-language copy of the rule is
sufficient for this purpose. Carriers are not required to translate the
document into other languages. Although carriers are not required to
make a copy of Part 382 available in accessible formats at airports,
carriers that provide information to the public on a website must place
information on that website telling passengers that they can obtain an
accessible copy of the rule from DOT.

**382. 51 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the
accessibility of airport facilities?** The principal substance of
airport facility accessibility requirements is the same for both U.S.
and foreign carriers. Certain aspects of the requirements differ
depending on whether the facility in question is located in the U.S. or
in a foreign country.

U.S. facilities that a carrier owns, controls, or leases must meet
requirements applicable to Title III facilities under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The requirements are those of the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), as incorporated in
Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA regulations implementing Title III.
There must be an accessible path between gate and boarding area when
level entry boarding is not available to an aircraft. The ADAAG
reference in paragraph (a)(2) is to the former version of the ADAAG,
which is still the version incorporated in the DOJ rules. When DOJ
incorporates the new version of ADAAG in their Title III rules, we will
update this reference.

Inter-terminal and intra-terminal transportation owned, leased, or
controlled by a carrier at a U.S. airport must meet DOT ADA rules. Since
DOT has already incorporated the new version of ADAAG into its
regulations, the new ADAAG's provision will apply to any features
covered by the DOT rules. One new requirement at U.S. airports is to
provide, in cooperation with the airport operator, animal relief areas
for service animals that accompany passengers who are departing,
arriving, or connecting at the facility.

At foreign airports, to which the ADAAG do not apply, Part 382 applies a
performance requirement to make sure that passengers with a disability
can readily use the facilities the carrier owns, leases, or controls at
the airport. For foreign carriers, this requirement applies only to
terminal facilities that serve flights that begin or end in the U.S
(i.e., those covered by section 382.5). Both U.S. and foreign carriers
must meet the requirements at foreign airports within one year after the
effective date of the rule. As noted elsewhere in the preamble, carriers
may rely on the facility accessibility services provided by airport
operators at foreign airports, supplementing where needed to ensure full
compliance with this rule.

In the DHH NPRM, we proposed several requirements for U.S. and foreign
carriers at terminal facilities that they own, lease, or control at any
U.S. airport. First, we proposed a requirement that carriers enable any
existing captioning feature (preferably high-contrast) on all
televisions and other audio-visual displays providing safety,
information, or entertainment content in those portions of the airport
that are open to the general public and that they keep this captioning
feature on at all times. Second, we proposed a requirement that in areas
of restricted passenger access such as club rooms, carriers enable any
existing captioning function on televisions and other audio and visual
displays upon request. Third, we proposed a requirement that carriers
replace any televisions and other audio-visual displays that do not have
a high-contrast captioning function with ones that do as these devices
are replaced in the normal course of operations or when the airport
facilities undergo substantial renovation or expansion. Fourth, we
proposed a requirement that newly acquired televisions and other
audio-visual displays be equipped with high-contrast captioning
capability. We solicited comments both on these proposals and on whether
any carriers have leases for terminal facilities at a U.S. airport
whereby the airport retains control over the televisions and other
audio-visual displays in that facility. If so, we said, we would
consider requiring the carriers and airports to work together to enable
captioning on equipment that has captioning capability and to replace
equipment that does not have high-contrast captioning capability with
equipment that does. (We also noted that all televisions with screens of
at least 13 inches made or sold in the U.S. since July 1, 1993, have
been required to have captioning capabilities.) We further solicited
comment on whether televisions and other audio-visual displays equipped
with captioning features would necessarily have high-contrast captioning
(*e.g.*, white letters on a consistent black background), whether such
equipment may have some type of captioning other than "high-contrast,"
and whether the availability of high-contrast captioning, as opposed to
low- or medium-contrast captioning, depends on the age, cost, or screen
size of the equipment.

None of the comments addressed the question of high- versus medium-
versus low-contrast captioning. Most of the carriers and carrier groups
that filed comments claimed not to have control over the audio-visual
equipment at their terminal facilities. The individuals and disability
organizations that filed comments strongly objected to different
standards for audio-visual equipment in areas open to all passengers
versus areas with restricted access, and all support captioning on all
such equipment at all times.

We are modifying the language of the proposed §382.51 to make our
intentions clearer, and based on the comments, we are also adding
language that places joint responsibility for compliance on the carrier
and the airport in cases where the latter has control over the
televisions and other audio-visual equipment that this section
addresses. (To this end, we will also be amending 49 CFR Part 27,
Subpart B, to codify the requirement for airports.) We have determined,
based both on the comments from individuals and disability groups and on
the lack of objections from carriers and carrier groups, that the same
standard should apply to all equipment, whether it be in areas to which
the general public has access or in areas to which access is limited. If
such equipment has captioning capability, that capability must be
enabled at all times. These requirements do not apply to either U.S. or
foreign carriers at foreign airports.

**382.53 What information must carriers give individuals with a vision
and/or hearing impairment at airports?** With some variations for the
situations of U.S. and foreign airports, and U.S. and foreign carriers,
the basic point of this section is that at each gate, ticketing area,
and customer service desk that a carrier owns, leases, or controls, a
carrier must ensure that passengers with a disability who identify
themselves as persons needing visual or hearing assistance have prompt
access to the same information provided to other passengers. This
requirement applies to a wide variety of information, concerning such
subjects as flight safety, ticketing, flight check-in, flight delays or
cancellations, schedule changes, boarding information, connections, gate
assignments, checking baggage, volunteer solicitation on oversold
flights (*e.g.*, offers of compensation for surrendering a reservation),
individuals being paged by airlines, aircraft changes that affect the
travel of persons with disabilities, and emergencies (*e.g.*, fire, bomb
threat).

**382.55 May carriers impose security screening procedures for
passengers with disabilities that go beyond TSA requirements or those of
foreign governments?** All passengers are subject, at U.S. airports, to
TSA screening procedures and, at foreign airports, to screening
procedures established by the law of the country in which the airport is
located. If a carrier wants to go beyond those mandated procedures, it
must make sure that it treats passengers with disabilities equally with
other passengers. Security personnel may examine assistive devices and
must provide, on request, private screenings for passengers with
disabilities requiring secondary screening.

**382.57 What services must carriers provide if their automated kiosks
are inaccessible?** The Department will seek further comment on kiosk
accessibility issues in an SNPRM. Meanwhile, if existing kiosks are
inaccessible (e.g., to wheelchair users because of height or reach
issues, to visually-impaired passengers because of issues related to
visual displays or touch screens), carriers must ensure equal treatment
for persons for disabilities who cannot use them. This can be done in a
variety of ways. For example, a passenger who cannot use the kiosk could
be allowed to come to the front of the line at the check-in counter, or
carrier personnel could meet the passenger at the kiosk and help the
passenger use the kiosk.

**382.61 What are the requirements for movable aisle armrests?** This
section is very similar to the movable aisle armrest provisions of the
present rule. Armrests on at least half the aisle seats in rows
containing seats in which passengers with mobility impairments are
permitted to sit under FAA rules must be movable. If there are no seats
in which a person with a mobility impairment can sit under FAA rules
(e.g., an exit row), then that row does not constitute part of the base
from which the calculation of half the rows is made, and of course such
a row is not one in which a movable armrest is needed.

The provision clarifies that movable aisle armrests must be provided
proportionately in all classes of service. As discussed elsewhere in the
preamble, if the seats in a given class of service, such as first class,
can be accessed by a wheelchair user without a movable aisle armrest
being provided, the carrier may request an equivalent alternative
determination. Consistent with section 382.41, carriers must find ways
of ensuring that passengers with disabilities can locate specific seats
they can access with movable armrests.

A carrier wishing to submit an equivalent alternative request concerning
movable armrests must show the Department that, in fact, persons with
mobility impairments using aisle and boarding wheelchairs can transfer
horizontally into a given seat without being lifted over an armrest or
other obstacle. The Department would not make such a determination based
solely on the representation of the carrier that such transfers were
possible. "Show your work" is the appropriate maxim. Diagrams could be
one useful part of such a showing. What the Department recommends,
however, is a video of a demonstration showing carrier personnel
actually transferring passengers with disabilities -- preferably,
passengers of various sizes \-- into the seat or row in question from an
aisle or boarding chair.

Carriers are not required to retrofit cabins of existing aircraft to
install movable armrests. However, if a carrier replaces any of an
aircraft's aisle seats with newly manufactured seats, at least half the
replacement seats must have movable armrests. For example, if a carrier
replaces four aisle seats with newly manufactured seats, then two of
these seats have to have movable armrests. If the carrier is replacing
an odd number of seats, a majority of the newly manufactured aisle seats
installed must have movable armrests. For example, if the carrier is
replacing five old aisle seats with newly manufactured seats, at least
three of the newly manufactured aisle seats must have movable armrests.
The Department does not intend this provision to require carriers to
have more than 50% movable armrests in the cabin, however. For example,
suppose an aircraft has 40 aisle seats, 20 of which have movable
armrests. The carrier decides to replace five aisle seats that do not
have movable armrests with newly manufactured seats. These new seats
would not have to include movable armrests.

The timing of the application of these requirements is as follows:
Foreign carriers must comply with "new aircraft" requirements with
respect to planes ordered after the effective date of this Part or
delivered more than one year after the effective date of this Part.
Foreign carriers must comply with the requirement for replacement seats
(paragraph (e)) beginning on the effective date of the rule. U.S.
carriers are already subject to the requirements of this section, except
the proportionality requirement (paragraph (c)) with respect to aircraft
ordered after April 5, 1990 or delivered after April 5, 1992. When we
say "new aircraft" in this context, we mean aircraft that were new at
the time they were ordered by or delivered to the U.S. carrier. U.S.
carriers will have to comply with paragraph (c) for new aircraft ordered
after the effective date of this Part or which are delivered more than
one year after the effective date of this Part. With respect to the
purchase of used aircraft, in this section and similar places, the date
the aircraft was originally ordered from the manufacturer or initially
delivered by the manufacturer determines whether the aircraft is subject
to the aircraft accessibility requirements of this Part.

**382. 63 What are the requirements for accessible lavatories?** As
under the present rule, only aircraft with more than one aisle must have
an accessible lavatory. U.S. carriers are already subject to these
requirements for new aircraft they ordered after April 5, 1990, or which
were delivered after April 5, 1992. Foreign carriers must comply with
respect to new aircraft ordered after the effective date of the rule or
delivered more than one year after the effective date.

Also, if a carrier replaces a lavatory on an aircraft with more than one
aisle it must replace the lavatory with an accessible unit. A carrier
need not have more than one accessible lavatory on an aircraft, however.
This requirement already applies to U.S. carriers for new aircraft they
ordered after April 5, 1990, or which were delivered after April 5,
1992. It will begin to apply to foreign carriers on the effective date
of the rule.

**382. 65 What are the requirements concerning on-board wheelchairs?**
These requirements are also patterned on the existing rule. In aircraft
with more than 60 passenger seats, carriers must provide an on-board
wheelchair if the aircraft has an accessible lavatory. In an aircraft
that has 60 or more seats that does not have an accessible lavatory, the
carrier must provide an on-board wheelchair on the request, with advance
notice, of a person who can use the inaccessible lavatory but cannot
reach it from his or her seat without use of an on-board wheelchair.
U.S. carriers are already subject to these requirements. Foreign
carriers must meet these requirements by a date one year after the
rule's effective date.

Under the current rule, the Department had granted exemptions to the
requirement for providing a requested on-board wheelchair to two
aircraft models, the ATP and the ATR-72. These exemptions will remain in
force under the new rule.

**382.67 What is the requirement for priority space in the cabin to
store a passenger's wheelchair?** The most important change in this
section from the present regulation is that carriers are no longer
required to stow any kind of electric wheelchair in the cabin. Only
manual wheelchairs are required to be stored there. The section provides
that there must be a priority space in the cabin capable of stowing at
least one adult-size manual wheelchair of the stated dimensions. This
requirement applies to aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats. The
space must be in addition to the normal under-seat and overhead
compartment storage made available for carry-on luggage. Where a carrier
plans to use a closet or other storage area to comply with this
requirement, we emphasize that in saying priority storage we mean that
the space for a wheelchair trumps other possible uses for that closet or
other storage area, including passenger hanging bags and crew luggage.
This requirement to stow a passenger's wheelchair in the cabin is in
addition to the carrier's on-board wheelchair as required under section
382.65. This requirement already applies to U.S. carriers for new
aircraft they ordered after April 5, 1990, or which were delivered after
April 5, 1992. Foreign carriers must comply with respect to new aircraft
ordered after the effective date of the rule or delivered more than one
year after the effective date.

**382.69 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the
accessibility of videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual presentations
shown on aircraft to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing?** This
section requires carriers to ensure that all new videos, DVDs, and other
audio-visual displays played on aircraft for safety purposes, and all
such audio-visual displays played on aircraft for informational purposes
that were created under the carrier's control, are high-contrast
captioned. The captioning must be in the predominant language or
languages in which the carrier communicates with passengers on the
flight. If the carrier communicates regularly in more than one language
(e.g., French and English on a Canadian air carrier), then the
captioning must be in all of those languages. By saying that this
section applies to "new" videos, we mean that carriers are not required
to retrofit or replace existing videos.

For purposes of this section, we view a video as being controlled by a
carrier not only if the carrier directly produces it, but if a
contractor or other party produces the video for the carrier's use, with
the carrier having significant editorial control or approval of the
video's content. Note that the provision about carrier control of a
video applies only to informational materials. Safety materials must be
captioned in all cases.

The requirements of this section go into effect 180 days after the
effective date of the rule with respect to safety videos, and 240 days
after the effective date of the rule with respect to informational
videos. This timing is the same for both U.S. and foreign carriers. The
corresponding section of the current version of Part 382 permits
carriers to use a non-video alternative only if neither open captioning
nor a sign language interpreter inset can be used without so interfering
with the video as to render it ineffective. This exception is not
included in the new rule. The overall effective date of the rule is one
year after the rule is published, but, as indicated above, carriers are
not required to implement the provision concerning videos in the new
rule until 180 to 240 days after that overall effective date.
Consequently, starting on the overall effective date (i.e., one year
after the rule is published) there would be no requirement in effect on
this subject for U.S. carriers. In order to avoid such a situation, as a
bridge between the current Part 382 and the new Part 382 U.S. carriers
are required to comply with a requirement identical to the current
rule's provision on safety videos between the effective date of the new
rule and 180 days after that date.

**382.71 What other aircraft accessibility requirements apply to
carriers?** This provision, like its counterpart in the existing rule,
requires maintenance of accessibility features in proper working order
and tells carriers to ensure that any replacement or refurbishing of
cabin features does not reduce existing accessibility.

**382.81 For which passengers must carriers make seating
accommodations?**

**382.83 Through what mechanisms do carriers make seating
accommodations?**

**382.85 What seating accommodations must carriers make to passengers in
circumstances not covered by section 382.81 (a) through (d)?** Carriers
must provide a seat that will accommodate a passenger with a disability
other than one listed in section 382.81 (a) -- (d) when the passenger
self-identifies and requests the accommodation in order to readily
access and use the carrier's air transportation service.

**382.87 What other requirements pertain to seating for passengers with
a disability?** These provisions are essentially the same as their
counterparts in the existing regulation. The provisions are broken out
into additional sections for clarity. The rule requires carriers to
ensure an adequate number of seats to handle a reasonably expectable
demand for seating accommodations of various kinds and emphasizes the
need for passengers to self-identify in order to get seating
accommodations. The provisions already apply to U.S. carriers and will
apply to foreign carriers on the effective date of the rule. The
one-year delay in the effective date of the rule following publication
should be sufficient for foreign carriers to design procedures to carry
out these requirements.

**382.91 What assistance must carriers provide to passengers with a
disability in moving within the terminal?** With respect to connecting
assistance, the basic mandate is the same as under the existing rule.
The arriving carrier (i.e., the one that operates the first of the two
flights that are connecting) has the responsibility for connecting
assistance. It is permissible for the two carriers to mutually agree
that the carrier operating the departing connecting flight (i.e., the
second flight of the two) will provide this assistance, but the carrier
operating the arriving flight remains responsible under this section for
ensuring that the assistance is provided.

The requirements concerning movement through the terminal are clarified
to say that the carrier's assistance responsibility starts at the
terminal entrance and goes through the airport to the gate for a
passenger arriving to take a flight, and vice-versa for a passenger
leaving the airport after a flight.

One addition concerns enroute stops at the entrance to a rest room. If
the passenger is being assisted along the basic route from entrance to
gate or vice-versa, or to make a connection, and the route goes by a
rest room, the person assisting the passenger must stop and allow the
passenger to use the amenity, if doing so will not result in
unreasonable delay. To receive this assistance, the passenger must
self-identify. It could also be very helpful to a passenger to be able
to stop at a takeout food or beverage vendor that was enroute, if doing
so would would not result in an unreasonable delay. The final rule does
not require a stop for this purpose, but we believe that airlines and
airports interested in good customer service would should allow a brief
stop for this purpose.

Another addition, applicable only in U.S. airports, is that a carrier
would, on request, and in cooperation with the airport operator, have to
escort a passenger to a service animal relief area. Finally, carriers
would have to assist passengers with disabilities in transporting their
carry-on or gate-checked luggage to or from the gate. This obligation
would arise only if the passenger could make credible verbal assurances
of his or her inability to carry the item due to his or her disability.
If the passenger's verbal assurances to the carrier are not credible,
the carrier may require the passenger to produce documentation as a
condition of providing the service. All the services mentioned in this
paragraph would be provided only on request of a passenger with a
disability.

At foreign airports, as mentioned in connection with the terminal
accessibility section, airport operators may be the basic providers of
terminal services. The carrier may rely on these services, but would
have to supplement them if they did not fully comply with the provisions
of this Part.

**382. 93** **Must carriers offer preboarding to passengers with a
disability?** Carrier must offer an opportunity for preboarding to
passengers with a disability who self-identify at the gate as needing
additional time or assistance to board, stow accessibility equipment, or
be seated. This obligation exists regardless of the carriers'
preboarding policies for other persons (e.g., families with small
children). Carriers are not required to make general announcements about
preboarding in the gate area specifically for passengers with
disabilities, where no preboarding announcements are made for other
types of passengers. However, as a matter of general nondiscrimination
principles, a carrier that makes a preboarding announcement in the gate
area for other types or classes of passengers would have to make the
announcement for persons with disabilities as well.

**382.95 What are carriers' general obligations with respect to boarding
and deplaning assistance?** Carriers must promptly provide assistance to
passengers in getting on and getting off aircraft. The assistance can
use a variety of means to accomplish the section's objective; examples
are listed in paragraph (a). This obligation exists at both U.S. and
foreign airports.

At U.S. airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements, boarding
assistance must be provided through the use of lifts or ramps, where
level-entry boarding is not otherwise available (paragraph (b)).

**382.97 To which aircraft does the requirement to provide boarding and
deplaning assistance through the use of lifts apply?** At U.S. airports
where lift or ramp boarding is required, the requirement applies to
aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats, with a few stated exceptions.
The Department reserves the option to expand the list of aircraft to
which the requirement does not apply, if we determine that there is no
model of boarding device on the market that will accommodate the
aircraft without a significant risk of serious damage to the aircraft or
injury to persons, or that there are internal barriers in the aircraft
that would preclude passengers who use a boarding or aisle chair from
reaching a non-exit row seat. The Department need not amend this rule in
order to make such a determination.

**382.99 What agreements must carriers have with the airports they
serve?** Consistent with the present rule, carriers serving U.S.
airports must have agreements with the airport operators to provide,
operate, and maintain lifts and ramps used to meet the boarding
requirement of section 382.95(b). This requirement already applies to
U.S. carriers. Foreign carriers would have a year from the effective
date of the rule to enter into such agreements. Foreign carriers serving
a particular airport may be able to join existing agreements among the
airport and U.S. carriers serving it, rather than starting from scratch.
Foreign carriers would have two years from the effective date of the
rule to ensure that the boarding assistance called for in this rule was
actually being provided.

Carriers may require passengers needing lift assistance for boarding to
check in for the flight an hour before the standard check-in time for
the flight.

**382.101 What other boarding and deplaning assistance must carriers
provide?** When level-entry boarding is not required, carriers must
still take whatever actions are necessary to assist people with
disabilities to get on and off aircraft. For example, boarding and
deplaning assistance using lifts is not required at smaller U.S.
airports and foreign airports, or when severe weather or unexpected
mechanical breakdowns prevent the use of a lift. In those circumstances,
airlines must still provide enplaning and deplaning assistance by other
available means, such as by placing the passenger in a boarding chair
and carrying him or her up the boarding stairs unless the design of the
aircraft (e.g., the Fairchild Metro, the Jetstream 31 and 32, the Beech
1900 (C and D models) and the Embraer EMB-120) makes this impossible.
The only limitation on the means of providing this assistance is that
hand-carrying by carrier personnel as defined in that section is
prohibited, except in situations of an emergency evacuation where no
other timely means of assistance is available.

3**82.103 May a carrier leave a passenger unattended in a wheelchair or
other device?** The carrier and its contractors may not leave a
passenger unattended in a wheelchair or other device in which the
passenger is not independently mobile for more than 30 minutes.

**382.105 What is the responsibility of carriers at foreign airports at
which airport operators have responsibility for enplaning, deplaning, or
connecting assistance?** This section reemphasizes that at a foreign
airport where airport operators have this responsibility, both U.S and
foreign carriers can rely on the airport operator's services. If these
services do not fully meet the requirements of this Part, then the
carrier must supplement the airport operator's services to ensure that
the requirements are met. If a carrier believes that it is legally
precluded from supplementing the airport operator's services, it can
apply for a conflict of laws waiver.

**382.111 What services must carriers provide to passengers with a
disability on board the aircraft?**

**382.113 What services are carriers not required to provide to
passengers with a disability on board the aircraft?** These sections are
parallel to their counterparts in the existing rule. Personal care
services like assistance in actual eating and drinking are not required,
but more limited assistance such as assisting with the opening of
packages is required.

**382.115 What requirements apply to on-board safety briefings?** This
provision also parallels its counterpart in the existing rule.

**382.117 Must carriers permit passengers with a disability to travel
with service animals?** This section has been made more detailed than
the current rule's service animal provision, in response to the comments
discussed earlier in the preamble. Appendix A provides further guidance
to carriers and passengers concerning service animals.

The general rule is that service animals must be allowed to accompany
their users. Carriers cannot deny transportation to a service animal
because its presence may offend or annoy other passengers (e.g., by
causing an allergic reaction that does not rise to the level of a
disability or by offending someone's cultural or personal preferences).
When another passenger is uncomfortable with proximity to a service
animal, the carrier should do its best to satisfy all passengers by
offering the uncomfortable passenger the opportunity to sit elsewhere.
Forcing the passenger with the service animal to move to another seat to
make another passenger more comfortable, let alone denying
transportation in the cabin to the service animal or its user, is not an
option.

If a flight segment is scheduled to take eight hours or more, the
carrier may require documentation that the service animal will not need
to relieve itself or can do so in a way that will not create a health or
sanitation issue on the flight.

The only acceptable reason for not allowing a service animal to
accompany its user at the user's seat is that the animal will block a
space that, according to FAA or equivalent foreign safety regulations,
must remain unobstructed. If, for this reason, the animal cannot be
accommodated at the user's seat, the carrier must allow the passenger
and the animal to sit elsewhere on the aircraft, if an appropriate place
exists.

There are new, more detailed procedures for the carriage of emotional
support and psychiatric service animals. The carrier may require the
passenger to provide current documentation from a mental health
professional caring for the passenger that the passenger has a specific,
recognized mental or emotional disability and that the passenger needs
to be accompanied by the specific emotional support or psychiatric
service animal in question, either on the flight or at the passenger's
destination.

Certain unusual service animals need never be accommodated (e.g.,
rodents, snakes). Other uncommonly used animals (e.g., miniature horses,
monkeys) can travel as service animals on U.S. carriers, but the carrier
can decide to exclude a particular animal on a case-by-case basis if it
is too large or heavy to be accommodated on a given flight. Foreign
carriers are not required to carry service animals other than dogs. We
will seek further comment in the SNPRM on whether there are
safety-related reasons for excluding animals that may be specific to
foreign carriers.

Near the end of this preamble, the Department has included a revised
guidance document containing further discussion of service animal
matters. With the exception of changes discussed earlier in the
preamble, this guidance document incorporates the guidance the
Department issued on service animal matters in May 2003. As guidance, it
does not have independent mandatory effect, but rather describes how the
Department understands the requirements of section 382.117. It also
makes suggestions and recommendations concerning how carriers can best
accommodate service animals and their users.

The guidance document notes that carriers can properly apply the same
policies to "psychiatric service animals" as they do for emotional
support animals. This is because carriers and the Department have
encountered instances of attempted abuse of service animal
transportation policies by persons traveling with animals in both
categories. Should the Department encounter a pattern of abuse
concerning service animals in other categories, we can consider
additional safeguards with respect to those categories as well.

We would call also readers' attention to recent DOT guidance concerning
the transportation of service animals into the United Kingdom. "Guidance
Concerning the Carriage of Services Animals in Air Transportation Into
the United Kingdom" (February 26, 2007) discusses the transportation of
service dogs and cats into the U.K. via U.S. and foreign carriers. To
transport service animals into the U.K., carriers must participate in
the U.K. Pet Travel Scheme. A supplementary DOT guidance document,
"Carriage of Service Animals in Air Transportation Into the United
Kingdom and Foreign Health Documentation Requirements for Service
Animals in Air Transportation" (July 17, 2007), provides further
information for carriers and the public concerning carriage of, and
documentation needed for, carriage of service animals into countries
other than the U.K. These documents may be found on the Department's
Aviation Consumer Protection Division website.

**382.119 What information must carriers give individuals with vision or
hearing impairment on aircraft?** This section requires that carriers
ensure that passengers with a disability who identify themselves as
needing visual or hearing assistance have prompt access to the same
information provided to other passengers on the aircraft. In providing
this information, carriers are not required to take steps that would
interfere with crewmembers' safety duties as set forth in FAA and
applicable foreign regulations.

The covered information includes, but is not limited to, information
concerning flight safety, procedures for takeoff and landing, flight
delays, schedule or aircraft changes that affect the travel of persons
with disabilities, diversion to a different airport, scheduled departure
and arrival time, boarding information, weather conditions at the
flight's destination, beverage and menu information, connecting gate
assignments, baggage claim (e.g., at which carousel an arriving flight's
bags may be retrieved), individuals being paged by airlines, and
emergencies (*e.g.*, fire or bomb threat). The requirement of this
section applies whether the information is provided to passengers by the
carrier in the aircraft or in the terminal (e.g., the gate area).

We intend to require carriers to provide information that a reasonable
consumer would deem important, even if it falls outside the list in
§382.119(b). Conversely, carriers are not required to provide
information that a reasonable consumer would not deem important. For
example, we do not consider information on sightseeing at the flight's
destination or an announcement that the aircraft is flying over the
Grand Canyon to be covered by this rule.

**382.121 What mobility aids and other assistive devices may passengers
with a disability bring into the aircraft cabin?** Passengers may bring
manual, but not electric wheelchairs, other mobility aids (e.g., canes,
including those used by blind passengers), and other assistive devices
(e.g., POCs), as well as prescription medications and any medical
devices needed to administer them (e.g., syringes, auto-injectors), as
long as they comply with applicable safety, security and hazardous
materials rules. These devices and aids cannot be counted against the
airline's carry-on limits.

**382.123 What are the requirements concerning priority cabin stowage
for wheelchairs and other assistive devices?** This section is related
to the requirements for priority stowage spaces in section 382.67 and an
opportunity to preboard in section 382.93. A passenger who takes
advantage of the offer to preboard can stow his or her wheelchair in the
aircraft's priority stowage area, with priority over other passengers'
items brought onto the aircraft at the same airport, consistent with
applicable safety and security regulatory requirements. The passenger's
wheelchair also takes priority over items that may be stowed in the
space by the carrier and its personnel, such as on-board wheelchairs or
crew luggage, even if these items came on board at an earlier stop of
the plane's itinerary. If such items are in the space when a wheelchair
user comes on board, they must be moved to accommodate the passenger's
wheelchair. Carriers must also offer this opportunity for other
assistive devices, though wheelchairs retain priority. Passengers with
wheelchairs or other assistive devices who do not preboard must still be
allowed to use the priority stowage areas for their devices, but their
use of the space is on a first-come-first-served basis with respect to
other passengers' items.

Some U.S. carriers have used the so-called "seat-strapping" method of
securing passengers' wheelchairs in the cabin, usually in situations in
which, contrary to the existing rule in some cases, aircraft did not
have closets or other spaces capable of accommodating the wheelchairs.
The Department does not believe that this is a good long-term approach
to carrying passenger wheelchairs in the cabin, especially in these
times of frequently full flights. The Department emphasizes that
providing priority stowage spaces as required by section 382.67 is
essential. To limit the ability of carriers to use the seat-strapping
method as a way of getting around the designated priority stowage
requirement, carriers may not use the seat-strapping method in any
aircraft ordered after the effective date of this Part or delivered more
than two years after the rule's effective date.

**382.125 What procedures do carriers follow when wheelchairs, other
mobility aids, and other assistive devices must be stowed in the cargo
compartment?** As under the current rule, electric wheelchairs and other
devices that are not required to be stowed in the cabin must be
transported in the cargo compartment. These items have priority over
other passengers' items. If other passengers' items are bumped as a
result, the carrier must use its best efforts to ensure that they are
delivered to the passenger's destination on the carrier's next flight.
This may be a flight within an hour or two with respect to a domestic
destination; it could be a matter of days with respect to some carriers'
international flights.

**382.127 What procedures apply to the stowage of battery-powered
mobility aids?** This provision does not make substantive changes from
its counterpart in the existing rule, except to say that carriers may
require a passenger wishing to check his or her device to check in an
hour before the standard check-in time for the flight. DOT's Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued a
special permit which may affect procedures for handling power
wheelchairs (see PHMSA "Special Permit 14548" dated October 5, 2007, and
revised on October 30, 2007.)

**382.129 What other requirements apply when passengers' wheelchairs,
other mobility aids, and other assistive devices must be disassembled
for stowage?**

**382.131 Do baggage liability limits apply to mobility aids and other
assistive devices?**

These provisions are substantively the same as their counterparts in the
existing rule. Carriers and passengers should note that section 382.131
applies only to domestic U.S. travel. Baggage liability limits for
international travel, including flights of U.S. carriers, are governed
by the Montreal Convention and other international agreements, rather
than by 14 CFR Part 254.

**382.133 What are the requirements concerning the evaluation and use of
passenger-owned electronic devices that assist passengers with
respiration in the cabin during flight and do not contain hazardous
materials?** The basic point of this section is that, with minor
exceptions, carriers must permit passengers with a disability to use a
portable oxygen concentrator (POC) and other respiratory assistive
devices in the cabin. Such devices must meet FAA or foreign government
requirements, as applicable, and display a manufacturer's label that
indicates that the device meets the FAA or foreign government
requirements.

When a passenger asks a carrier about bringing his or her electronic
respiratory assistive device, the carrier must tell the passenger about
the requirements for carrying such a device on board, touching on such
matters as meeting FAA requirements, having the manufacturer's label,
bringing an adequate number of fully charged batteries, any check-in or
advance notice requirements, medical certificate requirements, and the
expected duration of the flight. Carriers may insist on passengers
bringing on board fully charged batteries adequate to last for 150
percent of the expected maximum flight duration. If a passenger does not
comply with the conditions outlined in the rule, the carrier can deny
him or her transportation on the flight.

**382.141 What training are carriers required to provide for their
personnel?** This section continues, for the most part, the requirements
of the existing rule. There are a few differences, in view of the rule's
application to foreign carriers. The requirement to consult with
disability groups now focuses on disability groups in the carrier's home
country. If such groups are not available, consulting with individuals
with disabilities or disability groups in other countries is
appropriate.

**382.143 When must carriers complete training for their personnel?**
Employees of U.S. carriers that have already received initial training
must be trained on changes to Part 382 at their next recurrent training
after the rule goes into effect or within one year after the effective
date of the rule, whichever comes first. New crewmembers have to be
trained before they assume their duties. Other employees new to a
position must be trained within 60 days after starting their jobs.
Current employees of foreign carriers that serve flights covered by the
rule must be trained within a year after the effective date of the rule.
After that date, new crewmembers must be trained before assuming their
duties, and other new employees within 60 days after when they assume
their duties. For employees who fall in between these categories --
those who start work during the first year after the effective date of
the rule -- training must occur before the second anniversary of the
effective date of the rule or 60 days from their start date, whichever
is later.

While the rule provides a reasonable amount of time for employees to be
trained, carriers are nevertheless responsible for violations that occur
between the effective date of the rule and the training deadlines. We
strongly encourage carriers to expedite their training schedules so that
as many employees as possible are trained by the final rule's effective
date.

To ensure that foreign carriers have resource persons to deal with
disability issues as soon as possible, foreign carriers will have to
complete training for CROs, and U.S. carriers will have to complete
training for CROs about changes in Part 382, by the effective date of
the rule. Given the critical role played by CROs in carriers'
implementation of the rule, it is essential for CROs to be trained
before the rule becomes effective. U.S. carriers have been subject to
requirements to train CROs under the existing rule, and additional
training for these CROs should be limited in scope, since it would need
only to cover changes between the existing rule and this final rule.
Since foreign carriers will have a year between the publication of the
rule and its effective date, they too should have adequate time to train
CROs by the effective date of the rule.

**382.145 What records concerning training must carriers retain?**
Carriers must maintain records of the procedures they use to comply with
this rule, including those portions of manuals and other instructional
materials concerning Part 382 compliance, and individual employee
training records. Training records must be retained for three years.
Carriers are not to send these materials to DOT for review, but it must
be made available to the Department if we ask to look at it. If we
determine that something in these materials needs to be changed in the
interest of compliance with the rule, the carrier must make the changes
the Department directs.

**382.151 What are the requirements for providing Complaints Resolution
Officials?**

The CRO requirement is essentially the same as under the current rule.
U.S. carriers must make a CRO available -- either in person or via
telephone -- at each airport the carrier serves, at all times the
carrier is operating at the airport. Foreign carriers must make a CRO
available at each airport serving flights the carrier operates that
begin or end at a U.S. airport. The Department realizes that, in some
cases, carriers operate covered flights infrequently. For example, a
foreign carrier may fly from Dulles to a foreign airport only at 5 p.m.
on Mondays and Thursdays. On other days, and on Monday and Thursday
mornings for that matter, the foreign airline would not have to make a
CRO available to persons at Dulles. CRO services would have to be made
available in languages in which the carrier provides services to the
general public.

This rule clarifies that carriers are responsible for making passengers
aware of the availability of a CRO in some circumstances even if the
passenger does not say "I want to talk to a CRO." If a passenger raises
a disability-related concern, and the carrier's personnel do not
immediately resolve the issue to the customer's satisfaction, the
carrier must say, in effect, "We have a CRO available that you can talk
to about this problem if you want to. The CRO is our resource person who
can help solve disability-related issues. Here is where you can find, or
call, our CRO."

CROs must have authority to definitively resolve complaints. This means
they must have the power to overrule decisions of other carrier
personnel, except that they are not required to have authority to
countermand a safety decision of a pilot-in-command of an aircraft. Of
course, even decisions of pilots, if they later are shown to be in
noncompliance with this rule, can subject the carrier to DOT enforcement
action.

**38.153 What actions do CROs take on complaints?**

**382.155 How must carriers respond to written complaints?**

CROs are to promptly take action to resolve complaints made to them. In
some cases, CROs can take quick action to prevent a potential violation
(e.g., a threatened denial of service) from becoming a real violation.
If a CRO determines that a violation has already occurred, the CRO must
write the complainant and describe the carrier's corrective action. Of
course, not all complaints have merit, and if the CRO decides that a
violation did not occur, the CRO must also write the complainant and
explain this determination. CRO responses are due 30 days from the date
of the complaint.

Often, complaints to carriers may be made in writing (letters, e-mails
etc.). These complaints may or may not have been processed through the
carrier's CRO, though they need to state whether a CRO was involved.
Except for complaints DOT refers to a carrier, the carrier is not
required to respond to a complaint transmitted more than 45 days after
the incident in question. The carrier must respond within 30 days.

**382.157 What are carriers obligations for recordkeeping and reporting
on disability-related complaints?** This section is identical to the
current regulatory provision on disability-related complaint reporting.
The language referring to carriers "covered by this Part" is not
intended to change the scope of the existing provision, which refers to
carriers conducting passenger operations with at least one aircraft
having a designed seating capacity of more than 60 seats on flights to,
from, or in the United States.

**382.159 How are complaints filed with DOT?** Changes from the
corresponding provision of the existing regulation include a time frame
for filing informal complaints, a change of postal address for sending
an informal complaint by mail, and the web address for filing an
informal complaint on the Air Consumer website.

**Appendix A Disability Complaint Reporting Form**

This appendix contains the form carriers use to submit
disability-related complaint data.

**Appendix B -- Cross-Reference Table**

This appendix provides, for the convenience of readers, information on
where material found in a given section of the existing version of Part
382 is found in the new version of Part 382.

**GUIDANCE CONCERNING SERVICE ANIMALS**

**Introduction**

In 1990, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) promulgated the
official regulations implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).
Those rules are entitled [Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability
in Air Travel]{.underline} (14 CFR Part 382). Since then the number of
people with disabilities traveling by air has grown steadily. This
growth has increased the demand for air transportation accessible to all
people with disabilities and the importance of understanding DOT's
regulations and how to apply them. This document expands on an earlier
DOT guidance document published in 1996[^3], which was based on an
earlier Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service animal guide
issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in July 1996. The purpose of
this document is to aid airline employees and people with disabilities
in understanding and applying the ACAA and the provisions of Part 382
with respect to service animals in determining:

(1) whether an animal is a service animal and its user a qualified
    individual with a disability;

(2) how to accommodate a qualified person with a disability with a
    service animal in the aircraft cabin; and

(3) when a service animal legally can be refused carriage in the cabin.

This guidance will also be used by Department of Transportation staff in
reviewing the implementation of §382.117 of this Part by carriers.

**Background**

The 1996 DOT guidance document defines a service animal as "any guide
dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide
assistance to an individual with a disability. If the animal meets this
definition, it is considered a service animal regardless of whether it
has been licensed or certified by a state or local government." This
document refines DOT's previous definition of service animal[^4] by
making it clear that animals that assist persons with disabilities by
providing emotional support qualify as service animals and ensuring
that, in situations concerning emotional support animals and psychiatric
service animals, the authority of airline personnel to require
documentation of the individual's disability and the medical necessity
of the passenger traveling with the animal is understood.

Today, both the public and people with disabilities use many different
terms to identify animals that can meet the legal definition of "service
animal." These range from umbrella terms such as "assistance animal" to
specific labels such as "hearing," "signal," "seizure alert,"
"psychiatric service," "emotional support" animal, etc. that describe
how the animal assists a person with a disability.

When Part 382 was first promulgated, most service animals were guide or
hearing dogs. Since then, a wider variety of animals (e.g., cats,
monkeys, etc.) have been individually trained to assist people with
disabilities. Service animals also perform a much wider variety of
functions than ever before (e.g., alerting a person with epilepsy of
imminent seizure onset, pulling a wheelchair, assisting persons with
mobility impairments with balance). These developments can make it
difficult for airline employees to distinguish service animals from
pets, especially when a passenger does not appear to be disabled, or the
animal has no obvious indicators that it is a service animal. Passengers
may claim that their animals are service animals at times to get around
airline policies that restrict the carriage of pets. Clear guidelines
are needed to assist airline personnel and people with disabilities in
knowing what to expect and what to do when these assessments are made.

Since airlines also are obliged to provide all accommodations in
accordance with FAA safety regulations, educated consumers help assure
that airlines provide accommodations consistent with the carriers'
safety duties and responsibilities. Educated consumers also assist the
airline in providing them the services they want, including
accommodations, as quickly and efficiently as possible.

**General Requirements of Part 382**

In a nutshell, the main requirements of Part 382 regarding service
animals are:

-   Carriers shall permit dogs and other service animals used by persons
    with disabilities to accompany the persons on a flight. See
    §382.117(a).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Carriers shall accept as evidence that an animal is a service animal
    identifiers such as identification cards, other written
    documentation, presence of harnesses, tags or the credible verbal
    assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the
    animal.

-   Carriers shall permit a service animal to accompany a qualified
    individual with a disability in any seat in which the person sits,
    unless the animal obstructs an aisle or other area that must remain
    unobstructed in order to facilitate an emergency evacuation or to
    comply with FAA regulations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If a service animal cannot be accommodated at the seat location of
    the qualified individual with a disability whom the animal is
    accompanying, the carrier shall offer the passenger the opportunity
    to move with the animal to a seat location in the same class of
    service, if present on the aircraft, where the animal can be
    accommodated, as an alternative to requiring that the animal travel
    in the cargo hold (see §382.117(c)).

-   Carriers shall not impose charges for providing facilities,
    equipment, or services that are required by this Part to be provided
    to qualified individuals with a disability (see §382.31).

**Two Steps for Airline Personnel**

To determine whether an animal is a service animal and should be allowed
to accompany its user in the cabin, airline personnel should:

1.  Establish whether the animal is a pet or a service animal, and
    whether the passenger is a qualified individual with a disability;
    and then

2.  Determine if the service animal presents either

-   a "direct threat to the health or safety of others," or

-   a significant threat of disruption to the airline service in the
    cabin (i.e., a "fundamental alteration" to passenger service). See
    §382.19(c).

**[Service Animals]{.underline}**

***How do I know it's a service animal and not a pet?***

Remember: In most situations [the key is TRAINING.]{.underline}
Generally, a service animal is individually trained to perform functions
to assist the passenger who is a qualified individual with a disability.
In a few extremely limited situations, an animal such as a seizure alert
animal may be capable of performing functions to assist a qualified
person with a disability without individualized training. Also, an
animal used for emotional support need not have specific training for
that function. Similar to an animal that has been individually trained,
the definition of a service animal includes: an animal that has been
shown to have the innate ability to assist a person with a disability;
or an emotional support animal.

These five steps can help one determine whether an animal is a service
animal or a pet:

1.  [Obtain credible verbal assurances]{.underline}: Ask the passenger:
    ***"Is this your pet?"*** If the passenger responds that the animal
    is a service animal and not a pet, but uncertainty remains about the
    animal, appropriate follow-up questions would include:

-   ***"What tasks or functions does your animal perform for you?\"***
    or

-   ***"What has it been trained to do for you?"***

-   ***"Would you describe how the animal performs this task (or
    function) for you?"***

> • As noted earlier, functions include, but are not limited to:
>
> A. helping blind or visually impaired people to safely negotiate their
> surroundings;
>
> B. alerting deaf and hard-of-hearing persons to sounds;
>
> C. helping people with mobility impairments to open and close doors,
> retrieve objects, transfer from one seat to another, maintain balance;
> or
>
> D. alert or respond to a disability-related need or emergency (e.g.,
> seizure, extreme social anxiety or panic attack).
>
> • Note that to be a service animal that can properly travel in the
> cabin, the animal need not necessarily perform a function for the
> passenger during the flight. For example, some dogs are trained to
> help pull a passenger's wheelchair or carry items that the passenger
> cannot readily carry while using his or her wheelchair. It would not
> be appropriate to deny transportation in the cabin to such a dog.
>
> • If a passenger cannot provide credible assurances that an animal has
> been individually trained or is able to perform some task or function
> to assist the passenger with his or her disability, the animal might
> not be a service animal. In this case, the airline personnel may
> require documentation (see Documentation below).
>
> • There may be cases in which a passenger with a disability has
> personally trained an animal to perform a specific function (e.g.,
> seizure alert). Such an animal may not have been trained through a
> formal training program (e.g., a "school" for service animals). If the
> passenger can provide a reasonable explanation of how the animal was
> trained or how it performs the function for which it is being used,
> this can constitute a "credible verbal assurance" that the animal has
> been trained to perform a function for the passenger.

2.  [Look for physical indicators on the animal]{.underline}: Some
    service animals wear harnesses, vests, capes or backpacks. Markings
    on these items or on the animal's tags may identify it as a service
    animal. It should be noted, however, that the absence of such
    equipment does not necessarily mean the animal is not a service
    animal. Similarly, the presence of a harness or vest on a pet for
    which the passenger cannot provide such credible verbal assurance
    may not be sufficient evidence that the animal is, in fact, a
    legitimate service animal.

3.  [Request documentation for service animals other than emotional
    support or psychiatric service animals]{.underline}: The law allows
    airline personnel to ask for documentation as a means of verifying
    that the animal is a service animal, but DOT's rules tell carriers
    not to require documentation as a condition for permitting an
    individual to travel with his or her service animal in the cabin
    unless a passenger's verbal assurance is not credible. In that case,
    the airline may require documentation as a condition for allowing
    the animal to travel in the cabin. This should be an infrequent
    situation. The purpose of documentation is to substantiate the
    passenger's disability-related need for the animal's accompaniment,
    which the airline may require as a condition to permit the animal to
    travel in the cabin. Examples of documentation include a letter from
    a licensed professional treating the passenger's condition (e.g.,
    physician, mental health professional, vocational case manager,
    etc.)

4.  [Require documentation for emotional support and psychiatric service
    animals]{.underline}: With respect to an animal used for emotional
    support (which need not have specific training for that function but
    must be trained to behave appropriately in a public setting),
    airline personnel may require current documentation (i.e., not more
    than one year old) on letterhead from a licensed mental health
    professional stating (1) that the passenger has a mental
    health-related disability listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical
    Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV); (2) that having the animal
    accompany the passenger is necessary to the passenger's mental
    health or treatment; (3) that the individual providing the
    assessment of the passenger is a licensed mental health professional
    and the passenger is under his or her professional care; and (4) the
    date and type of the mental health professional's license and the
    state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued. Airline
    personnel may require this documentation as a condition of
    permitting the animal to accompany the passenger in the cabin. The
    purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse by passengers that do
    not have a medical need for an emotional support animal and to
    ensure that passengers who have a legitimate need for emotional
    support animals are permitted to travel with their service animals
    on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to require the
    documentation to specify the type of mental health disability, e.g.,
    panic attacks.

> There is a separate category of service animals generally known as
> "psychiatric service animals." These animals may be trained by their
> owners, sometimes with the assistance of a professional trainer, to
> perform tasks such as fetching medications, reminding the user to take
> medications, helping people with balance problems caused by
> medications or an underlying condition, bringing a phone to the user
> in an emergency or activating a specially equipped emergency phone, or
> acting as a buffer against other people crowding too close). As with
> emotional support animals, it is possible for this category of animals
> to be a source of abuse by persons attempting to circumvent carrier
> rules concerning transportation of pets. Consequently, it is
> appropriate for airlines to apply the same advance notice and
> documentation requirements to psychiatric service animals as they do
> to emotional support animals.

5.  [Observe behavior of animals]{.underline}: Service animals are
    trained to behave properly in public settings. For example, a
    properly trained guide dog will remain at its owner's feet. It does
    not run freely around an aircraft or an airport gate area, bark or
    growl repeatedly at other persons on the aircraft, bite or jump on
    people, or urinate or defecate in the cabin or gate area. An animal
    that engages in such disruptive behavior shows that it has not been
    successfully trained to function as a service animal in public
    settings. Therefore, airlines are not required to treat it as a
    service animal, even if the animal performs an assistive function
    for a passenger with a disability or is necessary for a passenger's
    emotional well-being.

***What about service animals in training?***

Part 382 requires airlines to allow service animals to accompany their
handlers[^5] in the cabin of the aircraft, but airlines are not required
otherwise to carry animals of any kind either in the cabin or in the
cargo hold. Airlines are free to adopt any policy they choose regarding
the carriage of pets and other animals (e.g., search and rescue dogs)
provided that they comply with other applicable requirements (e.g., the
Animal Welfare Act). Although "service animals in training" are not
pets, the ACAA does not include them, because "in training" status
indicates that they do not yet meet the legal definition of service
animal. However, like pet policies, airline policies regarding service
animals in training vary. Some airlines permit qualified trainers to
bring service animals in training aboard an aircraft for training
purposes. Trainers of service animals should consult with airlines, and
become familiar with their policies.

***What about a service animal that is not accompanying a qualified
individual with a disability?***

When a service animal is not accompanying a passenger with a disability,
the airline\'s general policies on the carriage of animals usually
apply. Airline personnel should know their company's policies on pets,
service animals in training, and the carriage of animals generally.
Individuals planning to travel with a service animal other than their
own should inquire about the applicable policies in advance.

**[Qualified Individuals with Disabilities]{.underline}**[^6]

***How do** **I know if a passenger is a qualified individual with a
disability who is entitled to bring a service animal in the cabin of the
aircraft if the disability is not readily apparent?***

-   Ask the passenger about his or her disability as it relates to the
    need for a service animal. Once the passenger identifies the animal
    as a service animal, you may ask, ***"How does your animal assist
    you with your disability?"*** Avoid the question "What is your
    disability?" as this implies you are asking for a medical label or
    the cause of the disability, which is intrusive and inconsistent
    with the intent of the ACAA. Remember, Part 382 is intended to
    facilitate travel by people with disabilities by requiring airlines
    to accommodate them on an individual basis.

-   Ask the passenger whether he or she has documentation as a means of
    verifying the medical necessity of the passenger traveling with the
    animal. **Keep in mind that you can ask but cannot require
    documentation as proof of service animal status UNLESS (1) a
    passenger's verbal assurance is not credible and the airline
    personnel cannot in good faith determine whether the animal is a
    service animal without documentation, or (2) a passenger indicates
    that the animal is to be used as an emotional support or psychiatric
    service animal.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Using the questions and other factors above, you must decide whether
    it is reasonable to believe that the passenger is a qualified
    individual with a disability, and the animal is a service animal.

**[Denying a Service Animal Carriage in the Cabin]{.underline}**

***What do I do if I believe that carriage of the animal in the cabin of
the aircraft would inconvenience non-disabled passengers?***

Part 382 requires airlines to permit qualified individuals with a
disability to be accompanied by their service animals in the cabin, as
long as the animals do not 1) pose a direct threat to the health or
safety of others (e.g., animal displays threatening behaviors by
growling, snarling, lunging at, or attempting to bite other persons on
the aircraft) or 2) cause a significant disruption in cabin service
(i.e. a "fundamental alteration" to passenger service). Offense or
inconvenience to other passengers (e.g., a cultural or personal
discomfort with being in proximity to certain kinds of animals,
allergies that do not rise to the level of a disability, reasonable
limitations on foot space) is not sufficient grounds to deny a service
animal carriage in the cabin. However, carriers should try to
accommodate the wishes of other passengers in this situation, such as by
relocating them to a different part of the aircraft.

***What do I do if a passenger claims that he or she is allergic to
someone else's service animal?***

\* First, remember that not all allergies rise to the level of a
disability. The fact that someone may have a stuffy nose or sneeze when
exposed to dog or cat dander does not necessarily mean that the
individual has a disability.

\* If a passenger expresses discomfort or annoyance because of an
allergic reaction to the presence of a service animal nearby, you can
offer the uncomfortable passenger the opportunity to change to a seat
further away from the animal. Passengers who state they have allergies
or other animal aversions should be located as far away from the service
animal as practicable. Each individual\'s needs should be addressed to
the fullest extent possible under the circumstances and in accordance
with the requirements of Part 382 and company policy.

\* If a passenger provides credible verbal assurances, or medical
documentation, that he or she has an allergy to a particular sort of
animal that rises to the level of a disability (e.g., produces shock or
respiratory distress that could require emergency or significant medical
treatment), and there is a service animal of that kind seated nearby,
the carrier should try to place as much distance as possible between the
service animal and the individual with the allergy. Depending on where
the passengers are initially seated, this could involve moving both
passengers. For example, if both are seated toward the center of the
cabin, one could be moved to the front and the other to the back.

\* It is unlikely that the mere presence of an animal in the same cabin
would, by itself, even if located at a distance from an allergic
passenger, produce a severe allergic reaction rising to the level of a
disability. However, if there was strong evidence that this was the
case, it could be necessary to rebook one of the passengers on another
flight. Since one disability does not trump another, the carrier should
consider a disability-neutral means of determining which passenger would
have to be rebooked (e.g., which passenger made the earlier
reservation). We emphasize that we expect any such situation to be
extremely rare, and that carriers should not rebook a passenger absent
strong evidence that the mere presence of an animal in the cabin, even
in a location distant from the allergic passenger, would produce an
allergic reaction rising to the level of a disability.

\* There may be situations in which, with respect to a passenger who
brings a very serious potential allergy situation to the attention of
your personnel, it is appropriate to seek a medical certificate for the
passenger.

***What do I do if I believe that a passenger's assertions about having
a disability or a service animal are not credible?***

-   Ask if the passenger has documentation that satisfies the
    requirements for determining that the animal is a service animal
    (see discussion of "Documentation" above).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If the passenger has no documents, then explain to the passenger
    that the animal cannot be carried in the cabin, because it does not
    meet the criteria for service animals. Explain your airline's policy
    on pets (i.e., will or will not accept for carriage in the cabin or
    cargo hold), and what procedures to follow.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If the passenger does not accept your explanation, avoid getting
    into an argument[.]{.underline} Ask the passenger to wait while you
    contact your airline's **[complaint resolution official
    (CRO)]{.underline}**. Part 382 requires all airlines to have a CRO
    available at each airport they serve during all hours of operation.
    The CRO may be made available by telephone. The CRO is a resource
    for resolving difficulties related to disability accommodation.

-   Consult with the CRO immediately, if possible. The CRO normally has
    the authority to make the final decision regarding carriage of
    service animals. In the rare instance that a service animal would
    raise a concern regarding flight safety, the CRO may consult with
    the pilot-in-command. If the pilot-in-command makes a decision to
    restrict the animal from the cabin or the flight for safety reasons,
    the CRO cannot countermand the pilot's decision. This does not
    preclude the Department from taking subsequent enforcement action,
    however, if it is determined that the pilot's decision was
    inconsistent with Part 382.

-   If a CRO makes the final decision not to accept an animal as a
    service animal, then the CRO must provide a written statement to the
    passenger within 10 days explaining the reason(s) for that
    determination. If carrier personnel other than the CRO make the
    final decision, a written explanation is not required; however,
    because denying carriage of a legitimate service animal is a
    potential civil rights violation, it is recommended that carrier
    personnel explain to the passenger the reason the animal will not be
    accepted as a service animal. A recommended practice may include
    sending passengers whose animals are not accepted as service animals
    a letter within 10 business days explaining the basis for such a
    decision.

In considering whether a service animal should be excluded from the
cabin, keep these things in mind:

-   Certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles,
    ferrets, rodents, and spiders) pose unavoidable safety and/or public
    health concerns and airlines are not required to transport them.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In all other circumstances for U.S. carriers, each situation must be
    considered individually. Do not make assumptions about how a
    particular unusual animal is likely to behave based on past
    experience with other animals. You may inquire, however, about
    whether a particular animal has been trained to behave properly in a
    public setting. Note that, under the 2008 final rule, foreign
    carriers are not required to carry animals other than dogs.

• Before deciding to exclude the animal, you should consider and try
available means of mitigating the problem (e.g., muzzling a dog that
barks frequently, allowing the passenger a reasonable amount of time
under the circumstances to correct the disruptive behavior, offering the
passenger a different seat where the animal won't block the aisle.)

If it is determined that the animal should not accompany the disabled
passenger in the cabin at this time, offer the passenger alternative
accommodations in accordance with Part 382 and company policy (e.g.,
accept the animal for carriage in the cargo compartment at no cost to
the passenger).

***What about unusual service animals?***

-   As indicated above, certain unusual service animals, (e.g., snakes,
    other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) pose unavoidable
    safety and/or public health concerns and airlines are not required
    to transport them. The release of such an animal in the aircraft
    cabin could result in a direct threat to the health or safety of
    passengers and crewmembers. For these reasons, airlines are not
    required to transport these types of service animals in the cabin,
    and carriage in the cargo hold will be in accordance with company
    policies on the carriage of animals generally.

-   Other unusual animals such as miniature horses, pigs, and monkeys
    should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by U.S. carriers.
    Factors to consider are the animal's size, weight, state and foreign
    country restrictions, and whether or not the animal would pose a
    direct threat to the health or safety of others, or cause a
    fundamental alteration (e.g., significant disruption) in the cabin
    service. If none of these factors apply, the animal may accompany
    the passenger in the cabin. In most other situations, the animal
    should be carried in the cargo hold in accordance with company
    policy. Under the 2008 final rule, foreign carriers are not required
    to transport animals other than dogs.

**[Miscellaneous Questions]{.underline}**

***What about the passenger who has two or more service animals?***

-   A single passenger legitimately may have two or more service
    animals. In these circumstances, you should make every reasonable
    effort to accommodate them in the cabin in accordance with Part 382
    and company policies on seating. This might include permitting the
    passenger to purchase a second seat so that the animals can be
    accommodated in accordance with FAA safety regulations. You may
    offer the passenger a seat on a later flight if the passenger and
    animals cannot be accommodated together at a single passenger seat.
    Airlines may not charge passengers for accommodations that are
    required by Part 382, including transporting service animals in the
    cargo compartment. If carriage in the cargo compartment is
    unavoidable, notify the destination station to return the service
    animal(s) to the passenger at the gate as soon as possible, or to
    assist the passenger as necessary to retrieve them in the
    appropriate location.

***Are there any situations in which an animal would not be permitted to
accompany its user on the flight?***

The only situation in which the rule contemplates that a service animal
would not be permitted to accompany its user at his or her seat is where
the animal blocks a space that, per FAA or applicable foreign government
safety regulations, must remain unobstructed (e.g., an aisle, access to
an emergency exit) AND the passenger and animal cannot be moved to
another location where such a blockage does not occur. In such a
situation, the carrier should first talk with other passengers to find a
seat location in the cabin where the service animal and its user can be
agreeably accommodated (e.g., by finding a passenger who is willing to
share foot space with the animal). The fact that a service animal may
need to use a reasonable portion of an adjacent seat's foot space that
does not deny another passenger effective use of the space for his or
her feet by taking all or most of the passenger's foot space is not,
however, an adequate reason for the carrier to refuse to permit the
animal to accompany its user at his or her seat. Only if no other
alternative is available should the carrier discuss less desirable
options concerning the transportation of the service animal with the
passenger traveling with the animal, such as traveling on a later flight
with more room or carrying the animal in cargo. As indicated above,
airlines may not charge passengers with disabilities for services
required by Part 382, including transporting their oversized service
animals in the cargo compartment.

***Should passengers provide advance notice to the airline concerning
multiple or large service animals?***

In most cases, airlines may not insist on advance notice or health
certificates for service animals under the ACAA regulations. However, it
is very useful for passengers to contact the airline well in advance if
one or more of their service animals may need to be transported in the
cargo compartment. The passenger will need to understand airline
policies and should find out what type of documents the carrier would
need to ensure the safe passage of the service animal in the cargo
compartment and any restrictions for cargo travel that might apply
(e.g., temperature conditions that limit live animal transport).

## [Accommodating Passengers With Service Animals in the Cabin]{.underline}

***How can airline personnel help ensure that passengers with service
animals are assigned and obtain appropriate seats on the aircraft?***

-   Let passengers know the airline's policy about seat assignments for
    people with disabilities. For instance: (1) should the passenger
    request preboarding at the gate? or (2) should the passenger request
    an advance seat assignment (a priority seat such as a bulkhead seat
    or aisle seat) up to 24 hours before departure? or (3) should the
    passenger request an advance seat assignment at the gate on the day
    of departure? When assigning priority seats, ask the passenger what
    location best fits his/her needs.

-   Passengers generally know what kinds of seats best suit their
    service animals. In certain circumstances, passengers with service
    animals must either be provided their pre-requested priority seats,
    or if their requested seat location cannot be made available, they
    must be assigned to other available priority seats of their choice
    in the same cabin class. Part 382.81(c) requires airlines to provide
    a bulkhead seat or a seat other than a bulkhead seat at the request
    of an individual traveling with a service animal.

-   Passengers should comply with airline recommendations or
    requirements regarding when they should arrive at the gate before a
    flight. This may vary from airport to airport and airline to
    airline. Not all airlines announce preboarding for passengers with
    special needs, although it may be available. If you wish to request
    preboarding, tell the agent at the gate.

-   A timely request for preboarding by a passenger with a disability
    must be honored (see sections 382.83(c) and 382.93)

Part 382 does not require carriers to make modifications that would
constitute an undue burden or would fundamentally alter their programs
(382.13 (c)). Therefore, the following are [not required]{.underline} in
providing accommodations for users of service animals

-   Requiring another passenger to give up all or a most of the space in
    front of his or her seat to accommodate a service animal. (There is
    nothing wrong with asking another passenger if the passenger would
    mind sharing foot space with a service animal, as distinct from
    telling the passenger that he or she must do so. Indeed, finding a
    passenger willing to share space is a common, and acceptable, method
    of finding an appropriate place for someone traveling with a service
    animal that may not be able to be seated in his or her original seat
    location.)

-   Denying transportation to any individual on a flight in order to
    provide an accommodation to a passenger with a service animal;

-   Furnishing more than one seat per ticket; and

-   Providing a seat in a class of service other than the one the
    passenger has purchased. (While a carrier is not required to do so,
    there could be situations in which the carrier could voluntarily
    reseat a passenger with a service animal in a different seating
    class. For example, suppose that the economy cabin is completely
    full and no alternate seat location in that cabin can be found for a
    service animal that cannot be seated at the passenger's original
    seat location. If the business or first class cabin has vacant
    space, the carrier could choose to move the passenger and animal
    into the vacant space, rather than make the passenger and animal
    take a later flight.)

***Are airline personnel responsible for the care and feeding of service
animals?***

Airline personnel are not required to provide care, food, or special
facilities for service animals. The care and supervision of a service
animal is solely the responsibility of the passenger with a disability
whom the animal is accompanying.

***May a carrier charge a maintenance or cleaning fee to passengers who
travel with service animals?***

Part 382 prohibits carriers from imposing special charges for
accommodations required by the regulation, such as carriage of a service
animal. However, a carrier may charge passengers with a disability if a
service animal causes damage, as long as it is its regular practice to
charge non-disabled passengers for similar kinds of damage. For example,
it could charge a passenger with a disability for the cost of repairing
or cleaning a seat damaged by a service animal, assuming that it is its
policy to charge when a non-disabled passenger or his or her pet causes
similar damage.

**[Advice for Passengers with Service Animals]{.underline}**

-   Ask about the airline's policy on advance seat assignments for
    people with disabilities. For instance: (1) should a passenger
    request preboarding at the gate? or (2) should a passenger request
    an advance seat assignment (a priority seat such as a (bulkhead seat
    or aisle seat)) up to 24 hours before departure? or (3) should a
    passenger request an advance seat assignment at the gate on the day
    of departure?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Although airlines are not permitted to automatically require
    documentation for service animals other than emotional support or
    psychiatric service animals, if you think it would help you explain
    the need for a service animal, you may want to carry documentation
    from your physician or other licensed professional confirming your
    need for the service animal. Passengers with unusual service animals
    also may want to carry documentation confirming that their animal
    has been trained to perform a function or task for them.

-   If you are traveling with an emotional support or psychiatric
    service animal, you may be required by the airline to provide 48
    hours' advance notice.

-   If you need a specific seat assignment for yourself and your service
    animal, make your reservation as far in advance as you can, and
    identify your need at that time.

-   You may have to be flexible if your assigned seat unexpectedly turns
    out to be in an emergency exit row. When an aircraft is changed at
    the last minute, seating may be reassigned automatically. Automatic
    systems generally do not recognize special needs, and may make
    inappropriate seat assignments. In that case, you may be required by
    FAA regulations to move to another seat.

-   Arrive at the gate when instructed by the airline, typically at
    least one hour before departure, and ask the gate agent for
    preboarding \-- if that is your desire.

-   Remember that your assigned seat may be reassigned if you fail to
    check in on time; airlines typically release seat assignments not
    claimed 30 minutes before scheduled departure. In addition, if you
    fail to check in on time you may not be able to take advantage of
    the airline's preboard offer.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If you have a very large service animal or multiple animals that
    might need to be transported in the cargo compartment, contact the
    airline well in advance of your travel date. In most cases, airlines
    cannot insist on advance notice, except for emotional support or
    psychiatric service animals, or on health certificates for service
    animals under the ACAA regulations. However, it is very useful for
    passengers to contact the airline well in advance if one or more of
    their service animals may need to be transported in the cargo
    compartment. The passenger will need to understand airline policies
    and should find out what type of documents the carrier would need to
    ensure the safe passage of the service animal in the cargo
    compartment and any restrictions for cargo travel that might apply
    (e.g., temperature conditions that limit live animal transport).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If you are having difficulty receiving an appropriate accommodation,
    ask the airline employee to contact the airline's CRO. Part 382
    requires all airlines to have a CRO available during all hours of
    operation. The CRO is a resource for resolving difficulties related
    to disability accommodations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Another resource for resolving issues related to disability
    accommodations is the U.S. Department of Transportation's Disability
    Hotline. The toll-free number is 1-800-778-4838 (voice) and
    1-800-455-9880 (TTY).

**Glossary**

***Direct Threat to the Health or Safety of Others***

A significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be
eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or
by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.

***Fundamental Alteration***

A modification that substantially alters the basic nature or purpose of
a program, service, product or activity.

***Individual with a Disability***

"Any individual who has a physical or mental impairment that, on a
permanent or temporary basis, substantially limits one or more major
life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as
having such an impairment." (Section 382.5)

***Qualified Individual with a Disability***

Any individual with a disability who:

(1) "takes those actions necessary to avail himself or herself of
    facilities or services offered by an carrier to the general public
    with respect to accompanying or meeting a traveler, use of ground
    transportation, using terminal facilities, or obtaining information
    about schedules, fares or policies";

(2) "offers, or makes a good faith attempt to offer, to purchase or
    otherwise validly to obtain . . . a ticket" "for air transportation
    on an carrier"; or

(3) "purchases or possesses a valid ticket for air transportation on an
    carrier and presents himself or herself at the airport for the
    purpose of traveling on the flight for which the ticket has been
    purchased or obtained; and meets reasonable, nondiscriminatory
    contract of carriage requirements applicable to all passengers."
    (Section 382.5).

***Service Animal***

Any animal that is individually trained or able to provide assistance to
a qualified person with a disability; or any animal shown by
documentation to be necessary for the emotional well being of a
passenger.

**[Sources]{.underline}**

In addition to applicable provisions of Part 382, the sources for this
guidance include the following: "Guidance Concerning Service Animals in
Air Transportation," (61 FR 56420-56422, (November 1, 1996)), "Commonly
Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business" (Department
of Justice, July, 1996), and "ADA Business Brief: Service Animals"
(Department of Justice, April 2002).

**[REGULATORY ANALYSES AND NOTICES]{.underline}**

**A.        [Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures]{.underline}**

This action has been determined to be significant under Executive Order
12866 and the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and
Procedures.   It extends regulatory coverage under the ACAA to foreign
carriers for the first time and adds requirements concerning passengers
who use medical oxygen and accommodations for deaf and hard-of-hearing
passengers.  These are areas of considerable importance to passengers
and air carriers and are of interest to the public and members of
Congress.

 

                The costs and benefits of the rule are summarized in the
following tables, taken from the regulatory evaluation.  It is very
important to keep in mind that, in the Department's view, this rule has
very significant nonquantifiable benefits, which these tables do not
address.  These nonquantifiable benefits include increased opportunities
for individuals with disabilities to access the air travel system
without discrimination and with fewer unnecessary barriers.  This access
opens up business and personal travel opportunities and the personal and
economic benefits that result from the increased chance to travel. 
These nonquantifiable benefits make the rule cost-beneficial, even
without considering the significant economic benefits displayed in the
tables below.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 61%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7"><strong>Table A: Summary of Foreign Carrier Cost and
Benefit Estimates</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>(Millions 2005$)</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong>Boarding Equipment (lifts/ramps, chairs)</strong></td>
<td><strong>On-Board Wheelchairs</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Cabin Stowage Area for On-Board Wheelchair and
Passenger's Folding Wheelchair</strong></td>
<td><strong>Accessible Lavatories</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Personnel Training Costs</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total<br />
Costs<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Low Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$1.161</td>
<td>$2.507</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.260</td>
<td>$138.373</td>
<td colspan="3">$22.959</td>
<td colspan="2">$165.3</td>
<td colspan="2">$112.0</td>
<td colspan="2">-$53.3</td>
<td colspan="2">$179.2</td>
<td colspan="2">$13.9</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$0.010</td>
<td>$0.061</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.044</td>
<td>$32.132</td>
<td colspan="3">$2.769</td>
<td colspan="2">$35.0</td>
<td colspan="2">$35.8</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.8</td>
<td colspan="2">$57.2</td>
<td colspan="2">$22.2</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>High Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$2.245</td>
<td>$3.051</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.260</td>
<td>$276.747</td>
<td colspan="3">$45.917</td>
<td colspan="2">$328.2</td>
<td colspan="2">$224.0</td>
<td colspan="2">-$104.2</td>
<td colspan="2">$358.4</td>
<td colspan="2">$30.2</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$0.013</td>
<td>$0.075</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.044</td>
<td>$64.264</td>
<td colspan="3">$5.539</td>
<td colspan="2">$69.9</td>
<td colspan="2">$71.5</td>
<td colspan="2">$1.6</td>
<td colspan="2">$114.5</td>
<td colspan="2">$44.5</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="3"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="11"><strong>Table B: Summary of Deaf and Hard-of Hearing
Cost and Benefit Estimates</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>(Millions 2005$)</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong>Assistants' Fares Forgone</strong></td>
<td><strong>Reservation TTY</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Copy of Part 382</strong></td>
<td><strong>Captioning in Waiting Areas</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Public Announce-ments</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Awareness Training</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total<br />
Costs<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Low Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$3.500</td>
<td>$2.420</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.108</td>
<td>$0.250</td>
<td colspan="3">$1.400</td>
<td colspan="2">$80.000</td>
<td colspan="2">$87.7</td>
<td colspan="2">$110.1</td>
<td colspan="2">$22.4</td>
<td colspan="2">$176.2</td>
<td colspan="2">$88.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$0.500</td>
<td>$0.080</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.000</td>
<td>$0.017</td>
<td colspan="3">$0.000</td>
<td colspan="2">$6.400</td>
<td colspan="2">$7.0</td>
<td colspan="2">$16.4</td>
<td colspan="2">$9.4</td>
<td colspan="2">$26.2</td>
<td colspan="2">$19.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>High Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$7.000</td>
<td>$4.840</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.216</td>
<td>$0.500</td>
<td colspan="3">$2.800</td>
<td colspan="2">$160.000</td>
<td colspan="2">$175.4</td>
<td colspan="2">$220.2</td>
<td colspan="2">$44.9</td>
<td colspan="2">$352.4</td>
<td colspan="2">$177.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$1.000</td>
<td>$0.160</td>
<td colspan="2">$0.000</td>
<td>$0.034</td>
<td colspan="3">$0.000</td>
<td colspan="2">$12.800</td>
<td colspan="2">$14.0</td>
<td colspan="2">$32.7</td>
<td colspan="2">$18.7</td>
<td colspan="2">$52.3</td>
<td colspan="2">$38.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="5"><strong>Table C: Summary of Medical Oxygen Cost and
Benefit Estimates (Millions 2005$)</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong>Total<br />
Costs<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Low Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$97.2</td>
<td>$449.8</td>
<td colspan="2">$352.6</td>
<td>$719.7</td>
<td colspan="3">$622.5</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$15.9</td>
<td>$76.3</td>
<td colspan="2">$60.4</td>
<td>$122.2</td>
<td colspan="3">$106.3</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>High Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$194.4</td>
<td>$899.6</td>
<td colspan="2">$705.2</td>
<td>$1,439.4</td>
<td colspan="3">$1,245.0</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$31.8</td>
<td>$152.7</td>
<td colspan="2">$120.9</td>
<td>$244.3</td>
<td colspan="3">$212.5</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="3"> </td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="4"><strong>Table D: Aggregate Cost and Benefit
Estimates</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>(Millions 2005$)</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td><strong>Total<br />
Costs<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
High MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td><strong>Total Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Net Carrier<br />
Benefits<br />
Low MC Case<br />
($M)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Low Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$350.1</td>
<td>$671.9</td>
<td colspan="2">$321.8</td>
<td>$1,075.1</td>
<td colspan="3">$724.9</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$57.9</td>
<td>$128.5</td>
<td colspan="2">$70.6</td>
<td>$205.6</td>
<td colspan="3">$147.6</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>High Impact Case:</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Present Value over 20 years</strong></td>
<td>$698.0</td>
<td>$1,343.9</td>
<td colspan="2">$645.9</td>
<td>$2,150.2</td>
<td colspan="3">$1,452.2</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Year 20 undiscounted</strong></td>
<td>$115.7</td>
<td>$256.9</td>
<td colspan="2">$141.2</td>
<td>$411.1</td>
<td colspan="3">$295.4</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="3"> </td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

 **B.        [Regulatory Flexibility Act]{.underline}**

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 [et]{.underline}
[seq]{.underline}.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess
their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.  A direct air carrier or a foreign carrier is
a small business if it provides air transportation only with small
aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload
capacity).  See 14 CFR 399.73.  Our analysis identified 338 small
businesses potentially affected by the requirements of the final rule. 

We project that about 30 small foreign carriers would incur costs
related to boarding equipment (small U.S. carriers already are subject
to this requirement).   These costs represent a total present value
ranging from \$1.161 million to \$2.245 million, or from \$39,000 to
\$75,000 per carrier, almost entirely in the first two years.  When more
than one small carrier uses the same airport, however, a sharing
arrangement may be more efficient.  The affected airlines are, it should
be noted, the larger small carriers, those which use aircraft with more
than 19 seats and which serve a greater number of airports.

**           ** Both small U.S. and small foreign carriers would incur
costs related to training.  We project that U.S. carriers would need to
provide two hours of training to each of their employees with respect to
new requirements concerning oxygen and deaf and hard-of-hearing
passengers.  On this assumption, the present value of training costs
would be \$2.6 million or \$7,738 for each of the 338 carriers affected
by the rule.

 Our analysis estimates that training costs for foreign carriers would
amount to a present value of \$0.8 million to \$1.6 million over 20
years. Assuming the number of carriers affected to be 30, the cost would
be \$27,000 to \$54,000 per carrier. 

With small carriers handling 2.8 percent of the estimated medical oxygen
reservations at a cost of \$25 each, we would project small carrier
costs as being a total present value of \$5.4 million, or \$16,000 per
carrier.  This figure is probably overstated, because many small
carriers are affiliated with larger airlines that process reservations
for them. 

Following the line of argument adopted throughout Department's overall
regulatory evaluation, these costs should be offset by an expected
increase in the number of PWDs willing and able to fly on small
carriers.

We note that, while we have examined the effects of the rule on small
foreign as well as small U.S. carriers, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
does not apply to foreign entities.  On the basis of this examination,
the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a significant number of small entities.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 [et]{.underline}
[seq]{.underline}.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess
their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule
is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. A direct air carrier or a foreign carrier is a
small business if it provides air transportation only with small
aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload
capacity). See 14 CFR 399.73. Our analyses identified 338 small
businesses potentially affected by the requirements of the final rule.

We project that about 30 small foreign carriers would incur costs
related to boarding equipment (small U.S. carriers already are subject
to this requirement). These costs represent a total present value
ranging from \$1.161 million to \$2.245 million, or from \$39,000 to
\$75,000 per carrier, almost entirely in the first two years. mall
carrier use the same airport, however, a sharing arrangement may be more
efficient. The affected airlines are, it should be noted, the larger
small carriers, those which use aircraft with more than 19 seats and
which serve a greater number of airports.

Both small U.S. and small foreign carriers would incur costs related to
training.

We project that U.S. carriers would need to train their employees two
hours each with respect to new requirements concerning oxygen and deaf
and hard-of-hearing passengers. On this assumption, the a present value
of training costs would be \$2.6 million or \$7,738 for each carrier
involved.

Our analysis estimates that trainng costs for foreign carriers would
amount to a present value of \$0.8 million to \$1.6 million over 20
years. Assuming the number of carriers affected to be 30, the cost for
each would be \$27,000 to \$54,000 per carrier.

With small carriers handling 2.8 percent of the estimated medical oxygen
reservations at a cost of \$25 each, we would project small carrier
costs as being a total present value of \$5.4 million, or \$16,000 per
carrier. This figure is probably overstated, because many small carriers
are affiliated with larger airlines that process reservations for them.

. Following the line of argument adopted throughout Department's overall
regulatory evaluation, these costs should be offset by an expected
increase in the number of PWDs willing and able to fly on small
carriers.

We note that, while we have examined the effects of the rule on small
foreign as well as small U.S. carriers, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
does not apply to foreign entities. On the basis of this examination,
the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a significant number of small entities.

**C. [Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)]{.underline}**

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 ("Federalism"). This final
rule does not include any provision that: (1) has substantial direct
effects on the States, the relationship between the national government
and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts state
law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive
Order 13132 do not apply.

**D. [Executive Order 13084]{.underline}**

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (\"Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments\"). Because this final rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian
tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance
costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply.

**E. [Paperwork Reduction Act]{.underline}**

The final rule does contain a new information collection requirement
that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 2507 et seq.).
Specifically, section 382.145 includes record retention requirements for
information concerning training. The Department will pursue OMB approval
for this requirement during the year between the publication and
effective dates of the rule.

Section 382.157 involves disability-related complaint reporting to the
Department. This provision is identical to a provision of the existing
Part 382, and it is subject to an existing Paperwork Reduction Act
approval by OMB. No further approvals are needed for this section at the
present time.

**F. [Unfunded Mandates Reform Act]{.underline}**

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.

**ISSUED THIS DAY OF , 2008, AT WASHINGTON D.C.**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Mary E. Peters**

**Secretary of TransportationList of**

**Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382**

Air carriers, Consumer protection, Individuals with disabilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department revises 14 CFR
Part 382 as follows:

**PART 382 \[REVISED\]**

**NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR TRAVEL**

# Sec. Contents

# Subpart A General Provisions

382.1 What is the purpose of this Part?

382.3 What do the terms in this rule mean?

382.5 When are foreign carriers required to begin complying with the
provisions of this Part?

382.7 To whom do the provisions of this Part apply?

382.9 What may foreign carriers do if they believe a provision of a
foreign nation's law prohibits compliance with a provision of this Part?

382.10 How does a carrier obtain a determination that it is providing an
equivalent alternative to passengers with disabilities?

# 

# Subpart B Nondiscrimination and Access to Services and Information

382.11 What is the general nondiscrimination requirement of this Part?

382.13 Do carriers have to modify policies, practices, and facilities to
ensure nondiscrimination?

382.15 Do carriers have to make sure that contractors comply with the
requirements of this Part?

382.17 May carriers limit the number of passengers with a disability on
a flight?

382.19 May carriers refuse to provide transportation on the basis of
disability?

382.21 May carriers limit access to transportation on the basis that a
passenger has a communicable disease or other medical condition?

382.23 May carriers require a passenger with a disability to provide a
medical certificate?

382.25 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice that he or she is traveling on a flight?

382.27 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice in order to obtain certain specific services in
connection with a flight?

382.29 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to travel
with a safety assistant?

382.31 May carriers impose special charges on passengers with a
disability for providing services and accommodations required by this
rule?

382.33 May carriers impose other restrictions on passengers with a
disability that they do not impose on other passengers?

382.35 May carriers require passengers with a disability to sign waivers
or releases?

### Subpart C Information for Passengers

382.41 What flight-related information must carriers provide to
qualified individuals with a disability?

382.43 Must information and reservation services of carriers be
accessible to individuals with hearing and vision impairments?

382.45 Must carriers make copies of this Part available to passengers?

# Subpart D Accessibility of Airport Facilities

382.51 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the accessibility
of airport facilities?

382.53 What accommodations are required in airports for individuals with
a vision impairment and individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing?

382.55 May carriers impose security screening procedures with passengers
with disabilities that go beyond TSA requirements or those of foreign
governments?

382.57 What services must carriers provide if their automated kiosks are
inaccessible?

# Subpart E Accessibility of Aircraft

382.61 What are the requirements for movable aisle armrests?

382.63 What are the requirements for accessible lavatories?

382.65 What are the requirements concerning on-board wheelchairs?

382.67 What is the requirement for priority space in the cabin to store
passenger wheelchairs?

382.69 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the accessibility
of videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual presentations shown on aircraft
to individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing?

382.71 What other aircraft accessibility requirements apply to carriers?

# 

# Subpart F Seating Accommodations 

382.81 For which passengers must carriers make seating accommodations?

382.83 Through what mechanisms do carriers make seating accommodations?

382.85 What seating accommodations must carriers make to passengers in
circumstances not covered by 382.81 (a) -- (d)?

382.87 What other requirements pertain to seating for passengers with a
disability?

**Subpart G Boarding, Deplaning, and Connecting Assistance**

382.91 What assistance must carriers provide to passengers with a
disability in moving within the terminal?

382.93 Must carriers offer preboarding to passengers with a disability?

382.95 What are carriers' general obligations with respect to boarding
and deplaning assistance?

382.97 To which aircraft does the requirement to provide boarding and
deplaning assistance through the use of lifts apply?

382.99 What agreements must carriers have with the airports they serve?

382.101 What other boarding and deplaning assistance must carriers
provide?

382.103 May a carrier leave a passenger unattended in a wheelchair or
other device?

382.105 What is the responsibility of carriers at foreign airports at
which airport operators have responsibility for enplaning, deplaning,
and connecting assistance?

**Subpart H Services on Aircraft**

382.111 What services must carriers provide to passengers with a
disability on board the aircraft?

382.113 What services are carriers not required to provide to passengers
with a disability on board the aircraft?

382.115 What requirements apply to on-board safety briefings?

382.117 Must carriers permit passengers with a disability to travel with
service animals?

382.119 What information must carriers give individuals with vision or
hearing impairment on aircraft?

**Subpart I Stowage of Wheelchairs, Other Mobility Aids, and Other
Assistive Devices**

382.121 What mobility aids and other assistive devices may passengers
with a disability bring into the aircraft cabin?

382.123 What are the requirements concerning priority cabin stowage
space for wheelchairs and other assistive devices?

382.125 What procedures do carriers follow when wheelchairs, other
mobility aids, and other assistive devices must be stowed in the cargo
compartment?

382.127 What procedures apply to stowage of battery-powered mobility
aids?

382.129 What other requirements apply when passengers' wheelchairs,
other mobility aids, and other assistive devices must be disassembled
for stowage?

382.131 Do baggage liability limits apply to mobility aids and other
assistive devices?

382.133 What are the requirements concerning the evaluation and use of
passenger-supplied electronic devices that assist passengers with
respiration in the cabin during flight?

**Subpart J Training and Administrative Provisions**

382.141 What training are carriers required to provide for their
personnel?

382.143 When must carriers complete training for their personnel?

382.145 What records concerning training must carriers retain?

**Subpart K Complaints and Enforcement Procedures**

382.151 What are the requirements for providing Complaints Resolution
Officials?

382.153 What actions do CROs take on complaints?

382.155 How must carriers respond to written complaints?

382.157 What are carriers' obligations for recordkeeping and reporting
on disability- related complaints?

382.159 How are complaints filed with DOT?

**Appendix A to Part 382** Disability Complaint Reporting Form

**Appendix B to Part 382** Cross-Reference Table

# Subpart A General Provisions

**§382.1 What is the purpose of this Part?**

The purpose of this Part is to carry out the Air Carrier Access Act of
1986, as amended. This rule prohibits both U.S. and foreign carriers
from discriminating against passengers on the basis of disability;
requires carriers to make aircraft, other facilities, and services
accessible; and requires carriers to take steps to accommodate
passengers with a disability.

**§382.3 What do the terms in this rule mean?**

In this regulation, the terms listed in this section have the following
meanings:

*Air Carrier Access Act* or *ACAA* means the Air Carrier Access Act of
1986, as amended, the statute that provides the principal authority for
this Part.

*Air transportation* means interstate or foreign air transportation, or
the transportation of mail by aircraft, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102.

*Assistive device* means any piece of equipment that assists a passenger
with a disability to cope with the effects of his or her disability.
Such devices are intended to assist a passenger with a disability to
hear, see, communicate, maneuver, or perform other functions of daily
life, and may include medical devices and medications.

*Battery-powered mobility aid* means an assistive device that is used by
individuals with mobility impairments such a wheelchair, a scooter, or a
Segway when it is used as a mobility device by a person with a
mobility-related disability.

*Carrier* means a U.S. citizen ("U.S. carrier") or foreign citizen
("foreign carrier") that undertakes, directly or indirectly, or by a
lease or any other arrangement, to engage in air transportation.

*Commuter carrier* means an air taxi operator as defined in 14 CFR Part
298 that carries passengers on at least 5 round trips per week on at
least one route between two or more points according to its published
flight schedules that specify the times, days of the week and places
between which those flights are performed.

*CPAP machine* means a continuous positive airway pressure machine.

*Department* or *DOT* means the United States Department of
Transportation.

*Direct threat* means a significant risk to the health or safety of
others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies,
practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or
services.

*Equivalent alternative* means a policy, practice, or other
accommodation that provides substantially equivalent accessibility to
passengers with disabilities, compared to compliance with a provision of
this Part.

*Expected maximum flight duration* means the carrier's best estimate of
the total duration of the flight from departure gate to arrival gate,
including taxi time to and from the terminals, based on the scheduled
flight time and factors such as (a) wind and other weather conditions
forecast; (b) anticipated traffic delays; (c) one instrument approach
and possible missed approach at destination; and (d) any other
conditions that may delay arrival of the aircraft at the destination
gate.

*FAA* means the Federal Aviation Administration, an operating
administration of the Department of Transportation.

*Facility* means a carrier's aircraft and any portion of an airport that
a carrier owns, leases, or controls (e.g., structures, roads, walks,
parking lots, ticketing areas, baggage drop-off and retrieval sites,
gates, other boarding locations, loading bridges) normally used by
passengers or other members of the public.

*High-contrast captioning* means captioning that is at least as easy to
read as white letters on a consistent black background.

*Indirect carrier* means a person not directly involved in the operation
of an aircraft who sells air transportation services to the general
public other than as an authorized agent of a carrier.

*Individual with a disability* means any individual who has a physical
or mental impairment that, on a permanent or temporary basis,
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of
such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. As used
in this definition, the phrase:

\(a\) *Physical or mental impairment* means:

\(1\) Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement,
or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems:
neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory
including speech organs, cardio-vascular, reproductive, digestive,
genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or

\(2\) Any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation,
organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific
learning disabilities.

The term *physical or mental impairment* includes, but is not limited
to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and
hearing impairments; cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy,
multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation,
emotional illness, drug addiction, and alcoholism.

\(b\) *Major life activities* means functions such as caring for one\'s
self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking,
breathing, learning, and working.

\(c\) *Has a record of such impairment* means has a history of, or has
been classified, or misclassified, as having a mental or physical
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

\(d\) *Is regarded as having an impairment means*:

\(1\) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially
limit major life activities but that is treated by an air carrier as
constituting such a limitation;

\(2\) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a
major life activity only as a result of the attitudes of others toward
such an impairment; or

\(3\) Has none of the impairments set forth in this definition but is
treated by an air carrier as having such an impairment.

*On-demand air taxi* means an air taxi operator that carries passengers
or property and is not a commuter carrier as defined in this section.

*PHMSA* means the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, an operating administration of the Department of
Transportation.

*POC* means portable oxygen concentrator.

*Qualified individual with a disability* means an individual with a
disability \--

\(a\) Who, as a passenger (referred to as a "passenger with a
disability"),

\(1\) With respect to obtaining a ticket for air transportation on a
carrier, offers, or makes a good faith attempt to offer, to purchase or
otherwise validly to obtain such a ticket;

\(2\) With respect to obtaining air transportation, or other services or
accommodations required by this Part,

\(i\) Buys or otherwise validly obtains, or makes a good faith effort to
obtain, a ticket for air transportation on a carrier and presents
himself or herself at the airport for the purpose of traveling on the
flight to which the ticket pertains; and

\(ii\) Meets reasonable, nondiscriminatory contract of carriage
requirements applicable to all passengers; or

\(b\) Who, with respect to accompanying or meeting a traveler, using
ground transportation, using terminal facilities, or obtaining
information about schedules, fares, reservations, or policies, takes
those actions necessary to use facilities or services offered by an air
carrier to the general public, with reasonable accommodations, as
needed, provided by the carrier.

*Scheduled service* means any flight scheduled in the current edition of
the *Official Airline Guide,* the carrier's published schedule, or the
computer reservation system used by the carrier.

*TSA* means the Transportation Security Administration, an agency of the
Department of Homeland Security.

*United States* or *U.S.* means the United States of America, including
its territories and possessions.

**§382.5 When are U.S. and foreign carriers required to begin complying
with the provisions of this Part?**

As a U.S. or foreign carrier, you are required to comply with the
requirements of this Part on \[insert effective date of this Part\],
except as otherwise provided in individual sections of this Part.

**§382.7 To whom do the provisions of this Part apply?**

\(a\) If you are a U.S. carrier, this Part applies to you with respect
to all your operations and aircraft, regardless of where your operations
take place, except as otherwise provided in this Part.

\(b\) If you are a foreign carrier, this Part applies to you only with
respect to flights you operate that begin or end at a U.S. airport and
to aircraft used for these flights. For purposes of this Part, a
"flight" means a continuous journey in the same aircraft or with one
flight number that begins or ends at a U.S. airport. The following are
some examples of the application of this term:

EXAMPLE 1 to paragraph (b): A passenger books a nonstop flight on a
foreign carrier from New York to Frankfurt, or Frankfurt to New York.
Each of these is a "flight" for purposes of this Part.

EXAMPLE 2 to paragraph (b): A passenger books a journey on a foreign
carrier from New York to Prague. The foreign carrier flies nonstop to
Frankfurt. The passenger gets off the plane in Frankfurt and boards a
connecting flight (with a different flight number), on the same foreign
carrier or a different carrier, which goes to Prague. The New
York-Frankfurt leg of the journey is a "flight" for purposes of this
Part; the Frankfurt-Prague leg is not. On the reverse routing, the
Prague-Frankfurt leg is not a covered flight for purposes of this Part,
while the Frankfurt-New York leg is.

EXAMPLE 3 to paragraph (b): A passenger books a journey on a foreign
carrier from New York to Prague. The plane stops for refueling and a
crew change in Frankfurt. If, after deplaning in Frankfurt, the
passengers originating in New York reboard the aircraft (or a different
aircraft, assuming the flight number remains the same) and continue to
Prague, they remain on a covered flight for purposes of this Part. This
is because their transportation takes place on a direct flight between
New York and Prague, even though it had an interim stop in Frankfurt.
This example would also apply in the opposite direction (Prague to New
York via Frankfurt).

EXAMPLE 4 to paragraph (b): In Example 3, the foreign carrier is not
subject to coverage under this Part with respect to a
Frankfurt-originating passenger who boards the aircraft and goes to
Prague, or a Prague-originating passenger who gets off the plane in
Frankfurt and does not continue to New York.

\(c\) As a foreign carrier, you are not subject to the requirements of
this Part with respect to operations between two foreign points, even
with respect to flights involving code-sharing arrangements with U.S.
carriers. As a U.S. carrier that participates in a code-sharing
arrangement with a foreign carrier with respect to operations between
two foreign points, you (as distinct from the foreign carrier) are
responsible for ensuring compliance with the service provisions of
subparts A through C, F through H, and K with respect to passengers
traveling under your code on such a flight.

EXAMPLE 1 to this paragraph (c): A passenger buys a ticket from a U.S.
carrier for a journey from New York to Prague. The ticket carries the
U.S. carrier's code and flight number throughout the entire journey.
There is a change of carrier and aircraft in Frankfurt, and a foreign
carrier operates the Frankfurt-Prague segment. The foreign carrier is
not subject to the provisions of Part 382 for the Frankfurt-Prague
segment. However, the U.S. carrier must ensure compliance with the
applicable provisions of Part 382 on the Frankfurt-Prague segment with
respect to passengers flying under its code, and the Department could
take enforcement action against the U.S. carrier for acts or omissions
by the foreign carrier.

\(d\) As a foreign carrier, if you operate a charter flight from a
foreign airport to a U.S. airport, and return to a foreign airport, and
you do not pick up any passengers in the U.S., the charter operation is
not a flight subject to the requirements of this Part.

\(e\) Unless a provision of this Part specifies application to a U.S.
carrier or a foreign carrier, the provision applies to both U.S. and
foreign carriers.

\(f\) If you are an indirect carrier, §§ 382.17 through 382.157 of this
Part do not apply, except insofar as §382.11(b) applies to you.

\(g\) Notwithstanding any provisions of this Part, you must comply with
all FAA safety regulations, TSA security regulations, and foreign safety
and security regulations having legally mandatory effect that apply to
you.

**§382.9 What may foreign carriers do if they believe a provision of a
foreign nation's law conflicts with compliance with a provision of this
Part?**

(a) If you are a foreign carrier, and you believe that an applicable
    provision of the law of a foreign nation precludes you from
    complying with a provision of this Part, you may request a waiver of
    the provision of this Part.

(b) You must send such a waiver request to the following address:

> Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
> C-70
>
> U.S. Department of Transportation
>
> 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Room W96-322
>
> Washington, D.C. 20590

(c) Your waiver request must be in English and include the following
    elements:

    1.  A copy, in the English language, of the foreign law involved;

    2.  A description of how the foreign law applies and how it
        precludes

compliance with a provision of this Part;

\(3\) A description of the alternative means the carrier will use, if
the waiver is granted, to effectively achieve the objective of the
provision of this Part subject to the waiver or, if applicable, a
justification of why it would be impossible to achieve this objective in
any way.

(d) The Department may grant the waiver request, or grant the waiver
    request subject to conditions, if it determines that the foreign law
    applies, that it does preclude compliance with a provision of this
    Part, and that the carrier has provided an effective alternative
    means of achieving the objective of the provisions of this Part
    subject to the waiver or have demonstrated by clear and convincing
    evidence that it would be impossible to achieve this objective in
    any way.

\(e\) (1) If you submit a waiver request on or before \[insert date 120
days after the date of publication of this Part\], the Department will,
to the maximum extent feasible, respond to the request before \[insert
effective date of this Part\]. If the Department does not respond to the
waiver request by \[insert effective date of this Part\], you may
continue to implement the policy or practice that is the subject of your
request until the Department does respond. The Department will not take
enforcement action with respect to your implementation of the policy or
practice during the time prior to the Department's response.

\(2\) If you submit a waiver request after \[insert date 120 days after
date of publication of this Part\], the Department will, to the maximum
extent feasible, respond to the request by \[insert effective date of
this Part\] or within 180 days of receiving it, whichever is later. If
the Department does not respond to the waiver request by this date, you
may continue to implement the policy or practice that is the subject of
your request until the Department does respond. However, the Department
may take enforcement action with respect to your implementation of the
policy or practice during the time between \[insert effective date of
this Part\] and the date of the Department's response.

\(3\) If you submit a waiver request after \[insert date 120 days after
date of publication of this Part\], and the request pertains to an
applicable provision of the law of a foreign nation that did not exist
on \[insert date 120 days after date of publication of this Part\], you
may continue to implement the policy or practice that is the subject of
your request until the Department responds to the request. The
Department will, to the maximum extent feasible, respond to such
requests within 180 days of receiving them. The Department will not take
enforcement action with respect to your implementation of the policy or
practice during the time prior to the Department's response.

\(f\) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
Department may commence enforcement action at any time after \[insert
effective date of this Part\] with respect to the policy or practice
that is the subject of the request if it finds the request to be
frivolous or dilatory.

\(g\) If you have not submitted a request for a waiver under this
section with respect to a provision of this Part, or such a request has
been denied, you cannot raise the alleged existence of such a conflict
as a defense to an enforcement action.

**382.10 How does a U.S. or foreign carrier obtain a determination that
it is providing an equivalent alternative to passengers with
disabilities?**

(a) As a U.S. or foreign carrier, you may apply to the Department for a
    determination that you are providing an equivalent alternative to
    passengers with disabilities.

(b) You must send your application for an equivalent alternative
    determination to the following address:

> Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
> (C-70)
>
> U.S. Department of Transportation
>
> 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Room W96-322
>
> Washington, D.C. 20590

(c) Your application must be in English and include the following
    elements:

\(1\) A citation to the specific provision of this Part concerning which
you are proposing an equivalent alternative.

\(2\) A detailed description of the alternative policy, practice, or
other accommodation you are proposing to use in place of compliance with
the provision of this Part that you cite, and an explanation of how it
provides substantially equivalent accessibility to passengers with
disabilities.

\(d\) The Department may grant the application, or grant the application
subject to conditions, if it determines that the proposed facilitation
does provide substantially equivalent accessibility to passengers with
disabilities, compared to compliance with the provision of this Part in
question

\(e\) If your application is granted, you will be deemed to be in
compliance with this Part through implementing the equivalent
alternative. If your application is denied, you must implement this Part
as written.

(f)(1) If you submit your application on or before \[insert date 120
days after the date of publication of this Part\], the Department will
respond to the request before \[insert effective date of this Part\] to
the maximum extent feasible. If the Department does not respond to the
application by \[insert effective date of this Part\], you may implement
your policy or practice that is the subject of your application until
the Department does respond.

\(2\) With respect to an application you make after \[insert date 120
days after the publication date of this Part\], you must comply with the
provisions of this Part without change from \[insert effective date of
rule\] until the Department responds to your application.

# Subpart B Nondiscrimination and Access to Services

**§382.11 What is the general nondiscrimination requirement of this
Part?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must not do any of the following things, either
directly or through a contractual, licensing, or other arrangement:

\(1\) You must not discriminate against any qualified individual with a
disability, by reason of such disability, in the provision of air
transportation;

\(2\) You must not require a qualified individual with a disability to
accept special services (including, but not limited to, preboarding)
that the individual does not request. However, you may require
preboarding as a condition of receiving certain seating or in-cabin
stowage accommodations, as specified in §§382.83(c), 382.85(b), and
382.123(a) of this Part.

\(3\) You must not exclude a qualified individual with a disability from
or deny the person the benefit of any air transportation or related
services that are available to other persons, except where specifically
permitted by this Part. This is true even if there are separate or
different services available for individuals with a disability, except
when specifically permitted by another section of this Part; and

\(4\) You must not take any adverse action against an individual (e.g.,
refusing to provide transportation) because the individual asserts, on
his or her own behalf or through or on behalf of others, rights
protected by this Part or the Air Carrier Access Act.

\(b\) If, as an indirect carrier, you provide facilities or services for
other carriers that are covered by sections 382.17 through 382.157, you
must do so in a manner consistent with those sections.

**§382.13 Do carriers have to modify policies, practices, and facilities
to ensure nondiscrimination?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must modify your policies, practices, and
facilities when needed to provide nondiscriminatory service to a
particular individual with a disability, consistent with the standards
of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended.

\(b\) This requirement is part of your general nondiscrimination
obligation, and is in addition to your duty to make the specific
accommodations required by this Part.

\(c\) However, you are not required to make modifications that would
constitute an undue burden or would fundamentally alter your program.

**§382.15 Do carriers have to make sure that contractors comply with the
requirements of this Part?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must make sure that your contractors that
provide services to the public (including airports where applicable)
meet the requirements of this Part that would apply to you if you
provided the services yourself.

\(b\) As a carrier, you must include an assurance of compliance with
this Part in your contracts with any contractors that provide services
to the public that are subject to the requirements of this Part.
Noncompliance with this assurance is a material breach of the contract
on the contractor's part.

\(1\) This assurance must commit the contractor to compliance with all
applicable provisions of this Part in activities performed on behalf of
the carrier.

\(2\) The assurance must also commit the contractor to implementing
directives issued by your CROs under §§382.151 -- 153.

\(c\) As a U.S. carrier, you must also include such an assurance of
compliance in your contracts or agreements of appointment with U.S.
travel agents. You are not required to include such an assurance in
contracts with foreign travel agents.

\(d\) You remain responsible for your contractors' compliance with this
Part and for enforcing the assurances in your contracts with them.

\(e\) It is not a defense against an enforcement action by the
Department under this Part that your noncompliance resulted from action
or inaction by a contractor.

**§382.17 May carriers limit the number of passengers with a disability
on a flight?**

As a carrier, you must not limit the number of passengers with a
disability who travel on a flight. (See also §382.27(b)(6) of this
Part.)

**§382.19 May carriers refuse to provide transportation on the basis of
disability?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must not refuse to provide transportation to a
passenger with a disability on the basis of his or her disability,
except as specifically permitted by this Part.

\(b\) You must not refuse to provide transportation to a passenger with
a disability because the person\'s disability results in appearance or
involuntary behavior that may offend, annoy, or inconvenience
crewmembers or other passengers.

\(c\) You may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger on the
basis of safety, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 44902 or 14 CFR 121.533, or to
any passenger whose carriage would violate FAA or TSA requirements or
applicable requirements of a foreign government.

\(1\) You can determine that there is a disability-related safety basis
for refusing to provide transportation to a passenger with a disability
if you are able to demonstrate that the passenger poses a direct threat
(see definition in §382.3). In determining whether an individual poses a
direct threat, you must make an individualized assessment, based on
reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the
best available objective evidence, to ascertain:

> \(i\) the nature, duration, and severity of the risk;
>
> \(ii\) the probability that the potential harm to the health and
> safety of others will actually occur; and
>
> \(iii\) whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or
> procedures will mitigate the risk.

\(2\) If you determine that the passenger does pose a direct threat, you
must select the least restrictive response from the point of view of the
passenger, consistent with protecting the health and safety of others.
For example, you must not refuse transportation to the passenger if you
can protect the health and safety of others by means short of a refusal.

\(3\) In exercising this authority, you must not act inconsistently with
the provisions of this Part.

\(4\) If your actions are inconsistent with any of the provisions of
this Part, you are subject to enforcement action under Subpart K of this
Part.

\(d\) If you refuse to provide transportation to a passenger on his or
her originally-scheduled flight on a basis relating to the individual's
disability, you must provide to the person a written statement of the
reason for the refusal. This statement must include the specific basis
for the carrier\'s opinion that the refusal meets the standards of
paragraph (c) of this section or is otherwise specifically permitted by
this Part. You must provide this written statement to the person within
10 calendar days of the refusal of transportation.

**§382.21 May carriers limit access to transportation on the basis that
a passenger has a communicable disease or other medical condition?**

\(a\) You must not do any of the following things on the basis that a
passenger has a communicable disease or infection, unless you determine
that the passenger's condition poses a direct threat:

\(1\) Refuse to provide transportation to the passenger;

\(2\) Delay the passenger's transportation (e.g., require the passenger
to take a later flight);

\(3\) Impose on the passenger any condition, restriction, or requirement
not imposed on other passengers; or

\(4\) Require the passenger to provide a medical certificate.

\(b\) In assessing whether the passenger's condition poses a direct
threat, you must apply the provisions of §382.19(c)(1) -- (2) of this
subpart.

\(1\) In making this assessment, you may rely on directives issued by
public health authorities (e.g., the U.S. Centers for Disease Control or
Public Health Service; comparable agencies in other countries; the World
Health Organization).

\(2\) In making this assessment, you must consider the significance of
the consequences of a communicable disease and the degree to which it
can be readily transmitted by casual contact in an aircraft cabin
environment.

> EXAMPLE 1 TO THIS PARAGRAPH (b)(2): The common cold is readily
> transmissible in an aircraft cabin environment but does not have
> severe health consequences. Someone with a cold would not pose a
> direct threat.
>
> EXAMPLE 2 TO THIS PARAGRAPH (b)(2): AIDS has very severe health
> consequences but is not readily transmissible in an aircraft cabin
> environment. Someone would not pose a direct threat because he or she
> is HIV-positive or has AIDS.
>
> EXAMPLE 3 TO THIS PARAGRAH (b)(2): SARS may be readily transmissible
> in an aircraft cabin environment and has severe health consequences.
> Someone with SARS probably poses a direct threat.

\(c\) If a passenger with a communicable disease meeting the direct
threat criteria of this section gives you a medical certificate of the
kind outlined in §382.23(c)(2) describing measures for preventing
transmission of the disease during the normal course of the flight, you
must provide transportation to the passenger, unless you are unable to
carry out the measures.

\(d\) If your action under this section results in the postponement of a
passenger\'s travel, you must permit the passenger to travel at a later
time (up to 90 days from the date of the postponed travel) at the fare
that would have applied to the passenger\'s originally scheduled trip
without penalty or, at the passenger\'s discretion, provide a refund for
any unused flights, including return flights.

\(e\) If you take any action under this section that restricts a
passenger's travel, you must, on the passenger's request, provide a
written explanation within 10 days of the request.

**§382.23 May carriers require a passenger with a disability to provide
a medical certificate?**

\(a\) Except as provided in this section, you must not require a
passenger with a disability to have a medical certificate as a condition
for being provided transportation.

(b)(1) You may require a medical certificate for a passenger with a
disability \--

\(i\) Who is traveling in a stretcher or incubator;

\(ii\) Who needs medical oxygen during a flight; or

\(iii\) Whose medical condition is such that there is reasonable doubt
that the individual can complete the flight safely, without requiring
extraordinary medical assistance during the flight.

\(2\) For purposes of this paragraph, a medical certificate is a written
statement from the passenger\'s physician saying that the passenger is
capable of completing the flight safely, without requiring extraordinary
medical assistance during the flight.

\(3\) To be valid, a medical certificate under this paragraph must be
dated within 10 days of the scheduled date of the passenger's initial
departing flight.

EXAMPLE to this paragraph (b)(3):

> A passenger who schedules a flight from New York to London on January
> 15 with a return on April 15 would have to show a medical certificate
> dated January 5 or later. The passenger would not have to show a
> second medical certificate dated April 5 or later.

(c)(1) You may also require a medical certificate for a passenger if he
or she has a communicable disease or condition that could pose a direct
threat to the health or safety of others on the flight.

\(2\) For purposes of this paragraph, a medical certificate is a written
statement from the passenger\'s physician saying that the disease or
infection would not, under the present conditions in the particular
passenger\'s case, be communicable to other persons during the normal
course of a flight. The medical certificate must state any conditions or
precautions that would have to be observed to prevent the transmission
of the disease or infection to other persons in the normal course of a
flight. A medical certificate under this paragraph must be dated within
10 days of the date of the flight for which it is presented.

\(d\) As a carrier, you may require that a passenger with a medical
certificate undergo additional medical review by you if there is a
legitimate medical reason for believing that there has been a
significant adverse change in the passenger's condition since the
issuance of the medical certificate or that the certificate
significantly understates the passenger's risk to the health of other
persons on the flight. If the results of this medical review demonstrate
that the passenger, notwithstanding the medical certificate, is likely
to be unable to complete the flight without requiring extraordinary
medical assistance (e.g., the passenger has apparent significant
difficulty in breathing, appears to be in substantial pain, etc.) or
would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other persons on
the flight, you may take an action otherwise prohibited under §382.23(a)
of this Part.

**§382.25 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice that he or she is traveling on a flight?**

As a carrier, you must not require a passenger with a disability to
provide advance notice of the fact that he or she is traveling on a
flight.

**§382.27 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice in order to obtain certain specific services in
connection with a flight?**

\(a\) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and sections
382.133(c)(3) and 382.133(d)(3), as a carrier you must not require a
passenger with a disability to provide advance notice in order to obtain
services or accommodations required by this Part.

\(b\) You may require a passenger with a disability to provide up to 72
hours' advance notice and check in one hour before the check-in time for
the general public to receive carrier- supplied in-flight medical oxygen
on international flights, 48 hours' advance notice and check-in one hour
before the check-in time for the general public to receive
carrier-supplied in-flight medical oxygen on domestic flights, and 48
hours' advance notice and check-in one hour before the check-in time for
the general public to use his/her ventilator, respirator, CPAP machine
or POC.

\(c\) You may require a passenger with a disability to provide up to 48
hours' advance notice and check in one hour before the check-in time for
the general public to receive the following services and accommodations.
The services listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this
paragraph are optional; you are not required to provide them, but you
may choose to do so.

\(1\) Carriage of an incubator;

\(2\) Hook-up for a respirator, ventilator, CPAP machine or POC to the
aircraft electrical power supply;

\(3\) Accommodation for a passenger who must travel in a stretcher;

\(4\) Transportation for an electric wheelchair on an aircraft with
fewer than 60 seats;

\(5\) Provision of hazardous materials packaging for batteries or other
assistive devices that are required to have such packaging;

\(6\) Accommodation for a group of ten or more qualified individuals
with a disability, who make reservations and travel as a group; and

\(7\) Provision of an on-board wheelchair on an aircraft with more than
60 seats that does not have an accessible lavatory.

\(8\) Transportation of an emotional support or psychiatric service
animal in the cabin;

\(9\) Transportation of a service animal on a flight segment scheduled
to take 8 hours or more;

\(10\) Accommodation of a passenger who has both severe vision and
hearing impairments (see sec. 382.29(b)(4)).

\(d\) If the passenger with a disability provides the advance notice you
require, consistent with this section, for a service that you must
provide (see paragraphs (c)(4) through (10) of this section) or choose
to provide (see paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section), you
must provide the requested service or accommodation.

\(e\) Your reservation and other administrative systems must ensure that
when passengers provide the advance notice that you require, consistent
with this section, for services and accommodations, the notice is
communicated, clearly and on time, to the people responsible for
providing the requested service or accommodation.

\(f\) If a passenger with a disability provides the advance notice you
require, consistent with this section, and the passenger is forced to
change to another flight (e.g., because of a flight cancellation), you
must, to the maximum extent feasible, provide the accommodation on the
new flight. If the new flight is another carrier's flight, you must
provide the maximum feasible assistance to the other carrier in
providing the accommodation the passenger requested from you.

\(g\) If a passenger does not meet advance notice or check-in
requirements you establish consistent with this section, you must still
provide the service or accommodation if you can do so by making
reasonable efforts, without delaying the flight.

**§382.29 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to travel
with a safety assistant?**

\(a\) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must not
require that a passenger with a disability travel with another person as
a condition of being provided air transportation.

\(b\) You may require a passenger with a disability in one of the
following categories to travel with a safety assistant as a condition of
being provided air transportation, if you determine that a safety
assistant is essential for safety:

\(1\) A passenger traveling in a stretcher or incubator. The safety
assistant for such a person must be capable of attending to the
passenger\'s in-flight medical needs;

\(2\) A passenger who, because of a mental disability, is unable to
comprehend or respond appropriately to safety instructions from carrier
personnel, including the safety briefing required by 14 CFR
121.571(a)(3) and (a)(4) or 14 CFR 135.117(b) or the safety regulations
of a foreign carrier's government, as applicable;

\(3\) A passenger with a mobility impairment so severe that the person
is unable to physically assist in his or her own evacuation of the
aircraft;

\(4\) A passenger who has both severe hearing and severe vision
impairments, if the passenger cannot establish some means of
communication with carrier personnel that is adequate both to permit
transmission of the safety briefing required by 14 CFR 121.57(a)(3) and
(a)(4), 14 CFR 135,117(b) or the safety regulations of a foreign
carrier's government, as applicable, and to enable the passenger to
assist in his or her own evacuation of the aircraft in the event of an
emergency. You may require a passenger with severe hearing and vision
impairment who wishes to travel without a safety assistant to notify you
at least 48 hours in advance to provide this explanation. If the
passenger fails to meet this notice requirement, however, you must still
accommodate him or her to the extent practicable.

\(c\) (1) If you determine that a person meeting the criteria of
paragraph (b)(2), (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this section must travel with a
safety assistant, contrary to the individual\'s self-assessment that he
or she is capable of traveling independently, you must not charge for
the transportation of the safety assistant. You are not required to find
or provide the safety assistant, however.

\(2\) For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, you may require,
contrary to the individual's self-assessment, that an individual with
both severe hearing and vision impairments must travel with a safety
assistant if you determine that \--

\(i\) the means of communication that the individual has explained to
you does not adequately satisfy the objectives identified in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section; or

\(ii\) the individual proposes to establish communication by means of
finger spelling and you cannot, within the time following the
individual's notification, arrange for a flight crew member who can
communicate using this method to serve the passenger's flight.

\(3\) If a passenger voluntarily chooses to travel with a personal care
attendant or safety assistant that you do not require, you may charge
for the transportation of that person.

\(d\) If, because there is not a seat available on a flight for a safety
assistant whom the carrier has determined to be necessary, a passenger
with a disability holding a confirmed reservation is unable to travel on
the flight, you must compensate the passenger with a disability in an
amount to be calculated as provided for instances of involuntary denied
boarding under 14 CFR Part 250, where Part 250 applies.

\(e\) For purposes of determining whether a seat is available for a
safety assistant, you must deem the safety assistant to have checked in
at the same time as the passenger with a disability.

\(f\) Concern that a passenger with a disability may need personal care
services (e.g., assistance in using lavatory facilities or with eating)
is not a basis for requiring the passenger to travel with a safety
assistant. You must explain this clearly in training or information you
provide to your employees. You may advise passengers that your personnel
are not required to provide such services.

**§382.31 May carriers impose special charges on passengers with a
disability for providing services and accommodations required by this
rule?**

\(a\) Except as otherwise provided in this Part you must not, as a
carrier, impose charges for providing facilities, equipment, or services
that this rule requires to be provided to passengers with a disability.
You may charge for services that this Part does not require.

\(b\) You may charge a passenger for the use of more than one seat if
the passenger's size or condition (e.g., use of a stretcher) causes him
or her to occupy the space of more than one seat. This is not considered
a special charge under this section.

\(c\) If your web site that passengers use to make reservations or
purchase tickets is not accessible to a passenger with a disability, you
must not charge a fee to the passenger who is consequently unable to
make a reservation or purchase a ticket on that site for using another
booking method (e.g., making a reservation by phone). If a discount is
made available to a passenger who books a flight using an inaccessible
web site, you must make that discount available to a passenger with a
disability who cannot use the web site and who purchases a ticket from
you using another method.

**§382.33 May carriers impose other restrictions on passengers with a
disability that they do not impose on other passengers?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must not subject passengers with a disability to
restrictions that do not apply to other passengers, except as otherwise
permitted in this Part (e.g., advance notice requirements for certain
services permitted by §382.27).

\(b\) Restrictions you must not impose on passengers with a disability
include, but are not limited to, the following:

\(1\) Restricting passengers' movement within the terminal;

\(2\) Requiring passengers to remain in a holding area or other location
in order to receive transportation, services, or accommodations;

\(3\) Making passengers sit on blankets on the aircraft;

\(4\) Making passengers wear badges or other special identification
(e.g., similar to badges worn by unaccompanied minors); or

\(5\) Otherwise mandating separate treatment for passengers with a
disability, unless permitted or required by this Part or other
applicable Federal requirements.

§**382.35 May carriers require passengers with a disability to sign
waivers or releases?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must not require passengers with a disability to
sign a release or waiver of liability in order to receive transportation
or to receive services or accommodations for a disability.

\(b\) You must not require passengers with a disability to sign waivers
of liability for damage to or loss of wheelchairs or other assistive
devices, or for the loss of, death of, or injury to service animals.
Carriers may note pre-existing damage to an assistive device to the same
extent that carriers do this with respect to other checked baggage.

### Subpart C -- Information for Passengers

**§382.41 What flight-related information must carriers provide to
qualified individuals with a disability?**

As a carrier, you must provide the following information, on request, to
qualified individuals with a disability or persons making inquiries on
their behalf concerning the accessibility of the aircraft expected to
make a particular flight. The information you provide must be specific
to the aircraft you expect to use for the flight unless it is unfeasible
for you to do so (e.g., because unpredictable circumstances such as
weather or a mechanical problem require substitution of another aircraft
that could affect the location or availability of an accommodation). The
required information is:

\(a\) The specific location of seats, if any, with movable armrests
(i.e., by row and seat number);

\(b\) The specific location of seats (i.e., by row and seat number) that
the carrier, consistent with this Part, does not make available to
passengers with a disability (e.g., exit row seats);

\(c\) Any aircraft-related, service-related or other limitations on the
ability to accommodate passengers with a disability, including
limitations on the availability of level-entry boarding to the aircraft
at any airport involved with the flight. You must provide this
information to any passenger who states that he or she uses a wheelchair
for boarding, even if the passenger does not explicitly request the
information.

\(d\) Any limitations on the availability of storage facilities, in the
cabin or in the cargo bay, for mobility aids or other assistive devices
commonly used by passengers with a disability, including storage in the
cabin of a passenger's wheelchair as provided in §§382.67 and 382.123 of
this Part;

\(e\) Whether the aircraft has an accessible lavatory; and

\(f\) The types of services to passengers with a disability that are or
are not available on the flight.

**382.43 Must information and reservation services of carriers be
accessible to individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or
deaf-blind?**

\(a\) If, as a carrier, you provide telephone reservation and
information service to the public, you must make this service available
to individuals who use a text telephone (TTY), whether via your own TTY,
voice relay, or other available technology, as follows:

\(1\) You must provide access to TTY users during the same hours as the
telephone service is available to the general public.

\(2\) You must ensure that the response time for answering calls and the
level of service provided to TTY users is substantially equivalent to
the response time and level of service provided to the general public
(*i.e.*, non-TTY users).

\(3\) You must not subject TTY users to charges exceeding those that
apply to non-TTY users of telephone information and reservation service.

\(4\) In any medium in which you list the telephone number of your
information and reservation service for the general public, you must
also list your TTY number if you have one. If you do not have a TTY
number, you must state how TTY users can reach your information and
reservation service (*e.g.*, via a voice relay service).

\(5\) If you are a foreign carrier, you must meet this requirement by
\[insert date one year after the effective date of this Part\].

\(b\) The requirements of paragraph (a) do not apply to you in any
country in which the telecommunications infrastructure does not readily
permit compliance.

**§382.45 Must carriers make copies of this Part available to
passengers?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must keep a current copy of this Part at each
airport you serve. As a foreign carrier, you must keep a copy of this
Part at each airport serving a flight you operate that begins or ends at
a U.S. airport. You must make this copy available for review by any
member of the public on request.

\(b\) If you have a website, it must provide notice to consumers that
they can obtain a copy of this Part in an accessible format from the
Department of Transportation by any of the following means:

\(1\) for calls made from within the United States, by telephone via the
Toll-Free Hotline for Air Travelers with Disabilities at 1-800-778-4838
(voice) or 1-800-455-9880 (TTY),

\(2\) by telephone to the Aviation Consumer Protection Division at
202-366-2220 (voice) or 202-366-0511 (TTY),

\(3\) by mail to the Air Consumer Protection Division, C-75, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building,
Room W96-432, Washington, DC 20590, and

\(4\) on the Aviation Consumer Protection Division's website
([http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov](http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/)).

# Subpart D -- Accessibility of Airport Facilities

**§382.51 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the
accessibility of airport facilities?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must comply with the following requirements with
respect to all terminal facilities you own, lease, or control at a U.S.
airport:

\(1\) You must ensure that terminal facilities providing access to air
transportation are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. You are deemed
to comply with this obligation if the facilities meet requirements
applying to places of public accommodation under Department of Justice
(DOJ) regulations implementing Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

\(2\) With respect to any situation in which boarding and deplaning by
level-entry loading bridges or accessible passenger lounges to and from
an aircraft is not available, you must ensure that there is an
accessible route between the gate and the area from which aircraft are
boarded (e.g., the tarmac in a situation in which level-entry boarding
is not available). An accessible route is one meeting the requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG),
sections 4.3.3 -- 4.3.10.

\(3\) You must ensure that systems of intra- and inter-terminal
transportation, including, but not limited to, moving sidewalks, shuttle
vehicles and people movers, comply with applicable requirements of the
Department of Transportation\'s ADA rules (49 CFR Parts 37 and 38).

\(4\) Your contracts or leases with airport operators concerning the use
of airport facilities must set forth your airport accessibility
responsibility under this Part and that of the airport operator under
applicable section 504 and ADA rules of the Department of Transportation
and Department of Justice.

\(5\) In cooperation with the airport operator and in consultation with
local service animal training organization(s), you must provide animal
relief areas for service animals that accompany passengers departing,
connecting, or arriving at an airport on your flights.

\(6\) You must enable captioning at all times on all televisions and
other audio-visual displays that are capable of displaying captions and
that are located in any portion of the terminal to which any passengers
have access on \[insert the effective date of this Part\]. The
captioning must be high-contrast insofar as is feasible.

\(7\) You must replace any televisions and other audio-visual displays
providing passengers with safety briefings, information, or
entertainment that do not have high-contrast captioning capability with
equipment that does have such capability whenever such equipment is
replaced in the normal course of operations and/or whenever areas of the
terminal in which such equipment is located are undergoing substantial
renovation or expansion.

\(8\) If you newly acquire televisions and other audio-visual displays
for passenger safety briefings, information, or entertainment on or
after (the effective date of the rule), such equipment must have
high-contrast captioning capability.

\(b\) As a carrier, you must ensure that passengers with a disability
can readily use all terminal facilities you own, lease, or control at a
foreign airport. In the case of foreign carriers, this requirement
applies only to terminal facilities that serve flights covered by
section 382.7 of this Part.

\(1\) This means that passengers with a disability must be able to move
readily through such terminal facilities to get to or from the gate and
any other area from which passengers board the aircraft you use for such
flights (e.g., the tarmac in the case of flights that do not use
level-entry boarding). This obligation is in addition to your obligation
to provide enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance to
passengers.

\(2\) You may meet this obligation through any combination of facility
accessibility, auxiliary aids, equipment, the assistance of personnel,
or other appropriate means consistent with the safety and dignity of
passengers with a disability.

\(c\) As a foreign carrier, you must meet the requirements of this
section by \[insert date one year after the effective date of this
Part\]. As a U.S. carrier, you must meet the requirements of paragraph
(b) of this section by \[insert date one year after the effective date
of this Part\].

**§382.53 What information must carriers give individuals with a vision
or hearing impairment at airports?**

(a)(1) As a U.S. carrier, you must ensure that passengers with a
disability who identify themselves as persons needing visual or hearing
assistance have prompt access to the same information provided to other
passengers at each gate, ticketing area, and customer service desk that
you own, lease, or control at any U.S. or foreign airport, to the extent
that this does not interfere with employees' safety and security duties
as set forth in FAA, TSA, and applicable foreign regulations.

\(2\) As a foreign carrier, you must make this information available at
each gate, ticketing area, and customer service desk that you own,
lease, or control at any U.S. airport. At foreign airports, you must
make this information available only at gates, ticketing areas, or
customer service desks that you own, lease, or control and only for
flights that begin or end in the U.S.

\(3\) As a U.S. or foreign carrier, at any U.S. airport covered by this
paragraph where the airport has effective control over the covered
gates, ticketing areas, and customer service desks, you and the airport
are jointly responsible for compliance.

\(b\) The information you must provide under paragraph (a) of this
section includes, but is not limited to, the following: information
concerning flight safety, ticketing, flight check-in, flight delays or
cancellations, schedule changes, boarding information, connections, gate
assignments, checking baggage, volunteer solicitation on oversold
flights (*e.g.*, offers of compensation for surrendering a reservation),
individuals being paged by airlines, aircraft changes that affect the
travel of persons with disabilities, and emergencies (*e.g.*, fire, bomb
threat).

\(c\) With respect to information on claiming baggage, you must provide
the information to passengers who identify themselves as persons needing
visual or hearing assistance no later than you provide this information
to other passengers.

**§382.55 May carriers impose security screening procedures for
passengers with disabilities that go beyond TSA requirements or those of
foreign governments?**

\(a\) All passengers, including those with disabilities, are subject to
TSA security screening requirements at U.S. airports. In addition,
passengers at foreign airports, including those with disabilities, may
be subject to security screening measures required by law of the country
in which the airport is located.

\(b\) If, as a carrier, you impose security screening procedures for
passengers with disabilities that go beyond those mandated by TSA (or,
at a foreign airport, beyond the law of the country in which the airport
is located), you must ensure that they meet the following requirements:

\(1\) You must use the same criteria for applying security screening
procedures to passengers with disabilities as to other passengers.

\(2\) You must not subject a passenger with a disability to special
screening procedures because the person is traveling with a mobility aid
or other assistive device if the person using the aid or device clears
the security system without activating it.

\(i\) However, your security personnel may examine a mobility aid or
assistive device which, in their judgment, may conceal a weapon or other
prohibited item.

\(ii\) You may conduct security searches of qualified individuals with a
disability whose aids activate the security system in the same manner as
for other passengers.

\(3\) You must not require private security screenings of passengers
with a disability to a greater extent, or for any different reason, than
for other passengers.

\(c\) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if a
passenger with a disability requests a private screening in a timely
manner, you must provide it in time for the passenger to enplane.

\(d\) If you use technology that can conduct an appropriate screening of
a passenger with a disability without necessitating a physical search of
the person, you are not required to provide a private screening.

**382.57 What services must carriers provide if their automated kiosks
are inaccessible?**

As a carrier, if your automated kiosks in airport terminals cannot
readily be used by a passenger with a disability for such functions as
ticketing and obtaining boarding passes that the kiosks make available
to other passengers, you must provide equivalent service to the
passenger (e.g., by assistance from your personnel in using the kiosk or
allowing the passenger to come to the front of the line at the check-in
counter).

# Subpart E Accessibility of Aircraft

**§382.61** **What are the requirements for movable aisle armrests?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must ensure that aircraft with 30 or more
passenger seats on which passenger aisle seats have armrests are
equipped with movable aisle armrests on at least one-half of the aisle
seats in rows in which passengers with mobility impairments are
permitted to sit under FAA or applicable foreign government safety
rules.

\(b\) You are not required to provide movable armrests on aisle seats of
rows which a passenger with a mobility impairment is precluded from
using by an FAA safety rule.

\(c\) You must ensure that these movable aisle armrests are provided
proportionately in all classes of service in the cabin. For example, if
80 percent of the aisle seats in which passengers with mobility
impairments may sit are in coach, and 20 percent are in first class,
then 80 percent of the movable aisle armrests must be in coach, with 20
percent in first class.

\(d\) For aircraft equipped with movable aisle armrests, you must
configure cabins, or establish administrative systems, to ensure that
passengers with mobility impairments or other passengers with a
disability can readily identify and obtain seating in rows with movable
aisle armrests. You must provide this information by specific seat and
row number.

\(e\) You are not required to retrofit cabin interiors of existing
aircraft to comply with the requirements of this section. However, if
you replace any of an aircraft's aisle seats with newly manufactured
seats, the new seats must include movable aisle armrests as required by
this section. However, an aircraft is never required to have movable
aisle armrests on more than one half of the aisle seats.

\(f\) As a foreign carrier, you must comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (a) -- (d) of this section with respect to new aircraft you
operate that were initially ordered after \[insert effective date of
this Part\] or which are are delivered after \[insert date one year
after the effective date of this Part\]. As a U.S. carrier, the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) apply to you with
respect to new aircraft you operate that were initially ordered after
April 5, 1990, or which are delivered after April 5, 1992**.** As a U.S.
carrier, paragraph (c) of this section applies to you with respect to
new aircraft you operate that were initially ordered after \[insert
effective date of this Part\] or which were delivered after \[insert
date one year after the effective date of this Part\].

\(g\) As a foreign carrier, you must comply with the requirements of
paragraph (e) of this section with respect to seats ordered after
\[insert effective date of this Part\].

**§382.63 What are the requirements for accessible lavatories?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must ensure that aircraft with more than one
aisle in which lavatories are provided shall include at least one
accessible lavatory.

\(1\) The accessible lavatory must permit a qualified individual with a
disability to enter, maneuver within as necessary to use all lavatory
facilities, and leave, by means of the aircraft\'s on-board wheelchair.

\(2\) The accessible lavatory must afford privacy to persons using the
on-board wheelchair equivalent to that afforded ambulatory users.

\(3\) The lavatory shall provide door locks, accessible call buttons,
grab bars, faucets and other controls, and dispensers usable by
qualified individuals with a disability, including wheelchair users and
persons with manual impairments.

\(b\) With respect to aircraft with only one aisle in which lavatories
are provided, you may, but are not required to, provide an accessible
lavatory.

\(c\) You are not required to retrofit cabin interiors of existing
aircraft to comply with the requirements of this section. However, if
you replace a lavatory on an aircraft with more than one aisle, you must
replace it with an accessible lavatory.

\(d\) As a foreign carrier, you must comply with the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section with respect to new aircraft you operate
that were initially ordered after \[insert effective date of this Part\]
or which are delivered after \[insert date one year after the effective
date of this Part\]. As a U.S. carrier, this requirement applies to you
with respect to new aircraft you operate that were initially ordered
after April 5, 1990, or which were delivered after April 5, 1992.

\(e\) As a foreign carrier, you must comply with the requirements of
paragraph (c) of this section beginning \[insert effective date of this
Part\]. As a U.S. carrier, these requirements apply to you with respect
to new aircraft you operate that were initially ordered after April 5,
1990, or which were delivered after April 5, 1992.

**§382.65 What are the requirements concerning on-board wheelchairs?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must equip aircraft that have more than 60
passenger seats, and that have an accessible lavatory (whether or not
having such a lavatory is required by §382.63 of this Part) with an
on-board wheelchair. The Aerospatiale/Aeritalia ATR-72 and the British
Aerospace Advanced Turboprop (ATP), in configurations having between 60
and 70 passenger seats, are exempt from this requirement.

\(b\) If a passenger asks you to provide an on-board wheelchair on a
particular flight, you must provide it if the aircraft being used for
the flight has more than 60 passenger seats, even if the aircraft does
not have an accessible lavatory.

\(1\) The basis of the passenger's request must be that he or she can
use an inaccessible lavatory but cannot reach it from a seat without
using an on-board wheelchair.

\(2\) You may require the passenger to provide the advance notice
specified in §382.27 to receive this service.

\(c\) You must ensure that on-board wheelchairs meet the following
standards:

\(1\) On-board wheelchairs must include footrests, armrests which are
movable or removable, adequate occupant restraint systems, a backrest
height that permits assistance to passengers in transferring,
structurally sound handles for maneuvering the occupied chair, and wheel
locks or another adequate means to prevent chair movement during
transfer or turbulence.

\(2\) The chair must be designed to be compatible with the maneuvering
space, aisle width, and seat height of the aircraft on which it is to be
used, and to be easily pushed, pulled, and turned in the cabin
environment by carrier personnel.

\(d\) As a foreign carrier, you must meet this requirement as of
\[insert date one year after the effective date of this Part\]. As a
U.S. carrier, you must meet this requirement by \[insert effective date
of this Part\].

**§382.67 What is the requirement for priority space in the cabin to
store passengers' wheelchairs?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must ensure that there is a priority space in
the cabin of sufficient size to stow at least one typical adult-sized
folding, collapsible, or break-down manual passenger wheelchair, the
dimensions of which are within a space of 13 inches by 36 inches by 42
inches without having to remove the wheels or otherwise disassemble it.
This requirement applies to any aircraft with 100 or more passenger
seats; and

\(b\) This space must be other than the overhead compartments and
under-seat spaces routinely used for passengers' carry-on items.

\(c\) As a foreign carrier, you must meet the requirement of paragraph
(a) of this section for new aircraft ordered after \[insert effective
date of this Part\] or delivered after \[insert date one year after the
effective date of this Part\]. As a U.S. carrier, this requirement
applies to you with respect to new aircraft you operate that were
ordered after April 5, 1990, or which were delivered after April 5,
1992.

**§382.69 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the
accessibility of videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual presentations
shown on- aircraft to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must ensure that all new videos, DVDs, and other
audio-visual displays played on aircraft for safety purposes, and all
such new audio-visual displays played on aircraft for informational
purposes that were created under your control, are high-contrast
captioned. The captioning must be in the predominant language or
languages in which you communicate with passengers on the flight.

\(b\) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section go into effect
with respect to audio-visual displays used for safety purposes on
\[insert date 180 days after the effective date of this Part\].

\(c\) Between \[insert effective date of this Part\] and \[insert date
179 days after the effective date of this Part\], U.S. carriers must
ensure that all videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual displays played on
aircraft for safety purposes have open captioning or an inset for a sign
language interpreter, unless such captioning or inset either would
interfere with the video presentation so as to render it ineffective or
would not be large enough to be readable, in which case these carriers
must use an equivalent non-video alternative for transmitting the
briefing to passengers with hearing impairments.

\(d\) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section go into effect
with respect to informational displays on \[insert date 240 days after
the effective date of this Part\].

**§382.71 What other aircraft accessibility requirements apply to
carriers?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must maintain all aircraft accessibility
features in proper working order.

\(b\) You must ensure that any replacement or refurbishing of the
aircraft cabin or its elements does not reduce the accessibility of that
element to a level below that specified in this Part.

# 

# Subpart F -- Seating Accommodations 

**§382.81 For which passengers must carriers make seating
accommodations?**

As a carrier, you must provide the following seating accommodations to
the following passengers on request, if the passenger self-identifies to
you as having a disability specified in this section and the type of
seating accommodation in question exists on the particular aircraft.
Once the passenger self-identifies to you, you must ensure that the
information is recorded and properly transmitted to personnel
responsible for providing the accommodation.

\(a\) For a passenger who uses an aisle chair to access the aircraft and
who cannot readily transfer over a fixed aisle armrest, you must provide
a seat in a row with a movable aisle armrest. You must ensure that your
personnel are trained in the location and proper use of movable aisle
armrests, including appropriate transfer techniques. You must ensure
that aisle seats with movable armrests are clearly identifiable.

\(b\) You must provide an adjoining seat for a person assisting a
passenger with a disability in the following circumstances:

\(1\) When a passenger with a disability is traveling with a personal
care attendant who will be performing a function for the individual
during the flight that airline personnel are not required to perform
(e.g., assistance with eating);

\(2\) When a passenger with a vision impairment is traveling with a
reader/assistant who will be performing functions for the individual
during the flight;

\(3\) When passenger with a hearing impairment is traveling with an
interpreter who will be performing functions for the individual during
the flight; or

\(4\) When you require a passenger to travel with a safety assistant
(see §382.29).

\(c\) For a passenger with a disability traveling with a service animal,
you must provide, as the passenger requests, either a bulkhead seat or a
seat other than a bulkhead seat.

\(d\) For a passenger with a fused or immobilized leg, you must provide
a bulkhead seat or other seat that provides greater legroom than other
seats, on the side of an aisle that better accommodates the
individual\'s disability.

**§382.83 Through what mechanisms do carriers make seating
accommodations?**

\(a\) If you are a carrier that provides advance seat assignments to
passengers (i.e., offer seat assignments to passengers before the day of
the flight), you must comply with the requirements of §382.81 of this
Part by any of the following methods:

\(1\) You may \"block\" an adequate number of the seats used to provide
the seating accommodations required by §382.81.

\(i\) You must not assign these seats to passengers who do not meet the
criteria of §382.81 until 24 hours before the scheduled departure of the
flight.

\(ii\) At any time up until 24 hours before the scheduled departure of
the flight, you must assign a seat meeting the requirements of this
section to a passenger with a disability meeting one or more of the
requirements of §382.81 who requests it, at the time the passenger
initially makes the request.

\(iii\) If a passenger with a disability specified in §382.81 does not
make a request at least 24 hours before the scheduled departure of the
flight, you must meet the passenger\'s request to the extent
practicable, but you are not required to reassign a seat assigned to
another passenger in order to do so.

\(2\) You may designate an adequate number of the seats used to provide
seating accommodations required by §382.81 as \"priority seats\" for
passengers with a disability.

\(i\) You must provide notice that all passengers assigned these seats
(other than passengers with a disability listed in §382.81 of this Part)
are subject to being reassigned to another seat if necessary to provide
a seating accommodation required by this section.

\(ii\) You may provide this notice through your computer reservation
system, verbal information provided by reservation personnel, ticket
notices, gate announcements, counter signs, seat cards or notices,
frequent-flier literature, or other appropriate means.

\(iii\) You must assign a seat meeting the requirements of this section
to a passenger with a disability listed in §382.81 of this Part who
requests the accommodation at the time the passenger makes the request.
You may require such a passenger to check in and request the seating
accommodation at least one hour before the standard check-in time for
the flight. If all designated priority seats that would accommodate the
passenger have been assigned to other passengers, you must reassign the
seats of the other passengers as needed to provide the requested
accommodation.

\(iv\) If a passenger with a disability listed in §382.81 does not check
in at least an hour before the standard check-in time for the general
public, you must meet the individual\'s request to the extent
practicable, but you are not required to reassign a seat assigned to
another passenger in order to do so.

\(b\) If you assign seats to passengers, but not until the date of the
flight, you must use the "priority seating" approach of paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.

\(c\) If you do not provide advance seat assignments to passengers, you
must allow passengers specified in §382.81 to board the aircraft before
other passengers, including other \"preboarded\" passengers, so that the
passengers needing seating accommodations can select seats that best
meet their needs.

\(d\) As a carrier, if you wish to use a different method of providing
seating assignment accommodations to passengers with disabilities from
those specified in this subpart, you must obtain the written concurrence
of the Department of Transportation. Contact the Department at the
address cited in §382.159 of this Part.

**§382.85 What seating accommodations must carriers make to passengers
in circumstances not covered by §382.81 (a) -- (d)?**

As a carrier, you must provide the following seating accommodations to a
passenger who self-identifies as having a disability other than one in
the four categories listed in §382.81 (a) -- (d) of this Part and as
needing a seat assignment accommodation in order to readily access and
use the carrier\'s air transportation services:

\(a\) As a carrier that assigns seats in advance, you must provide
accommodations in the following ways:

\(1\) If you use the \"seat-blocking\" mechanism of §382.83(a)(1) of
this Part, you must implement the requirements of this section as
follows:

\(i\) When a passenger with a disability not described in §382.81(a) --
(d) of this Part makes a reservation more than 24 hours before the
scheduled departure time of the flight, you are not required to offer
the passenger one of the seats blocked for the use of passengers with a
disability listed under §382.81.

\(ii\) However, you must assign to the passenger any seat, not already
assigned to another passenger that accommodates the passenger\'s needs,
even if that seat is not available for assignment to the general
passenger population at the time of the request.

\(2\) If you use the \"designated priority seats\" mechanism of
§382.83(a)(2) of this Part, you must implement the requirements of this
section as follows:

\(i\) When a passenger with a disability not described in §382.81 makes
a reservation, you must assign to the passenger any seat, not already
assigned to another passenger, that accommodates the passenger\'s needs,
even if that seat is not available for assignment to the general
passenger population at the time of the request. You may require a
passenger making such a request to check in one hour before the standard
check-in time for the flight.

\(ii\) If such a passenger is assigned to a designated priority seat, he
or she is subject to being reassigned to another seat as provided in
§382.83(a)(2)(i) of this subpart.

\(b\) On flights where advance seat assignments are not offered, you
must provide seating accommodations under this section by allowing
passengers to board the aircraft before other passengers, including
other \"preboarded\" passengers, so that the individuals needing seating
accommodations can select seats that best meet their needs.

\(c\) If you assign seats to passengers, but not until the date of the
flight, you must use the "priority seating" approach of section
382.83(a)(2).

**§382.87 What other requirements pertain to seating for passengers with
a disability?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must not exclude any passenger with a disability
from any seat or require that a passenger with a disability sit in any
particular seat, on the basis of disability, except to comply with FAA
or applicable foreign government safety requirements.

\(b\) In responding to requests from individuals for accommodations
under this subpart, you must comply with FAA and applicable foreign
government safety requirements, including those pertaining to exit
seating (see 14 CFR §§121.585 and 135.129).

\(c\) If a passenger's disability results in involuntary active behavior
that would result in the person properly being refused transportation
under §382.19, and the passenger could be transported safely if seated
in another location, you must offer to let the passenger sit in that
location as an alternative to being refused transportation.

\(d\) If you have already provided a seat to a passenger with a
disability to furnish an accommodation required by this subpart, you
must not (except in the circumstance described in §382.85(a)(2)(ii))
reassign that passenger to another seat in response to a subsequent
request from another passenger with a disability, without the first
passenger's consent.

\(e\) You must never deny transportation to any passenger in order to
provide accommodations required by this subpart.

\(f\) You are not required to furnish more than one seat per ticket or
to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger
has purchased in order to provide an accommodation required by this
Part.

**Subpart G Boarding, Deplaning, and Connecting Assistance**

**§382.91 What assistance must carriers provide to passengers with a
disability in moving within the terminal?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must provide or ensure the provision of
assistance requested by or on behalf of a passenger with a disability,
or offered by carrier or airport operator personnel and accepted by a
passenger with a disability, in transportation between gates to make a
connection to another flight. If the arriving flight and the departing
connecting flight are operated by different carriers, the carrier that
operated the arriving flight (i.e., the one that operates the first of
the two flights that are connecting) is responsible for providing or
ensuring the provision of this assistance, even if the passenger holds a
separate ticket for the departing flight. It is permissible for the two
carriers to mutually agree that the carrier operating the departing
connecting flight (i.e., the second flight of the two) will provide this
assistance, but the carrier operating the arriving flight remains
responsible under this section for ensuring that the assistance is
provided.

\(b\) You must also provide or ensure the provision of assistance
requested by or on behalf of a passenger with a disability, or offered
by carrier or airport operator personnel and accepted by a passenger
with a disability, in moving from the terminal entrance (or a vehicle
drop-off point adjacent to the entrance) through the airport to the gate
for a departing flight, or from the gate to the terminal entrance (or a
vehicle pick-up point adjacent to the entrance after an arriving
flight).

\(1\) This requirement includes assistance in accessing key functional
areas of the terminal, such as ticket counters and baggage claim.

\(2\) This requirement also includes a brief stop upon the passenger's
request at the entrance to a rest room (including an accessible rest
room when requested). As a carrier, you are required to make such a stop
only if the rest room is available on the route to the destination of
the enplaning, deplaning, or connecting assistance and you can make the
stop without unreasonable delay. To receive such assistance, the
passenger must self-identify as being an individual with a disability
needing the assistance.

\(c\) As a carrier at a U.S. airport, you must, on request, in
cooperation with the airport operator, provide for escorting a passenger
with a service animal to an animal relief area provided under
§382.51(a)(5) of this Part.

\(d\) As part of your obligation to provide or ensure the provision of
assistance to passengers with disabilities in moving through the
terminal (e.g., between the terminal entrance and the gate, between gate
and aircraft, from gate to a baggage claim area), you must assist
passengers who are unable to carry their luggage because of a disability
with transporting their gate-checked or carry-on luggage. You may
request the credible verbal assurance that a passenger cannot carry the
luggage in question. If a passenger is unable to provide credible
assurance, you may require the passenger to provide documentation as a
condition of providing this service.

**§382.93** **Must carriers offer preboarding to passengers with a
disability?**

As a carrier, you must offer preboarding to passengers with a disability
who self-identify at the gate as needing additional time or assistance
to board, stow accessibility equipment, or be seated.

**§382. 95 What are carriers' general obligations with respect to
boarding and deplaning assistance?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must promptly provide or ensure the provision of
assistance requested by or on behalf of passengers with a disability, or
offered by carrier or airport operator personnel and accepted by
passengers with a disability, in enplaning and deplaning. This
assistance must include, as needed, the services of personnel and the
use of ground wheelchairs, accessible motorized carts, boarding
wheelchairs, and/or on-board wheelchairs where provided in accordance
with this Part, and ramps or mechanical lifts.

\(b\) As a carrier, you must, except as otherwise provided in this
subpart, provide boarding and deplaning assistance through the use of
lifts or ramps at any U.S. commercial service airport with 10,000 or
more annual enplanements where boarding and deplaning by level-entry
loading bridges or accessible passenger lounges is not available.

**§382.97 To which aircraft does the requirement to provide boarding and
deplaning assistance through the use of lifts apply?**

The requirement of section 382.95(b) of this Part to provide boarding
and deplaning assistance through the use of lifts applies with respect
to all aircraft with a passenger capacity of 19 or more, with the
following exceptions:

\(a\) Float planes;

\(b\) The following 19-seat capacity aircraft models: the Fairchild
Metro, the Jetstream 31 and 32, the Beech 1900 (C and D models), and the
Embraer EMB-120;

\(c\) Any other aircraft model determined by the Department of
Transportation to be unsuitable for boarding and deplaning assistance by
lift, ramp, or other suitable device. The Department will make such a
determination if it concludes that --

\(1\) No existing boarding and deplaning assistance device on the market
will accommodate the aircraft without a significant risk of serious
damage to the aircraft or injury to passengers or employees, or

\(2\) Internal barriers are present in the aircraft that would preclude
passengers who use a boarding or aisle chair from reaching a non-exit
row seat.

**§382.99 What agreements must carriers have with the airports they
serve?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must negotiate in good faith with the airport
operator of each U.S. airport described in §382.95(b) to ensure the
provision of lifts for boarding and deplaning where level-entry loading
bridges are not available.

\(b\) You must have a written, signed agreement with the airport
operator allocating responsibility for meeting the boarding and
deplaning assistance requirements of this subpart between or among the
parties. For foreign carriers, with respect to all covered aircraft,
this requirement becomes effective \[insert date one year after the
effective date of this Part\].

\(c\) For foreign carriers, the agreement with a U.S. airport must
provide that all actions necessary to ensure accessible boarding and
deplaning for passengers with a disability are completed as soon as
practicable, but no later than \[insert date one year after the
effective date of this Part\].

\(d\) Under the agreement, you may, as a carrier, require that
passengers wishing to receive boarding and deplaning assistance
requiring the use of a lift for a flight check in for the flight one
hour before the standard check-in time for the flight. If the passenger
checks in after this time, you must nonetheless provide the boarding and
deplaning assistance by lift if you can do so by making a reasonable
effort, without delaying the flight.

\(e\) The agreement must ensure that all lifts and other accessibility
equipment are maintained in proper working condition.

\(f\) All carriers and airport operators involved are jointly and
severally responsible for the timely and complete implementation of the
agreement.

\(g\) You must make a copy of this agreement available, on request, to
representatives of the Department of Transportation.

**§382.101** **What other boarding and deplaning assistance must
carriers provide?**

When level-entry boarding and deplaning assistance is not required to be
provided under this subpart, you must, as a carrier, provide or ensure
the provision of boarding and deplaning assistance by any available
means to which the passenger consents. However, you must never use
hand-carrying (i.e., directly picking up the passenger\'s body in the
arms of one or more carrier personnel to effect a level change the
passenger needs to enter or leave the aircraft), even if the passenger
consents, unless this is the only way of evacuating the individual in
the event of an emergency. The situations in which level-entry boarding
is not required but in which you must provide this boarding and
deplaning assistance include, but are not limited to, the following:

\(a\) The boarding or deplaning process occurs at a U.S. airport that is
not a commercial service airport that has 10,000 or more enplanements
per year;

\(b\) The boarding or deplaning process occurs at a foreign airport;

\(c\) You are using an aircraft subject to an exception from the lift
boarding and deplaning assistance requirements under §382.97 (a) -- (c)
of this subpart;

\(d\) The deadlines established in §382.99(c) have not yet passed; and

\(e\) Circumstances beyond your control (e.g., unusually severe weather;
unexpected mechanical problems) prevent the use of a lift.

**§382.103 May a carrier leave a passenger unattended in a wheelchair or
other device?**

As a carrier, you must not leave a passenger who has requested
assistance required by this subpart unattended by the personnel
responsible for enplaning, deplaning, or connecting assistance in a
ground wheelchair, boarding wheelchair, or other device, in which the
passenger is not independently mobile, for more than 30 minutes. This
requirement applies even if another person (e.g., family member,
personal care attendant) is accompanying the passenger, unless the
passenger explicitly waives the obligation.

**§ 382.105 What is the responsibility of carriers at foreign airports
at which airport operators have responsibility for enplaning, deplaning,
and connecting assistance?**

At a foreign airport at which enplaning, deplaning, or connecting
assistance is provided by the airport operator, rather than by carriers,
as a carrier you may rely on the services provided by the airport
operator to meet the requirements of this subpart. If the services
provided by the airport operator are not sufficient to meet the
requirements of this subpart, you must supplement the airport operator's
services to ensure that these requirements are met. If you believe you
are precluded by law from supplementing the airport operator's services,
you may apply for a conflict of laws waiver under §382.9 of this Part.

**Subpart H -- Services on Aircraft**

**§382.111 -- What services must carriers provide to passengers with a
disability on board the aircraft?**

As a carrier, you must provide services within the aircraft cabin as
requested by or on behalf of passengers with a disability, or when
offered by carrier personnel and accepted by passengers with a
disability, as follows:

\(a\) Assistance in moving to and from seats, as part of the enplaning
and deplaning processes;

\(b\) Assistance in preparation for eating, such as opening packages and
identifying food;

\(c\) If there is an on-board wheelchair on the aircraft, assistance
with the use of the on-board wheelchair to enable the person to move to
and from a lavatory;

\(d\) Assistance to a semi-ambulatory person in moving to and from the
lavatory, not involving lifting or carrying the person; or

\(e\) Assistance in stowing and retrieving carry-on items, including
mobility aids and other assistive devices stowed in the cabin (see also
382.91(c)). To receive such assistance, the passenger must self-identify
as being an individual with a disability needing the assistance.

\(f\) Effective communication with passengers who have vision
impairments and/or who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, so that these
passengers have timely access to information the carrier provides to
other passengers (e.g., weather, on-board services, flight delays,
connecting gates at the next airport).

**§382.113 What services are carriers not required to provide to
passengers with a disability on board the aircraft?**

As a carrier, you are not required to provide extensive special
assistance to qualified individuals with a disability. For purposes of
this section, extensive special assistance includes the following
activities:

\(a\) Assistance in actual eating;

\(b\) Assistance within the restroom or assistance at the passenger\'s
seat with elimination functions; and

\(c\) Provision of medical services.

**§382.115 What requirements apply to on-board safety briefings?**

As a carrier, you must comply with the following requirements with
respect to on-board safety briefings:

\(a\) You must conduct an individual safety briefing for any passenger
where required by 14 CFR 121.571 (a)(3) and (a)(4), 14 CFR 135.117(b),
or other FAA requirements.

\(b\) You may offer an individual briefing to any other passenger, but
you may not require an individual to have such a briefing except as
provided in paragraph (a) of this section.

\(c\) You must not require any passenger with a disability to
demonstrate that he or she has listened to, read, or understood the
information presented, except to the extent that carrier personnel
impose such a requirement on all passengers with respect to the general
safety briefing. You must not take any action adverse to a qualified
individual with a disability on the basis that the person has not
\"accepted\" the briefing.

\(d\) When you conduct an individual safety briefing for a passenger
with a disability, you must do so as inconspicuously and discreetly as
possible.

\(e\) The accessibility requirements for onboard video safety
presentations that carriers must meet are outlined in section 382.69.

**§382.117 Must carriers permit passengers with a disability to travel
with service animals?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must permit a service animal to accompany a
passenger with a disability.

\(1\) You must not deny transportation to a service animal on the basis
that its carriage may offend or annoy carrier personnel or persons
traveling on the aircraft.

\(2\) On a flight segment scheduled to take 8 hours or more, you may, as
a condition of permitting a service animal to travel in the cabin,
require the passenger using the service animal to provide documentation
that the animal will not need to relieve itself on the flight or that
the animal can relieve itself in a way that does not create a health or
sanitation issue on the flight.

\(b\) You must permit the service animal to accompany the passenger with
a disability at any seat in which the passenger sits, unless the animal
obstructs an aisle or other area that must remain unobstructed to
facilitate an emergency evacuation.

\(c\) If a service animal cannot be accommodated at the seat location of
the passenger with a disability who is using the animal, you must offer
the passenger the opportunity to move with the animal to another seat
location, if present on the aircraft, where the animal can be
accommodated.

\(d\) As evidence that an animal is a service animal, you must accept
identification cards, other written documentation, presence of
harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified
individual with a disability using the animal.

\(e\) If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is used as an
emotional support or psychiatric service animal, you are not required to
accept the animal for transportation in the cabin unless the passenger
provides you current documentation (i.e., no older than one year from
the date of the passengers scheduled initial flight) on the letterhead
of a licensed mental health professional (e.g., psychiatrist,
psychologist, licensed clinical social worker) stating the following:

\(1\) The passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth
Edition (DSM IV);

\(2\) The passenger needs the emotional support or psychiatric service
animal as an accommodation for air travel and/or for activity at the
passenger's destination;

\(3\) The individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental
health professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional
care; and

\(4\) The date and type of the mental health professional's license and
the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued.

\(f\) You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service
animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as
service animals in the cabin. With respect to other unusual or exotic
animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses,
pigs, monkeys), as a U.S. carrier you must determine whether any factors
preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether
the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin,
whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of
others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin
service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country
that is the flight's destination). If no such factors preclude the
animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to do so. As a
foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service animals other
than dogs.

\(g\) Whenever you decide not to accept an animal as a service animal,
you must explain the reason for your decision to the passenger and
document it in writing. A copy of the explanation must be provided to
the passenger either at the airport, or within 10 calendar days of the
incident.

\(h\) You must promptly take all steps necessary to comply with foreign
regulations (e.g., animal health regulations) needed to permit the legal
transportation of a passenger's service animal from the U.S. into a
foreign airport.

\(i\) Guidance concerning the carriage of service animals generally is
found in the preamble to this rule. Guidance on the steps necessary to
legally transport service animals on flights from the U.S. into the
United Kingdom is found in 72 FR 8268-8277, (February 26, 2007).

**§382.119 What information must carriers give individuals with vision
or hearing impairment on aircraft?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must ensure that passengers with a disability
who identify themselves as needing visual or hearing assistance have
prompt access to the same information provided to other passengers on
the aircraft as described in paragraph (b) of this section, to the
extent that it does not interfere with crewmembers' safety duties as set
forth in FAA and applicable foreign regulations.

\(b\) The covered information includes but is not limited to the
following: information concerning flight safety, procedures for takeoff
and landing, flight delays, schedule or aircraft changes that affect the
travel of persons with disabilities, diversion to a different airport,
scheduled departure and arrival time, boarding information, weather
conditions at the flight's destination, beverage and menu information,
connecting gate assignments, baggage claim, individuals being paged by
airlines, and emergencies (*e.g.*, fire or bomb threat).

**Subpart I -- Stowage of Wheelchairs, Other Mobility Aids, and Other
Assistive Devices**

**§382.121 What mobility aids and other assistive devices may passengers
with a disability bring into the aircraft cabin?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must permit passengers with a disability to
bring the following kinds of items into the aircraft cabin, provided
that they can be stowed in designated priority storage areas or in
overhead compartments or under seats, consistent with FAA, PHMSA, TSA,
or applicable foreign government requirements concerning security,
safety, and hazardous materials with respect to the stowage of carry-on
items.

\(1\) Manual wheelchairs, including folding or collapsible wheelchairs;

\(2\) Other mobility aids, such as canes (including those used by
persons with impaired vision), crutches, and walkers; and

\(3\) Other assistive devices for stowage or use within the cabin (e.g.,
prescription medications and any medical devices needed to administer
them such as syringes or auto-injectors, vision-enhancing devices, and
POCs, ventilators and respirators that use non-spillable batteries, as
long as they comply with applicable safety, security and hazardous
materials rules).

\(b\) In implementing your carry-on baggage policies, you must not count
assistive devices (including the kinds of items listed in paragraph (a)
of this section) toward a limit on carry-on baggage.

**§382.123 What are the requirements concerning priority cabin stowage
for wheelchairs and other assistive devices?**

\(a\) The following rules apply to the stowage of passengers'
wheelchairs or other assistive devices in the priority stowage area
provided for in §382.67 of this Part:

\(1\) You must ensure that a passenger with a disability who uses a
wheelchair and takes advantage of the opportunity to preboard the
aircraft can stow his or her wheelchair in this area, with priority over
other items brought onto the aircraft by other passengers or crew
enplaning at the same airport, consistent with FAA, PHMSA, TSA, or
applicable foreign government requirements concerning security, safety,
and hazardous materials with respect to the stowage of carry-on items.
You must move items that you or your personnel have placed in the
priority stowage area (e.g., crew luggage, an on-board wheelchair) to
make room for the passenger's wheelchair, even if these items were
stowed in the priority stowage area before the passenger seeking to stow
a wheelchair boarded the aircraft (e.g., the items were placed there on
a previous leg of the flight).

\(2\) You must also ensure that a passenger with a disability who takes
advantage of the opportunity to preboard the aircraft can stow other
assistive devices in this area, with priority over other items (except
wheelchairs) brought onto the aircraft by other passengers enplaning at
the same airport consistent with FAA, PHMSA, TSA, or applicable foreign
government requirements concerning security, safety, and hazardous
materials with respect to the stowage of carry-on items.

\(3\) You must ensure that a passenger with a disability who does not
take advantage of the opportunity to preboard is able to use the area to
stow his or her wheelchair or other assistive device on a first-come,
first-served basis along with all other passengers seeking to stow
carry-on items in the area.

\(b\) If a wheelchair exceeds the space provided for in §382.67 of this
Part while fully assembled but will fit if wheels or other components
can be removed without the use of tools, you must remove the applicable
components and stow the wheelchair in the designated space. In this
case, you must stow the removed components in areas provided for stowage
of carry-on luggage.

\(c\) You must not use the seat-strapping method of carrying a
wheelchair in any aircraft you order after \[insert effective date of
this Part\] or which are delivered after \[insert date two years after
the effective date of this Part\]. Any such aircraft must have the
designated priority stowage space required by section 382.67, and you
must permit passengers to use the space as provided in this section
382.123.

**§382.125 What procedures do carriers follow when wheelchairs, other
mobility aids, and other assistive devices must be stowed in the cargo
compartment?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must stow wheelchairs, other mobility aids, or
other assistive devices in the baggage compartment if an approved
stowage area is not available in the cabin or the items cannot be
transported in the cabin consistent with FAA, PHMSA, TSA, or applicable
foreign government requirements concerning security, safety, and
hazardous materials with respect to the stowage of carry-on items.

\(b\) You must give wheelchairs, other mobility aids, and other
assistive devices priority for stowage in the baggage compartment over
other cargo and baggage. Only items that fit into the baggage
compartment and can be transported consistent with FAA, PHMSA, TSA, or
applicable foreign government requirements concerning security, safety,
and hazardous materials with respect to the stowage of items in the
baggage compartment need be transported. Where this priority results in
other passengers\' baggage being unable to be carried on the flight, you
must make your best efforts to ensure that the other baggage reaches the
passengers\' destination on the carrier's next flight to the
destination.

\(c\) You must provide for the checking and timely return of
passengers\' wheelchairs, other mobility aids, and other assistive
devices as close as possible to the door of the aircraft, so that
passengers may use their own equipment to the extent possible, except

\(1\) Where this practice would be inconsistent with Federal regulations
governing transportation security or the transportation of hazardous
materials; or

\(2\) When the passenger requests the return of the items at the baggage
claim area instead of at the door of the aircraft.

\(d\) In order to achieve the timely return of wheelchairs, you must
ensure that passengers\' wheelchairs, other mobility aids, and other
assistive devices are among the first items retrieved from the baggage
compartment.

**§382.127 What procedures apply to stowage of battery-powered mobility
aids?**

\(a\) Whenever baggage compartment size and aircraft airworthiness
considerations do not prohibit doing so, you must, as a carrier, accept
a passenger\'s battery-powered wheelchair or other similar mobility
device, including the battery, as checked baggage, consistent with the
requirements of 49 CFR 175.10(a)(15) and (16) and the provisions of
paragraphs (b) - (f) of this section.

\(b\) You may require that passengers with a disability wishing to have
battery-powered wheelchairs or other similar mobility devices
transported on a flight check in one hour before the check-in time for
the general public. If the passenger checks in after this time, you must
nonetheless carry the wheelchair or other similar mobility device if you
can do so by making a reasonable effort, without delaying the flight.

\(c\) If the battery on the passenger's wheelchair or other similar
mobility device has been labeled by the manufacturer as non-spillable as
provided in 49 CFR 173.159(d)(2), or if a battery-powered wheelchair
with a spillable battery can be loaded, stored, secured and unloaded in
an upright position, you must not require the battery to be removed and
separately packaged. Notwithstanding this requirement, you must remove
and package separately any battery that is inadequately secured to a
wheelchair or, for a spillable battery, is contained in a wheelchair
that cannot be loaded, stowed, secured and unloaded in an upright
position, in accordance with 49 CFR 175.10(a)(15) and (16). A damaged or
leaking battery should not be transported.

\(d\) When it is necessary to detach the battery from the wheelchair,
you must, upon request, provide packaging for the battery meeting the
requirements of 49 CFR 175.10(a)(15) and (16) and package the battery.
You may refuse to use packaging materials or devices other than those
you normally use for this purpose.

\(e\) You must not disconnect the battery on wheelchairs or other
mobility devices equipped with a non-spillable battery completely
enclosed within a case or compartment integral to the design of the
device unless an FAA or PHMSA safety regulation, or an applicable
foreign safety regulation having mandatory legal effect, requires you to
do so.

\(f\) You must not drain batteries.

**§382.129 What other requirements apply when passengers' wheelchairs,
other mobility aids, and other assistive devices must be disassembled
for stowage?**

\(a\) As a carrier, you must permit passengers with a disability to
provide written directions concerning the disassembly and reassembly of
their wheelchairs, other mobility aids, and other assistive devices. You
must carry out these instructions to the greatest extent feasible,
consistent with FAA, PHMSA, TSA, or applicable foreign government
requirements concerning security, safety, and hazardous materials with
respect to the stowage of carry-on items.

\(b\) When wheelchairs, other mobility aids, or other assistive devices
are disassembled by the carrier for stowage, you must reassemble them
and ensure their prompt return to the passenger. You must return
wheelchairs, other mobility aids, and other assistive devices to the
passenger in the condition in which you received them.

**§382.131 Do baggage liability limits apply to mobility aids and other
assistive devices?**

With respect to transportation to which 14 CFR Part 254 applies, the
limits to liability for loss, damage, or delay concerning wheelchairs or
other assistive devices provided in Part 254 do not apply. The basis for
calculating the compensation for a lost, damaged, or destroyed
wheelchair or other assistive device shall be the original purchase
price of the device.

**§ 382.133 What are the requirements concerning the evaluation and use
of passenger-supplied electronic devices that assist passengers with
respiration in the cabin during flight?**

\(a\) Except for on-demand air taxi operators, as a U.S. carrier
conducting passenger service you must permit any individual with a
disability to use in the passenger cabin during air transportation, a
ventilator, respirator, continuous positive airway pressure machine, or
an FAA-approved portable oxygen concentrator (POC) on all flights
operated on aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger
capacity of more than 19 seats, unless:

\(1\) the device does not meet applicable FAA requirements for medical
portable electronic devices and does not display a manufacturer's label
that indicates the device meets those FAA requirements, or

\(2\) the device cannot be stowed and used in the passenger cabin
consistent with applicable TSA, FAA, and PHMSA regulations.

\(b\) Except for foreign carriers conducting operations of a nature
equivalent to on-demand air taxi operations by a U.S. carrier, as a
foreign carrier conducting passenger service you must permit any
individual with a disability to use a ventilator, respirator, continuous
positive airway pressure machine, or portable oxygen concentrator (POC)
of a kind equivalent to an FAA-approved POC for U.S. carriers in the
passenger cabin during air transportation to, from or within the United
States, on all aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger
capacity of more than 19 seats unless:

\(1\) the device does not meet requirements for medical portable
electronic devices set by the foreign carrier's government if such
requirements exist and/or it does not display a manufacturer's label
that indicates the device meets those requirements, or

\(2\) the device does not meet requirements for medical portable
electronic devices set by the FAA for U.S. carriers and does not display
a manufacturer's label that indicates the device meets those FAA
requirements in circumstances where requirements for medical portable
electronic devices have not been set by the foreign carrier's government
and the foreign carrier elects to apply FAA requirements for medical
portable electronic devices, or

\(3\) the device cannot be stowed and used in the passenger cabin
consistent with applicable TSA, FAA and PHMSA regulations, and the
safety or security regulations of the foreign carrier's government.

\(c\) As a U.S. carrier, you must provide information during the
reservation process as indicated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of
this section upon inquiry from an individual concerning the use in the
cabin during air transportation of a ventilator, respirator, continuous
positive airway machine, or an FAA-approved POC. The following
information must be provided:

\(1\) the device must be labeled by the manufacturer to reflect that it
has been tested to meet applicable FAA requirements for medical portable
electronic devices;

\(2\) the maximum weight and dimensions (length, width, height) of the
device to be used by an individual that can be accommodated in the
aircraft cabin consistent with FAA safety requirements;

\(3\) the requirement to bring an adequate number of batteries as
outlined in paragraph (f)(2) of this section and to ensure that extra
batteries carried onboard to power the device are packaged and protected
from short circuit and physical damage in accordance with SFAR 106,
Section 3 (b)(6);

\(4\) any requirement, if applicable, that an individual contact the
carrier operating the flight 48 hours before scheduled departure to
learn the expected maximum duration of his/her flight in order to
determine the required number of batteries for his/her particular
ventilator, respirator, continuous positive airway pressure machine, or
POC;

\(5\) any requirement, if applicable, of the carrier operating the
flight for an individual planning to use such a device to check-in up to
one hour before that carrier's general check-in deadline; and

\(6\) for POCs, the requirement of paragraph 382.23(b)(1)(ii) of this
Part to present to the operating carrier at the airport a physician's
statement (medical certificate) prepared in accordance with applicable
federal aviation regulations.

\(d\) As a foreign carrier operating flights to, from or within the
United States, you must provide the information during the reservation
process as indicated in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(7) of this section
upon inquiry from an individual concerning the use in the cabin during
air transportation on such a flight of a ventilator, respirator,
continuous positive airway machine, or POC of a kind equivalent to an
FAA-approved POC for U.S. carriers:

\(1\) the device must be labeled by the manufacturer to reflect that it
has been tested to meet requirements for medical portable electronic
devices set by the foreign carrier's government if such requirements
exist;

\(2\) the device must be labeled by the manufacturer to reflect that it
has been tested to meet requirements for medical portable electronic
devices set by the FAA for U.S. carriers if requirements for medical
portable electronic devices have not been set by the foreign carrier's
government and the foreign carrier elects to apply FAA requirements for
medical portable electronic devices;

\(3\) the maximum weight and dimensions (length, width, height) of the
device to be used by an individual that can be accommodated in the
aircraft cabin consistent with the safety regulations of the foreign
carrier's government;

\(4\) the requirement to bring an adequate number of batteries as
outlined in paragraph (f)(2) of this section and to ensure that extra
batteries carried onboard to power the device are packaged in accordance
with applicable government safety regulations;

\(5\) any requirement, if applicable, that an individual contact the
carrier operating the flight 48 hours before scheduled departure to
learn the expected maximum duration of his/her flight in order to
determine the required number of batteries for his/her particular
ventilator, respirator, continuous positive airway pressure machine, or
POC;

\(6\) any requirement, if applicable, of the carrier operating the
flight for an individual planning to use such a device to check-in up to
one hour before that carrier's general check-in deadline; and

\(7\) any requirement, if applicable, that an individual who wishes to
use a POC onboard an aircraft present to the operating carrier at the
airport a physician's statement (medical certificate).

\(e\) In the case of a codeshare itinerary, the carrier whose code is
used on the flight must either inform the individual inquiring about
using a ventilator, respirator, CPAP machine or POC onboard an aircraft
to contact the carrier operating the flight for information about its
requirements for use of such devices in the cabin, or provide such
information on behalf of the codeshare carrier operating the flight.

(f)(1) As a U.S. or foreign carrier subject to paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section, you must inform any individual who has advised you that he
or she plans to operate his/her device in the aircraft cabin, within 48
hours of his/her making a reservation or 24 hours before the scheduled
departure date of his/her flight, whichever date is earlier, of the
expected maximum flight duration of each segment of his/her flight
itinerary.

\(2\) You may require an individual to bring an adequate number of fully
charged batteries onboard, based on the battery manufacturer's estimate
of the hours of battery life while the device is in use and the
information provided in the physician's statement, to power the device
for not less than 150% of the expected maximum flight duration.

\(3\) If an individual does not comply with the conditions for
acceptance of a medical portable electronic device as outlined in this
section, you may deny boarding to the individual in accordance with 14
CFR 382.19(c) and in that event you must provide a written explanation
to the individual in accordance with 14 CFR 382.19(d).

**Subpart J - Training and Administrative Provisions**

**§382.141 What training are carriers required to provide for their
personnel?**

\(a\) As a carrier that operates aircraft with 19 or more passenger
seats, you must provide training, meeting the requirements of this
paragraph, for all personnel who deal with the traveling public, as
appropriate to the duties of each employee.

\(1\) You must ensure training to proficiency concerning:

\(i\) The requirements of this Part and other applicable Federal
regulations affecting the provision of air travel to passengers with a
disability;

\(ii\) Your procedures, consistent with this Part, concerning the
provision of air travel to passengers with a disability, including the
proper and safe operation of any equipment used to accommodate
passengers with a disability; and

\(iii\) For those personnel involved in providing boarding and deplaning
assistance, the use of the boarding and deplaning assistance equipment
used by the carrier and appropriate boarding and deplaning assistance
procedures that safeguard the safety and dignity of passengers.

\(2\) You must also train such employees with respect to awareness and
appropriate responses to passengers with a disability, including persons
with physical, sensory, mental, and emotional disabilities, including
how to distinguish among the differing abilities of individuals with a
disability.

\(3\) You must also train these employees to recognize requests for
communication accommodation from individuals whose hearing or vision is
impaired and to use the most common methods for communicating with these
individuals that are readily available, such as writing notes or taking
care to enunciate clearly, for example. Training in sign language is not
required. You must also train these employees to recognize requests for
communication accommodation from deaf-blind passengers and to use
established means of communicating with these passengers when they are
available, such as passing out Braille cards if you have them, reading
an information sheet that a passenger provides, or communicating with a
passenger through an interpreter, for example.

\(4\) You must consult with organizations representing persons with
disabilities in your home country when developing your training program
and your policies and procedures. If such organizations are not
available in your home country, you must consult with individuals with
disabilities and/or international organizations representing individuals
with disabilities.

\(5\) You must ensure that all personnel who are required to receive
training receive refresher training on the matters covered by this
section, as appropriate to the duties of each employee, as needed to
maintain proficiency. You must develop a program that will result in
each such employee receiving refresher training at least once every
three years. The program must describe how employee proficiency will be
maintained.

\(6\) You must provide, or ensure that your contractors provide,
training to the contractors\' employees concerning travel by passengers
with a disability. This training is required only for those contractor
employees who deal directly with the traveling public, and it must be
tailored to the employees\' functions. Training for contractor employees
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this
section.

\(7\) The employees you designate as CROs, for purposes of §382.151 of
this Part, must receive training concerning the requirements of this
Part and the duties of a CRO.

\(8\) Personnel subject to training required under this Part, who are
already employed on \[insert effective date of this Part\], must be
trained one time in the changes resulting from the reissuance of this
Part.

\(b\) If you are a carrier that operates only aircraft with fewer than
19 passenger seats, you must provide training for flight crewmembers and
appropriate personnel to ensure that they are familiar with the matters
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section and that they
comply with the requirements of this Part.

**§382.143 When must carriers complete training for their personnel?**

\(a\) As a U.S. carrier, you must meet the training requirements of
§382.141 by the following times.

\(1\) Employees designated as CROs shall receive training concerning the
requirements of this Part and the duties of a CRO before assuming their
duties under §382.151 (see §382.141(a)(7)). You must ensure that all
employees performing the CRO function receive annual refresher training
concerning their duties and the provisions of this regulation. The
one-time training for CROs about the changes to Part 382 must take place
by \[insert effective date of this Part\]. For employees who have
already received CRO training, this training may be limited to changes
from the previous version of Part 382.

\(2\) The one-time training for existing employees about changes to Part
382 (see §382.141(a)(8)) must take place as part of the next scheduled
recurrent training after \[insert effective date of this Part\] for each
such employee or within one year after \[insert effective date of this
Part\], whichever comes first.

\(3\) For crewmembers subject to training requirements under 14 CFR Part
121 or 135 whose employment in any given position commences after
\[insert effective date of this Part\], before they assume their duties;
and

\(4\) For other personnel whose employment in any given position
commences after \[insert effective date of this Part\], within 60 days
after the date on which they assume their duties.

\(b\) As a foreign carrier that operates aircraft with 19 or more
passenger seats, you must provide training meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section for all personnel who deal with the
traveling public in connection with flights that begin or end at a U.S.
airport, as appropriate to the duties of each employee. You must ensure
that personnel required to receive training complete the training by the
following times:

\(1\) Employees designated as CROs shall receive training in accordance
with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, by \[insert effective date of
this Part\].

\(2\) For crewmembers and other personnel who are employed on \[insert
effective date of this Part\], within one year after that date;

\(3\) For crewmembers whose employment commences after \[insert date one
year after the effective date of this Part\], before they assume their
duties;

\(4\) For other personnel whose employment in any given position
commences after \[insert date one year after the effective date of this
Part\], or a date within 60 days after the date on which they assume
their duties; and

\(5\) For crewmembers and other personnel whose employment in any given
position commences after \[insert effective date of this Part\], but
before \[insert date one year after the effective date of this Part\],
by \[insert date one year after the effective date of this Part\] or a
date 60 days after the date of their employment, whichever is later.

**§382.145 What records concerning training must carriers retain?**

\(a\) As a carrier that operates aircraft with 19 or more passenger
seats, you must incorporate procedures implementing the requirements of
this Part in the manuals or other guidance or instructional materials
provided for the carrier and contract personnel who provide services to
passengers, including, but not limited to, pilots, flight attendants,
reservation and ticket counter personnel, gate agents, ramp and baggage
handling personnel, and passenger service office personnel. You must
retain these records for review by the Department on the Department\'s
request. If, upon such review, the Department determines that any
portion of these materials must be changed in order to comply with this
Part, DOT will direct you to make appropriate changes. You must
incorporate and implement these changes

\(b\) You must retain for three years individual employee training
records demonstrating that all persons required to receive initial and
refresher training have done so.

**Subpart K Complaints and Enforcement Procedures**

**§382.151 What are the requirements for providing Complaints Resolution
Officials?**

\(a\) As a carrier providing scheduled service, or a carrier providing
nonscheduled service using aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats, you
must designate one or more CROs.

\(b\) As a U.S. carrier, you must make a CRO available at each airport
you serve during all times you are operating at that airport. As a
foreign carrier, you must make a CRO available at each airport serving
flights you operate that begin or end at a U.S. airport. You may make
the CRO available in person at the airport or via telephone, at no cost
to the passenger. If a telephone link to the CRO is used, TTY service or
a similarly effective technology must be available so that persons with
hearing impairments may readily communicate with the CRO. You must make
CRO service available in the language(s) in which you make your services
available to the general public.

\(c\) You must make passengers with a disability aware of the
availability of a CRO and how to contact the CRO in the following
circumstances:

\(1\) In any situation in which any person complains or raises a concern
with your personnel about discrimination, accommodations, or services
with respect to passengers with a disability, and your personnel do not
immediately resolve the issue to the customer's satisfaction or provide
a requested accommodation, your personnel must immediately inform the
passenger of the right to contact a CRO and then contact a CRO on the
passenger's behalf or provide the passenger a means (e.g., a phone, a
phone card plus the location and/or phone number of the CRO available at
the airport). Your personnel must provide this information to the
passenger in a format he or she can use.

\(2\) Your reservation agents, contractors, and web sites must provide
information equivalent to that required by paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to passengers with a disability using those services who
complain or raise a concern about a disability-related issue.

\(d\) Each CRO must be thoroughly familiar with the requirements of this
Part and the carrier\'s procedures with respect to passengers with a
disability. The CRO is intended to be the carrier's "expert" in
compliance with the requirements of this Part.

\(e\) You must ensure that each of your CROs has the authority to make
dispositive resolution of complaints on behalf of the carrier. This
means that the CRO must have the power to overrule the decision of any
other personnel, except that the CRO is not required to be given
authority to countermand a decision of the pilot-in-command of an
aircraft based on safety.

**§382.153 What actions do CROs take on complaints?**

When a complaint is made directly to a CRO for a carrier providing
scheduled service, or a carrier providing nonscheduled service using
aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats (e.g., orally, by phone, TTY),
the CRO must promptly take dispositive action as follows:

\(a\) If the complaint is made to a CRO before the action or proposed
action of carrier personnel has resulted in a violation of a provision
of this Part, the CRO must take, or direct other carrier personnel to
take, whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with this Part.

\(b\) If an alleged violation of a provision of this Part has already
occurred, and the CRO agrees that a violation has occurred, the CRO must
provide to the complainant a written statement setting forth a summary
of the facts and what steps, if any, the carrier proposes to take in
response to the violation.

\(c\) If the CRO determines that the carrier\'s action does not violate
a provision of this Part, the CRO must provide to the complainant a
written statement including a summary of the facts and the reasons,
under this Part, for the determination.

\(d\) The statements required to be provided under this section must
inform the complainant of his or her right to pursue DOT enforcement
action under this Part. The CRO must provide the statement in person to
the complainant at the airport if possible; otherwise, it must be
forwarded to the complainant within 30 calendar days of the complaint.

§**382.155 How must carriers respond to written complaints?**

\(a\) As a carrier providing scheduled service, or a carrier providing
nonscheduled service using aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats, you
must respond to written complaints received by any means (e.g., letter,
fax, e-mail, electronic instant message) concerning matters covered by
this Part.

\(b\) As a passenger making a written complaint, you must state whether
you had contacted a CRO in the matter, provide the name of the CRO and
the date of the contact, if available, and enclose any written response
you received from the CRO.

\(c\) As a carrier, you are not required to respond to a complaint
postmarked or transmitted more than 45 days after the date of the
incident, except for complaints referred to you by the Department of
Transportation.

\(d\) As a carrier, you must make a dispositive written response to a
written disability complaint within 30 days of its receipt. The response
must specifically admit or deny that a violation of this Part has
occurred.

\(1\) If you admit that a violation has occurred, you must provide to
the complainant a written statement setting forth a summary of the facts
and the steps, if any, you will take in response to the violation.

\(2\) If you deny that a violation has occurred, your response must
include a summary of the facts and your reasons, under this Part, for
the determination.

\(3\) Your response must also inform the complainant of his or her right
to pursue DOT enforcement action under this Part.

**§382.157 What are carriers' obligations for recordkeeping and
reporting on disability-related complaints?**

\(a\) For the purposes of this section, a disability-related complaint
means a specific written expression of dissatisfaction received from, or
submitted on behalf, of an individual with a disability concerning a
difficulty associated with the person\'s disability, which the person
experienced when using or attempting to use an air carrier\'s or foreign
carrier\'s services.

\(b\) If you are a carrier covered by this Part, conducting passenger
operations with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity
of more than 60 passengers, this section applies to you. As a foreign
carrier, you are covered by this section only with respect to
disability-related complaints associated with any flight segment
originating or terminating in the United States.

\(c\) You must categorize disability-related complaints that you receive
according to the type of disability and nature of complaint. Data
concerning a passenger\'s disability must be recorded separately in the
following areas: vision impaired, hearing impaired, vision and hearing
impaired, mentally impaired, communicable disease, allergies (*e.g.,*
food allergies, chemical sensitivity), paraplegic, quadriplegic, other
wheelchair, oxygen, stretcher, other assistive device (cane, respirator,
etc.), and other disability. Data concerning the alleged discrimination
or service problem related to the disability must be separately recorded
in the following areas: refusal to board, refusal to board without an
attendant, security issues concerning disability, aircraft not
accessible, airport not accessible, advance notice dispute, seating
accommodation, failure to provide adequate or timely assistance, damage
to assistive device, storage and delay of assistive device, service
animal problem, unsatisfactory information, and other.

\(d\) You must submit an annual report summarizing the
disability-related complaints that you received during the prior
calendar year using the form specified at the following internet
address: http://382reporting.ost.dot.gov. You must submit this report by
the last Monday in January of each year for complaints received during
the prior calendar year. You must make submissions through the World
Wide Web except for situations where you can demonstrate that you would
suffer undue hardship if not permitted to submit the data via paper
copies, disks, or email, and DOT has approved an exception. All fields
in the form must be completed; carriers are to enter "0" where there
were no complaints in a given category. Each annual report must contain
the following certification signed by your authorized representative:
"I, the undersigned, do certify that this report has been prepared under
my direction in accordance with the regulations in 14 CFR Part 382. I
affirm that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this is a true,
correct, and complete report." Electronic signatures will be accepted.

\(e\) You must retain correspondence and record of action taken on all
disability-related complaints for three years after receipt of the
complaint or creation of the record of action taken. You must make these
records available to Department of Transportation officials at their
request.

(f)(1) As either carrier in a codeshare relationship, you must comply
with paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section for---

\(i\) Disability-related complaints you receive from or on behalf of
passengers with respect to difficulties encountered in connection with
service you provide;

\(ii\) Disability-related complaints you receive from or on behalf of
passengers when you are unable to reach agreement with your codeshare
partner as to whether the complaint involves service you provide or
service your codeshare partner provides; and

\(iii\) Disability-related complaints forwarded by another carrier or
governmental agency with respect to difficulties encountered in
connection with service you provide.

\(2\) As either carrier in a codeshare relationship, you must forward to
your codeshare partner disability-related complaints you receive from or
on behalf of passengers with respect to difficulties encountered in
connection with service provided by your code-sharing partner.

\(g\) Each carrier, except for carriers in codeshare situations, shall
comply with paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section for
disability-related complaints it receives from or on behalf of
passengers as well as disability-related complaints forwarded by another
carrier or governmental agency with respect to difficulties encountered
in connection with service it provides.

\(h\) Carriers that do not submit their data via the Web shall use the
disability-related complaint data form specified in Appendix A to this
Part when filing their annual report summarizing the disability-related
complaints they received. The report shall be mailed, by the date
specified in paragraph (d) of this section, to the following address:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection Division
(C-75), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, West Building, Room W96-432,
Washington, DC 20590.

**§382.159 How are complaints filed with DOT?**

\(a\) Any person believing that a carrier has violated any provision of
this Part may seek assistance or file an informal complaint at the
Department of Transportation no later than 6 months after the date of
the incident by either:

\(1\) going to the web site of the Department's Aviation Consumer
Protection Division at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov and selecting "Air
Travel Problems and Complaints," or

\(2\) writing to Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer
Protection Division (C‑75), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC
20590.

\(b\) Any person believing that a carrier has violated any provision of
this Part may also file a formal complaint under the applicable
procedures of 14 CFR Part 302.

\(c\) You must file a formal complaint under this Part within six months
of the incident on which the complaint is based in order to ensure that
the Department of Transportation will investigate the matter.

**APPENDIX A TO PART 382 -- REPORT OF DISABILITY-RELATED COMPLAINT
DATA**

Name of Carrier: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Submission Date: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Contact Person: Period of Data Collection:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone \# (include country code if outside the U.S.):
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Email address:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Mailing address:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total number of complaints (i.e., incidents):
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

REPORT OF DISABILITY-RELATED COMPLAINT DATA

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th></th>
<th><p>Vision</p>
<p>Impaired</p></th>
<th><p>Hearing</p>
<p>Impaired</p></th>
<th>Vision &amp; Hearing Impaired</th>
<th>Paraplegic</th>
<th>Quadriplegic</th>
<th>Other wheelchair</th>
<th>Oxygen</th>
<th>Stretcher</th>
<th>Other Disability</th>
<th>Other Assistive Device</th>
<th>Mentally Impaired</th>
<th>Communicable Disease</th>
<th>Allergies</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Refusal To Board Passenger</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Refusal to Board w/o Attendant</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Security Issues Regarding Disability</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Aircraft Not Accessible</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Airport Not Accessible</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Advance Notice Dispute</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Seating Accomm-odation</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Failure to Provide Assistance</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Damage to Assistive Device</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Storage and Delay of Assistive Device</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Service Animal Problem</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Unsatisfac-tory Info</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Other</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Certification Statement:** I, the undersigned, do certify that this
report has been prepared under my direction in accordance with the
regulations in 14 CFR Part 382. I affirm that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, this is a true, correct, and complete report

Signature:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The valid OMB control number for this information collection is
2105-0551. The time required to complete this information is estimated
to average 30 minutes per response.

**APPENDIX B** **CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE**

The Department is providing the following table to assist users familiar
with the current Part 382 in finding material in the new, renumbered
Part 382.

> Section numbers: Old and New Rules

+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| ***Old      | ***New       | ***Subject***                          |
| section     | section      |                                        |
| (382.x)***  | (382.x)***   |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| **General   |              |                                        |
| p           |              |                                        |
| rovisions** |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 1         | > 1          | Purpose                                |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 3         | > 7          | Applicability                          |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 5         | > 3          | Definitions                            |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 7         | > 11, 13     | Non-discrimination generally           |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 9         | > 15         | Contractors                            |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
|             |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| **Aircraft  |              |                                        |
| acce        |              |                                        |
| ssibility** |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| 21(a)(1)    | > 61         | Movable armrests                       |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| 21(a)(2)    | > 67         | Stowage space in cabin for passenger   |
|             |              | wheelchair                             |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| 21(a)(3)    | > 63         | Accessible lavatories                  |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| 21(a)(4)    | > 65         | Carrier-supplied on-board wheelchair   |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| 21(e) and   | > 71         | Aircraft accessibility: miscellaneous  |
| (f)         |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| **Airport   |              |                                        |
| acce        |              |                                        |
| ssibility** |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 23        | > 51         | General                                |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > (New)     | > 53         | Vision/hearing impairments             |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+

+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| **Services  |              |                                        |
| and         |              |                                        |
| in          |              |                                        |
| formation** |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 31        | > 19         | Refusal of transportation              |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 31(c)     | > 17         | Number limits                          |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 33        | > 25, 27     | Advance notice requirements            |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 35        | > 29         | Safety assistants (formerly            |
|             |              | "attendants")                          |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 37        | > 87(a)      | Seat assignments                       |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 38        | > 81 through | Seating accommodations                 |
|             | > 87         |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 39(a)     | > 91 through | Enplaning, deplaning and connecting    |
|             | > 105        | assistance                             |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 39(b)     | > 111        | Assistance in cabin                    |
|             | > through    |                                        |
|             | > 119        |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| 40 and 40a  | > 99         | Mechanical lifts                       |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 41        | > 121        | Stowage of assistive devices           |
|             | > through    |                                        |
|             | > 133        |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 43(a)     | > 129(b)     | Timely return of assistive devices     |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 43(b)     | > 131        | Liability limits                       |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 43(c)     | > 35         | Liability waivers                      |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 45(a)     | > 41         | Access to information (general)        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 45(b)     | > 115        | Individual safety briefings            |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 45(c)     | > 119        | Access to information in airport and   |
|             |              | aircraft                               |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 45(d)     | > 45         | Availability of copy of rule           |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 47(a)     | > 43         | TTY's and reservations systems         |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 47(b)     | > 69         | Accessibility of videos on aircraft    |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 49        | > 55         | Security screening                     |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 51        | > 21         | Communicable diseases                  |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 53        | > 23         | Medical certificates                   |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 55(a)     | > 117        | Service animals                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 55(b)     | > 33         | Sitting on blankets                    |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 55(c)     | > 33         | Restricting movement                   |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 55        | > 31         | Charges for accommodations             |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| **Adm       |              |                                        |
| inistrative |              |                                        |
| p           |              |                                        |
| rovisions** |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 61        | > 141, 143   | Training                               |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 63(c) and | > 145        | Manuals; directed changes              |
| > (d)       |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 65(a)     | > 151, 153   | Complaints Resolution Officials        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 65(b)     | > 155, 157   | Written complaints to carriers         |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+
| > 65(c) and | > 159        | Complaints to DOT                      |
| > (d)       |              |                                        |
+-------------+--------------+----------------------------------------+

[^1]: The dates and citations for these amendments are the following:
    April 3, 1990, 55 FR 12341; June 11, 1990, 55 FR 23544; November 1,
    1996, 61 FR 56422; January 2, 1997, 62 FR 17; March 4, 1998, 63 FR
    10535; March 11, 1998, 63 FR 11954; August 2, 1999, 64 FR 41703;
    January 5, 2000, 65 FR 352; May 3, 2001, 66 FR 22115; July 3, 2003,
    68 FR 4088.

[^2]: See 64 FR 5096, February 2, 1999 (for 49 CFR Part 26,
    disadvantaged business enterprise) and 65 FR 79462, December 19,
    2000 (for 49 CFR Part 40, drug and alcohol testing procedures).

[^3]: 61 FR 56409, 56420 (Nov. 1, 1996).

[^4]: See Glossary for definition of this and other terms.

[^5]: Service animal users typically refer to the person who accompanies
    the animal as the "handler."

[^6]: See Glossary.