Tuesday,
May 13, 2008

Part II

Department ofTransportation

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

14 CFR Part 382
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Disability in Air Travel; Final Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27614Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

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 ofTransportation is amending its Air
Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rules toapply to foreign carriers. The final rulealso adds new provisions concerning
passengers who use medical oxygen andpassengers who are deaf or hard-ofhearing. The rule also reorganizes andupdates the entire ACAA rule. The
Department will respond to somematters raised in this rulemaking by
issuing a subsequent supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule iseffective May 13, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Ashby, Deputy AssistantGeneral Counsel for Regulation and
Enforcement, Department ofTransportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SE., Room W94–302, Washington, DC
20590 (202) 366–9310 (voice); 202–366–
7687 (TTY); bob.ashby@dot.gov. You
may also contact Blane Workie,
Aviation Civil Rights ComplianceBranch, Office of the Assistant GeneralCounsel for Aviation Enforcement andProceedings, Department ofTransportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SE., Room W98–310, Washington, DC
20590 (202) 366–9345),
blane.workie@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Backgroundrwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Congress enacted the Air Carrier
Access Act (ACAA) in 1986. The statuteprohibits discrimination in airline
service on the basis of disability.
Following a lengthy rulemaking processthat included a regulatory negotiation
involving representatives of the airline
industry and disability community, theDepartment issued a final ACAA rule inMarch 1990. Since that time, theDepartment has amended the rule tentimes.1 These amendments have
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.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

concerned such subjects as boarding
assistance via lift devices for small
aircraft, and subsequently for otheraircraft, where level entry boarding isunavailable; seating accommodations
for passengers with disabilities;
reimbursement for loss of or damage towheelchairs; modifications to policies
or practices necessary to ensure
nondiscrimination; terminal
accessibility standards; and technicalchanges to terminology and compliancedates.
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 withindividual 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 beencollected in one place. Some of thisguidance would be more accessible tothe public and more readily
understandable if it were incorporated
into regulatory text.
There have also been changes in theways 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 forflights that formerly would have been
served by larger aircraft. Security
screening has become a responsibility of
the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), rather than thatof the airlines. In this rulemaking, theDepartment is updating Part 382 to takethese and other changes in airline
operations into account.
The over 17-year history ofamendments and interpretations of Part382 have made the rule something of apatchwork, which does not flow asclearly and understandably as it might.
Restructuring the rule for greater clarity,
including using ‘‘plain language’’ to theextent feasible, is an important
objective. To this end, Part 382 has been
restructured in this rule, to organize itby subject matter area. Compared to thepresent 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 findregulatory provisions. The rule uses aquestion-answer format, with language
specifically directing particular parties
to take particular actions (e.g., ‘‘As acarrier, you must * * *’’). We have also
tried to express the (admittedly

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

sometimes technical) requirements of
the rule in plain language.
The Department recognizes that someusers, who have become familiar andcomfortable with the existingorganization and numbering scheme ofPart 382, might have to make someadjustments as they work with therestructured rule. However, thestructure of this revision is consistent
with a Federal government-wide effort
to improve the clarity of regulations,which the Department has employedwith great success and public
acceptance in the case of othersignificant rules in recent years, such asrevisions of our disadvantaged businessenterprise and drug and alcohol testingprocedures rules.2 Many of theprovisions of the current Part 382 areretained 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 tablein Appendix B to the final rule.
In addition to this general revisionand update, the Department in this ruleis 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 21stCentury (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 ormore major life activities.
(2) The individual has a record of such an
impairment.
(3) The individual is regarded as havingsuch an impairment.

Section 40105(b) provides as follows:(b) Actions of Secretary and
Administrator—(1) In carrying out this part, the Secretaryof Transportation and the Administrator(A) Shall act consistently with obligationsof the United States Government under aninternational agreement;(B) Shall consider applicable laws andrequirements of a foreign country; and2 See 64 FR 5096, February 2, 1999 (for 49 CFRPart 26, disadvantaged business enterprise) and 65
FR 79462, December 19, 2000 (for 49 CFR Part 40,
drug and alcohol testing procedures).

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2(C) May not limit compliance by an air
carrier with obligations or liabilities imposedby the government of a foreign country when
the Secretary takes any action related to acertificate of public convenience andnecessity issued under chapter 411 of thistitle.
(2) This subsection does not apply to anagreement between an air carrier or an officer
or representative of an air carrier and thegovernment of a foreign country, if theSecretary of Transportation disapproves theagreement because it is not in the public
interest. Section 40106(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 toinvestigate complaints against foreign
carriers according to the amended
provisions of the ACAA. The notice alsoannounced the Department’s plan toinitiate a rulemaking modifying Part 382
to cover foreign carriers. On November
4, 2004, the Department issued a noticeof proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
apply the ACAA rule to foreign carriers(69 FR 64364). The NPRM sought toapply Part 382 to foreign carriers in a
way that achieves the ACAA’s
nondiscrimination objectives while notimposing undue burdens on foreign
carriers. This NPRM also proposed
revisions to a number of otherprovisions of 14 CFR Part 382 andgenerally reorganized the rule. The
Department received about 1300
comments on this NPRM. In thispreamble to the final rule, this proposed
rule is called the ‘‘Foreign Carriers
NPRM’’ or the ‘‘2004 NPRM.’’
On September 7, 2005, theDepartment published a second NPRM,
on the subject of medical oxygen andportable respiratory assistive devices (70FR 53108). The Department received
over 1800 comments on this proposed
rule, which is referred to in thispreamble 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, whichis 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 thatare published in this final rule.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 thesecommenters said they preferred a moregeneral approach, in which an overall
objective of nondiscrimination andservice to persons with disabilities wasstated, with the details of
implementation left to the discretion ofcarrier policies, guided by codes ofrecommended practice issued byvarious governments or internationalorganizations.
It is the Department’s experience, overthe 21 years since the enactment of the
Air Carrier Access Act, that in order toensure that carriers are accountable forproviding nondiscriminatory service topassengers with disabilities, detailed
standards and requirements are
essential. If all that carriers are
responsible for is carrying out, in theirbest 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 throughpolicies of their own devising and tolimit potential compliance issues.
However, the Department is responsible
for ensuring consistentnondiscriminatory treatment ofpassengers with disabilities, including
implementation of the variety of specificaccommodations that are essential inproviding such treatment. We must
structure our response to this mandate
in a way that allows for clear andconsistent implementation by the
carriers, and clear and consistentenforcement by the Department.
Consequently, we are convinced that theapproach taken in the NPRM, reflecting
the Department’s years of successful
experience in carrying out the ACAA, isappropriate.
Coverage and Definition of ‘‘Flight’’
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed
to cover the activities of foreign carriers
with respect to a ‘‘flight,’’ defined as acontinuous journey, in the same aircraft
or using the same flight number thatbegins 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 ofthese examples proposed that if apassenger books a journey on a foreign

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27615

carrier from New York to Cairo, with achange of plane or flight number in
London, the entire flight would becovered for that passenger. When there
is a change in both aircraft and flightnumber at a foreign airport, the rulewould not apply beyond that point.
Another example proposed that therules applying to U.S. carriers would
apply to a flight operated by a foreign
carrier between foreign points that wasalso 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 toobserve Part 382 rules for a leg of aflight that did not itself touch the U.S.
(e.g., the London-Cairo leg in theexample mentioned above). We notethat only service and nondiscrimination
provisions of the rule apply in such asituation, 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 aforeign carrier just because the foreign
carrier’s flight between two foreign
points carried passengers under a codesharing arrangement with a U.S. carrier.
In response to these comments, theDepartment has changed the applicableprovision 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 theforeign carrier will not be responsible to
the Department for compliance withPart 382 for that segment. Rather, withrespect to passengers ticketed to travel
under the U.S. carrier’s code, theDepartment 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 aforeign 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 beagainst the U.S. carrier. We note that theaircraft 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 topassengers.

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27616

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Conflict of Law Waivers and Equivalent
Alternative Determinations
One of the most frequent comments
made by foreign carriers and theirorganizations was that implementationof the proposed rules would lead toconflicts between Part 382 and foreignlaws, rules, voluntary codes of practice,and carrier policies. These conflicts,
commenters said, would lead toconfusion and reduce efficiency inservice to passengers with disabilities.
Many commenters advocated that the
Department should defer to foreignlaws, rules, and guidance, or accept
them as equivalent for purposes ofcompliance 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, aforeign carrier would be required tocomply 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 thanthe conflicting provision of Part 382.
Foreign carriers commented that thisprovision was unfair, because it would
force them to begin complying with aPart 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 aconflict between DOT regulations and aprovision of foreign law.
In order to determine whether aforeign carrier should be excused fromcomplying with an otherwise applicableprovision of Part 382, the Department
has no reasonable alternative todeciding whether a conflict with aforeign legal requirement exists. The
Department cannot rely solely on an
assertion by a foreign carrier that sucha conflict exists.
Comments from a number of foreign
carriers asked the Department tobroaden the concept of the proposed
waiver, by allowing foreign carriers tocomply with recommendations,
voluntary codes of practice, etc. We do
not believe such a broadening isnecessary 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 withdisabilities should expect, regardless of

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

the identity or nationality of the carrier
they choose.
We therefore want to make clear, forpurposes of this waiver provision, what
we mean by a conflict with a provisionof foreign law. By foreign law, we meana legally binding mandate (e.g., astatute, regulation, a safety ruleequivalent to an FAA regulation) that
imposes a nondiscretionary obligationon the foreign carrier to take, or refrainfrom taking, a certain action. Binding
mandates frequently can subject a
carrier to penalties imposed by agovernment in the event of
noncompliance. Guidance,
recommendations, codes of bestpractice, policies of carriers or carrier
organizations, and other materials that
do not have mandatory, binding legal
effect on a carrier cannot give rise to aconflict between Part 382 and foreign
law for purposes of this Part, even if
they are published or endorsed by aforeign government. In order to create aconflict, 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 areathat Part 382 addresses, does not create
a conflict cognizable under the conflictof laws waiver provision.
For example, Part 382 says thatcarriers are prohibited from imposing
number limits on passengers withdisabilities. 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 nodiscretion in the matter, since it was
subject to a legal mandate of its
government. This would create aconflict between Part 382 and the lawsof Country S that could be the subjectof a conflict of laws waiver. However,suppose that the government of Country
S publishes a guidance document thatsays limiting wheelchair users on aflight to three is a good idea, has aregulation authorizing S Airlines toimpose a number limit if it chooses, orapproves an S Airlines safety programthat includes a number limit. In thesecases, the conflict of laws waiver would
not apply, since in each case there is nota binding government requirement for anumber limit, and S Airlines has thediscretion whether or not to adopt one.
We note one exception to this point.
If a foreign government officiallyinforms a carrier that it intends to takeenforcement action (e.g., impose a civil
penalty) against a carrier for failing to
implement a provision of a government

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

policy, guidance document, or
recommendation that conflicts with aportion of the Department’s rules, theDepartment would view the government
action as creating a legal mandate
cognizable under this section.
While retaining the substance of theconflict of laws provision of the NPRM,
the Department has, in response tocomments, modified the process forconsidering waiver requests. We agreewith 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 haveestablished an effective date for the ruleof one year after its publication date. If
a carrier sends in a waiver request
within 120 days of the publication dateof the final rule, the Department will, tothe maximum extent feasible, respond
before the effective date of the rule. If
we are unable to do so, the carrier cankeep implementing the policy orpractice 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 ruletakes effect.
What a foreign carrier obtains byfiling all its conflict of laws waiver
requests within the first 120 days is, in
effect, a commitment from DOT not totake enforcement action related to
implementing the foreign law inquestion pending DOT’s response to thewaiver request. For example, if S
Airlines filed a waiver request withrespect to an alleged requirement of aCountry S law requiring number limits
for disabled passengers within 120 daysof the rule’s publication, then the
Department would not commence anenforcement action relating to analleged violation of Part 382’s
prohibition of number limits that
occurred during the interval between
the effective date of Part 382 and thedate on which DOT responds to S
Airline’s waiver request. This would betrue even if the Department later denies
the request.
However, if S Airlines did not file its
request until 180 or 210 days after therule is published, DOT could begin
enforcement action against the carrier
for implementing number limits
inconsistent with Part 382 during theperiod between the effective date of therule and the Department’s response to
the waiver request. If the Department

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
granted the waiver request, any
enforcement action relating to thecarrier’s actions during that interval
would probably be dismissed. However,if the waiver request were denied, theenforcement action would proceed. S
Airlines thus would have put itself at
somewhat greater risk by failing tosubmit its waiver request on a timely
basis.
We also recognize that laws change.
Consequently, if a new provision offoreign law comes into effect after the
120-day period, a carrier may file awaiver request with the Department.
The carrier may keep the policy orpractice 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 theperiod during which the Department
was considering the waiver request
concerning the new foreign law.
Carriers should not file frivolous
waiver requests, the stated basis forwhich is clearly lacking in merit or
which are filed with the apparent intent
of delaying implementation of aprovision of Part 382 or abusing thewaiver process. In such cases, theDepartment 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 thealleged existence of a conflict withforeign law as a defense to a DOT
enforcement action.
Many foreign carriers and theirorganizations also said that a conflict oflaws waiver, standing alone, wasinsufficient. They said that theirpolicies and approaches to assisting
passengers with disabilities, or laws orpolicies relating to disability access offoreign carriers’ countries (either singlecountry laws or those of, for example,
the European Union) should berecognized as equivalent to DOT’s rules.
Compliance with equivalent foreignlaws and carrier policies, they said,should be sufficient to comply with Part
382.
U.S. disability law includes aconcept—equivalent facilitation—that
can address these comments to areasonable degree. This concept, whichis embodied in such sources as the
Department’s Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations andthe Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG),
states that a transportation or otherservice provider can use a different
accommodation in place of one requiredby regulation if the different

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

accommodation provides substantiallyequivalent accessibility. The final rule
permits U.S. and foreign carriers toapply to the Department for adetermination of what the final rule willcall an ‘‘equivalent alternative.’’ (We use
this term is used in place of ‘‘equivalentfacilitation’’ to avoid any possible
confusion with the use of ‘‘equivalentfacilitation’’ in other contexts.). If, withrespect to a specific accommodation, thecarrier demonstrates that what it wants
to do will provide substantiallyequivalent accessibility to passengers
with disabilities than literal compliancewith a particular provision of the rule,
the Department will determine that thecarrier can comply with the rule using
its alternative accommodation. This
provision applies to equipment,
policies, procedures, or any othermethod of complying with Part 382.
It should be emphasized thatequivalent alternative determinations
concern alternatives only to specificrequirements of Part 382. The
Department will not entertain an
equivalent alternative request relating toan entire regulatory scheme (e.g., an
application asserting that compliancewith European Union regulations onservices to passengers with disabilities
was equivalent to Part 382 as a whole).
It should be emphasized that the factthat a carrier policy or foreign regulation
addresses the same subject as aprovision of Part 382 does not mean the
carrier policy or foreign regulation is anequivalent alternative. For example,
both Part 382 and various carrier
policies address the transportation ofservice animals. A policy or regulationthat was more restrictive than Part 382
would not be viewed as an equivalentalternative, 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 anequivalent alternative determination
within 120 days of the publication ofthis Part, the Department will endeavor
to have a response to the carrier by theeffective date of the rule. If the
Department has not responded by thattime, the carrier can implement its
proposed equivalent alternative until
and unless the Department disapprovesit. However, with respect to a request
filed subsequent to that date, carriersmust begin complying with the Part 382
provision when it becomes effective,
and could not use their proposed
equivalent alternative until and unlessthe Department approved it.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27617

Other International Law Issues
A number of foreign carriers said thatapplication of the rule alike to U.S. andforeign carriers was unfair, in that U.S.
carriers receive Federal funds to support
their operations, while European andother foreign carriers do not.
Commenters also argued that it was
unfair for DOT to allow U.S. carriers to
avoid civil penalties if they haveintroduced programs that go beyond
minimum requirements.
The Department disagrees with boththese comments. The very reason for the
existence of the ACAA is that theSupreme Court, in Paralyzed Veteransof America v. Civil Aeronautics Board,
477 U.S. 597 (1986), determined that,with minor exceptions not germane tothe issue raised by commenters, U.S.
carriers do not receive Federal financial
assistance. For this reason, the Court
said, section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973—which applies only toentities 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 topassengers with disabilities,
notwithstanding the absence of Federal
financial assistance. The situation that
the Court saw in 1986 remains: U.S.
carriers engaging in internationaltransportation 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 toinvest part of a civil penalty to improve
services for passengers with disabilities
above and beyond what the ACAA
requires, rather than paying the amountof this investment to the Department.
For example, if a carrier were assessed
a $1.5 million civil penalty for failure toprovide timely and adequate assistanceto passengers who use wheelchairs, theDepartment’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 forpassengers with mobility impairments
in ways that go beyond the requirementsof Part 382. Since this enforcement
approach applies equally to foreign and
U.S. carriers, continued implementationof this policy will not result in any
inequity between U.S. and foreign
carriers.
Numerous foreign carriers andorganizations complained that theForeign Carriers NPRM was inconsistent
with 49 U.S.C. 40105(b), which directs
the Secretary to ‘‘act consistently withobligations of the United States

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27618

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

government under an international
agreement’’ and to ‘‘consider applicablelaws and requirements of a foreigncountry.’’ In the context of this rule, theDepartment believes that the conflict oflaws waiver provision effectively
discharges the statutory obligation
imposed on the Department by thelanguage 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 toconflict with a foreign legal mandate. In
addition, The Department has also
provided greater flexibility in the rulethrough incorporating an equivalentalternative provision, which covers
policies and practices that are notmandated by foreign laws andrequirements. This provision will
facilitate our efforts to implement
ACAA requirements smoothly in thecontext 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 provisionsof 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 avariety of areas, and Annex 9 includes
a series of standards andrecommendations concerningtransportation of persons withdisabilities.
In the Department’s view, Article 1 isfully consistent with the adoption ofrequirements that affect flights to andfrom the U.S., a point with which many
commenters agreed. The one area inwhich the Foreign Carriers NPRM wassaid by many commenters to assert
extraterritorial jurisdiction—coverage of
foreign carriers with respect to flights
carrying passengers under the code of aU.S. carrier—has been changed in the
final rule, as described above.
The authority of ICAO under Article
37 to issue standards andrecommendations does not purport topre-empt a signatory state’s authority toissue rules concerning air commerce toand from its airports. Nor do thestandards and recommendations ofAnnex 9 with respect to transportationof passengers with disabilities purport
to occupy the field, such that member
states are pre-empted from issuing theirown rules in this area. Indeed, the ICAO
recommended practices suggest that

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

member states should take their own
implementing actions. It is reasonable tostate that the provisions of the ACAA
and Part 382 faithfully carry out theserecommendations, 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. Contracting States shalltake the necessary steps to ensure that airport
facilities and services are adapted to theneeds of persons with disabilities.
Standard 8.34. Contracting States shalltake the necessary steps to ensure that
persons with disabilities have adequate
access to air services.

The ACAA rule does not conflict withthese standards, it supports them. The
rule requires that airport facilities andservices involving transportation to andfrom the U.S. provide
nondiscriminatory service to passengers
with disabilities. The rule includes avariety of steps necessary to ensure thatpassengers with disabilities havenondiscriminatory access to air services,again in transportation to and from theU.S.
Some commenters alleged that
requirements of the Chicago Convention
regarding ‘‘notification of differences’’
should apply to the rulemaking and thatthe Department had failed to comply
with them. The relevant language is thefollowing:
Notification of differences. The attention ofContracting States is drawn to the obligation
imposed by Article 38 of the Convention bywhich Contracting States are required to
notify the Organization of any differences
between their national regulations andpractices and the International Standards
contained in this Annex and any
amendments thereto. Contracting States areinvited to extend such notification to any
differences from the Recommended Practices
contained in this Annex, and any
amendments thereto.

The requirement for a notification ofdifferences applies only to differences
between Standards and national
regulations. As noted above, there are
no differences between the ICAOStandards and the ACAA rule. The
Convention’s language says that Statesare ‘‘invited’’ to extend notification to
ICAO with respect to any differencesfrom Recommended Practices.
Obviously, an ‘‘invitation’’ falls wellshort of a legal mandate. In any event,the ACAA requirements have the effectof 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

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

rather than better accommodations forpassengers (e.g., with respect to service
animals), the rule is creating‘‘differences’’ with International
Standards cognizable under provisionsof the Chicago Convention.
In connection with their Chicago
Convention-related arguments, anumber of foreign carriers ororganizations cited British Caledonian
Airways v. Bond, 665 F.2d 1153 (D.C.
Cir., 1981). This case arose from thecrash of a DC–10 that FAA traced to
cracks in engine pylons that wereexacerbated by faulty maintenanceprocedures. 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 theSFARs in question, their purpose having
been achieved, several foreign carriers
sought judicial review of the foreign
carrier SFAR. The Court found that theSFAR conflicted with Article 33 of the
Chicago Convention, which provides
that certificates of airworthiness or
licenses issued by the State in which theaircraft is registered must be recognized
as valid by other contracting States,
unless the country of registration is notobserving ‘‘minimum standards.’’
This case concerns solely Article 33
and its relationship to the validity ofcarrier airworthiness certificates issued
by foreign governments. This
rulemaking, on the other hand, has
nothing to do with Article 33 or
airworthiness certificates. The casetherefore is irrelevant to the rulemaking.
It may be that commenters were arguingthat DOT regulatory actions in generalthat 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 policyoriented in nature, asking for
consultation through ICAO or otherchannels prior to publication of a rule
which, while carefully limited tomatters affecting service to and from the
U.S., had implications for theinternational aviation system.
Comments asked for greater focus oninternational harmonization. In fact, theDepartment consulted extensively withother interested parties. The volume anddetail of comments from foreign carriers
and organizations testify to theextensive opportunity non-U.S. parties
have had to participate in thisrulemaking. This final rule reflects the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Department’s consideration of thisparticipation (and we note thatparticipation between the time of theForeign Carriers NPRM and the final
rule is just as valid as participation
before issuance of the Foreign Carriers
NPRM). DOT officials also met and hadphone conferences with organizations
representing European and Asian
governments and/or carriers. It would
be unreasonable to contend that thisextensive participation somehow does
not count.
The Department is willing to continue
discussions with foreign carriers andinternational organizations with respect
to harmonization of U.S. and otherstandards in the area of transportation ofpassengers with disabilities. Meantime,
the Department has a responsibility tocarry out its statutory mandate to apply
the ACAA to foreign carriers, and wecannot make working with other parties
on harmonization matters a condition
precedent to carrying out what Congresshas mandated.
Some comments alluded to theregulatory negotiation process thatpreceded the issuance of the original
ACAA NPRM, complaining that there
was not a similar process prior to theissuance of the November 2004 NPRM.
Regulatory negotiation, is, of course, awholly voluntary process on the
Department’s part. There can be no
implication that, because theDepartment chose to use such a process
in the 1980s, the Department was in any
sense required to do so again for thisrulemaking. Nor is there any suchrequirement in the statutory amendment
applying the ACAA to foreign carriers.
It is worth noting, in any event, that theoriginal ACAA NPRM was not the
product of consensus resulting from theregulatory negotiation. That negotiation
terminated short of consensus, because
of intractable disagreements on someissues between carriers and disability
groups. The original NPRM, like the2004 NPRM, was wholly the
Department’s proposal. The variety ofdisagreements among commenters
concerning the November 2004 NPRM
suggests, in retrospect, that thelikelihood 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 regulatorynegotiation process fornondiscrimination rules of this kind,making it questionable whether theywould have chosen to participate insuch a venture.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Accessibility of Airport Terminals andFacilities
The Foreign Carriers NPRM (sec.
382.51) proposed that both U.S. andforeign 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 tofacilities involved with flights to or fromthe U.S. U.S. airports must meet
applicable accessibility requirements(e.g., the ADAAG) under the ADA andsection 504. The Foreign Carriers NPRM
proposed a performance standard forforeign airports, since U.S. accessibility
standards do not apply there. This
performance standard would require
carriers to ensure that passengers withdisabilities could readily move throughterminal facilities to get to or fromboarding areas. Carriers could meet thisperformance standard by a variety ofmeans. 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 topassengers with disabilities in moving
through the terminal and making
connections between gates.
Some comments appear to havemisunderstood 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 madeby foreign carriers and theirorganizations on this subject was that
the Foreign Carriers NPRM’s proposals
for airport facility accessibility did not
sufficiently take into account the factthat foreign governments or airport
operators, not airlines, controlled
matters relating to accessibility at many
foreign airports. For example, it waspointed out that under recent European
Union regulations, airport operators are
given most of the responsibility foraccommodating passengers withdisabilities in airports.
The Department recognizes that thismay often be the case, and the final ruleshould not be understood to require
carriers to duplicate theaccommodations 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 theextent that those efforts fully meet therequirements of this Part. What
happens, though, if the foreign airport
operators’ efforts do not fully provide
the accessibility that this rule requires

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27619(e.g., the airport operator is responsible
for providing wheelchair assistance topassengers within the terminal, but does
not provide connecting service between
gates for wheelchair users who arechanging planes on flights covered by
the rule)? In such a case, this rule
requires air carriers to supplement theservices 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 prohibitedfrom 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., forticketing and dispensing of boarding
passes) to be accessible, and, if so, what
accessibility standards should apply tothem. Disability community
commenters generally expressed
support for this proposal; carriers andtheir organizations generally expressed
concern about the cost and technicalfeasibility of accessible kiosks. The
Department believes that all services
available to the general public should beaccessible to people with disabilities.
Nevertheless, the comments concerning
kiosks were not sufficient to answer ourquestions about cost and technicalissues. 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 passwithout standing in line withpassengers checking baggage. If, because
the kiosk is not accessible, the passenger
cannot use it, the carrier would have toprovide equivalent service, such as byhaving carrier personnel operate thekiosk for the passenger or allowing thepassenger 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27620

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

assisting the passenger at the kiosk ispreferable. In our view, however, apotentially awkward accommodation ispreferable to none at all (e.g., in asituation where personnel were notavailable to assist the passenger at thekiosk). We urge carriers to provide suchan accommodation with sensitivity topassengers’ potential concerns aboutlooking as though they have been
singled out for special treatment.
U.S. airports are governed, fordisability 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 accessto air transportation (e.g., ticket
counters, baggage claim areas, gates).
Title II of the ADA, and the Title II rulesof 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 bypublic 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 totransportation services provided bypublic 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 privatetransportation 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 thatserve the general public (e.g., hotels,
restaurants, news and gift stores).
Fortunately, ascertaining the practicalobligations 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 thisunderstanding of the relationshipcarries 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

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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, andit assigned to the arriving carrier the
responsibility for providing assistancein 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 withaccessing ticket and baggage locations,rest rooms, and food service
concessions. The Foreign Carriers
NPRM asked whether carriers should bepermitted to require advance notice forthese accommodations, and it proposedthat enplaning, deplaning, andconnecting assistance be provided‘‘promptly.’’
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed
requiring carriers, in the course ofproviding this assistance, to help
passengers with disabilities with carryon and gate-checked luggage. It also
proposed requiring carriers to make ageneral announcement in the gate area
offering preboarding to passengers withdisabilities.
Some carriers said that while theywould voluntarily provide assistance topassengers with disabilities in moving
through the terminal when practical andfeasible, they opposed a regulatory
requirement to provide this assistance.
The Department does not believe that,
under the ACAA, it is appropriate to tellpassengers that they must learn to relyon 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 canconsistently depend. Reliance on purely
voluntary action by carriers does notachieve this objective.
One of the issues discussed mostoften in comments concerned the
proposed requirement that enplaning,
deplaning, and connecting assistance be
provided promptly. Many commenters,
particularly people with disabilities andorganizations representing them,thought that the rule should specify
maximum times for assistance—5, 10, or
15 minutes—rather than having a moregeneral requirement for promptness.
Some disability community comments
also said that the rule should prohibit

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

carriers from waiting until everyone else
had left the plane before providing
deplaning assistance to passengers withdisabilities (e.g., to deplane a person
needing assistance at the same time aspersons in adjacent rows leave), or atleast that the rule should require
carriers to assist passengers withdisabilities in deplaning no later than
the time the aircraft aisle is free of otherpassengers. Carriers, on the other hand,
opposed such specificity, saying that it
was impractical and potentially costly.
Some carriers wanted a less specificterm 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 indifferent airports and flights, adopting a
specific time limit as some commenters
advocated would be unrealistic. On theother hand, having no standard would
have the effect of reducing therequirement, as a practical matter, to‘‘whenever the carrier gets around to it.’’
We understand ‘‘promptly’’ to mean, inthe case of deplaning, that personnel
and boarding chairs should be available
to deplane the passenger no later thanas soon as other passengers have left theaircraft. We believe that halting theboarding process for everyone behind,for example, Row 15, until a wheelchairuser in Row 15 was transferred to aboarding chair and assisted off theaircraft, could unduly inconvenience a
considerably greater number of persons.
The requirement for prompt service
imposes a reasonable performancerequirement on carriers without creating
unnecessarily rigid timing requirements
which, in some situations, carriers
operating in the best of faith might beunable to meet.
Many carriers suggested that they beallowed to require advance notice (e.g.,of 24 or 48 hours) from passengers
wanting enplaning, deplaning, andconnecting assistance. This would makethe logistics of providing the service
easier for carriers to deal with, theysaid, and would ensure better service forpassengers. We agree that it is highly
advisable for passengers who wantassistance to tell the airline about theirneeds in advance, and we urge
passengers to communicate withcarriers as soon as possible to set up
assistance. We also noted commentsfrom some carriers that, at some
airports, particular locations have been
established at which passengers arriving
without prior notice can obtainassistance more easily and quickly thanmight otherwise be the case. Thisappears to be a good idea that carriers

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 torequire—as distinct fromrecommending—advance notice would
be consistent with thenondiscrimination objectives of the
ACAA. Passengers with disabilities, likeother passengers, sometimes must travelon short notice for business or personalreasons, and it would not be consistent
with the ACAA to limit their access toneeded assistance in moving throughthe 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 assistancein the terminal. As noted elsewhere in
the preamble, carriers can rely on
airports’ efforts with respect toassistance in the terminal,
supplementing the assistance that
airports provide as necessary to meetfully the requirements of Part 382. If
carriers are precluded by law fromsupplementing the airport-provided
assistance, carriers can request a conflictof laws waiver.
The Foreign Carriers NPRM, like theexisting rule, assigns responsibility forconnecting assistance to the carrier onwhich the passenger arrives. One
foreign carrier mentioned that, peragreements with other carriers in at least
some airports, its arriving passengers
would be assisted to a connecting
carrier’s gate by personnel of theconnecting carrier. As noted elsewhere,
the Department does not object tocontractual agreements between carriers
that would delegate the connecting
assistance function to the connecting
carrier. However, under the rule, thearriving carrier would retain
responsibility for ensuring that thefunction was properly carried out.
Many carriers objected to having toallow passengers they are assisting tostop 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 forassistance personnel to insist on
wheeling a passenger who needed to go
to the bathroom or who was hungry pasta conveniently located restroom or foodconcession, at which ambulatory
passengers could stop at theirdiscretion. Their comments pointed outthat eating and relieving oneself arebasic life activities that people must do
from time to time. This issue has
become increasingly significant in

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

recent years due to the need for earlyarrival at the airport for security
screening and cutbacks in airline meal
service.
The final rule is structured toaccommodate both sets of concerns. If
an airline or contractor employee is
assisting a passenger from, for example,
the ticket counter to the gate, and theycome to a restroom or food service
location on the route they are taking, theemployee is required to allow thepassenger a brief stop, if the passenger
self-identifies as a person with adisability needing this service. The
employee is not required to detour to adifferent route, provide personal careattendant services to the passenger, or
incur an unreasonable delay. A delay
which would result in the passenger notgetting to a connecting flight would
obviously be unreasonable. With respect
to food service locations, the kind ofbrief stop the Department envisions is
one sufficient to pick up a prepared
carry-out item or fast-food sandwich, asdistinct from eating at a sit-down
restaurant. Even in the case of a carryout or fast-food location, a long line
might create an unreasonable delay.
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposedthat persons with disabilities who needassistance in boarding be provided an
opportunity to preboard. It also
proposed requiring a generalpreboarding announcement to this effectin the gate area. Disability community
comments generally supported the
proposed requirements. Carriercomments 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 generalannouncement of the opportunity in thegate area, mostly out of concern that too
many ineligible people would try to
preboard, thereby slowing the boarding
process. The Department believes thatpreboarding is an important way inwhich carriers can facilitatetransportation by passengers withdisabilities. Indeed, some portions ofPart 382 (e.g., with respect to on-board
stowage of accessibility equipment) arepremised on the availability of
preboarding. The final rule will include
this requirement. However, we will notmake final the proposed provision
requiring a general announcement of
this opportunity in the boarding area.
Some carriers make such anannouncement as a matter of policy.
Even where this is not the case, carrier
personnel are generally responsive torequests from passengers withdisabilities to preboard and often scan
the boarding area to determine if there
are passengers for whom preboarding

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27621

would be appropriate. Passengers whowant to ensure that they can preboard
should ask gate personnel for theopportunity. It is reasonable to expect
passengers to take this step.
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposedthat carriers, in the course of providing
assistance to passengers with adisability in moving through theterminal, would assist them intransporting carry-on and gate-checkedbaggage. A number of carrier comments
opposed this proposal, saying that it
would impose staffing and cost burdens
on them. If a passenger wanted to havesomeone 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 manycases, passengers with disabilities do
not need extensive extra assistance indealing with carry-on items. It is
commonplace for wheelchair users tocarry their briefcases or purses on theirlaps when being assisted through theterminal, for example. Proper-size carryon and gate-checked items are, bydefinition, limited in size, and they are
not the kind of items that passengers ingeneral need to use a skycap and a cart
to move through the airport. It would
not be appropriate, in the context of anondiscrimination rule, to effectively
require passengers with disabilities tohire such service. We agree withcommenters, however, that passengers
who can carry their own items should
do so, and we have added language
saying that this service need beprovided only to those passengers who
cannot do so because of their disability.
Carrier or contractor personnel canrequest credible verbal assurances froma passenger that he or she cannot
transport the item in question or, in theabsence of such credible assurances,
require documentation as a condition ofproviding the service.
Number Limits
A number of foreign carrierscommented that being able to limit the
number of passengers with disabilities
on board a given flight was importantfor safety, particularly in the context ofan emergency evacuation. In somecases, 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 tosay to a passenger, in effect ‘‘As a
person with a disability, we will deny

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27622Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

you transportation on this flight solely
because some number of other persons
with disabilities are on the flight.’’ Sucha response to a passenger is intrinsicallydiscriminatory. The Department
discussed this issue in the preamble tothe original ACAA rule (55 FR 8025–
8028; March 6, 1990), and our view ofthe matter has not changed. If anything,our view of the matter has beenstrengthened by the fact that, during the17 years since the original rule wasissued, we are not aware of any
instances of safety problems resulting
from the existing rule’s prohibition onnumber limits. As mentioned elsewhere,
a foreign carrier can apply for a conflictof laws waiver concerning number
limits. The final rule also retains theexisting provision permitting a carrier torequire advance notice for a group of 10
or more passengers with disabilities
traveling together, so that the airline canmake appropriate preparations for thegroup (e.g., a team traveling to acompetition for wheelchair athletes).
Safety Assistants/Attendants
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed
retaining, with minor modifications, theexisting Part 382 limitations on theability of carriers to require passengers
with disabilities to travel withattendants. One terminological change
we proposed was to refer to attendants
that airlines could require in certain
specified situations for safety purposesas ‘‘safety assistants.’’ The use of thisterm is intended to emphasize that the
only reason a carrier may require
another person to travel with apassenger with a disability is safety. It
would never be permitted for a carrier
to require someone to travel with apassenger with a disability as a personalcare attendant; that is, as someone who
is present to assist the passenger withpersonal needs such as eating, drinking,and elimination.
A number of foreign carriers asserted
that they should retain the discretion torequire attendants for passengers withdisabilities. They gave several reasonsfor this desire. Some commenters did
not want to have to rely on passengers’
self-assessments of their ability to travel
independently. Some cited provisions ofcarrier 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 withdisabilities would be unable to performpersonal functions for long periods,
with harm possibly resulting to

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

themselves or others. Some comments
said that the requirement to allow asafety assistant to fly free if the carrier
disagreed with the passenger’s selfassessment could lead to abuse byclever passengers trying to get free
flights for someone. Some of thesecomments suggested providing
discounted, rather than free,transportation for the attendant in thesesituations.
Disability community commentersgenerally supported the Foreign Carriers
NPRM proposals, and a number ofcomments were particularly supportiveof 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 overthe 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 anddifficulty of flying for passengers withdisabilities.
The limits on carrier requirements forattendants were a significant issue inthe original ACAA rulemaking, and theDepartment’s discussion of that issue inthe preamble to the 1990 ACAA rule
remains relevant (see 55 FR 8029–8032;
March 6, 1990). Passengers withdisabilities, for the most part, are thebest judges of their capabilities, andproviding broad discretion to carriers tooverride that judgment does carry withit a significant risk of arbitrary burdens
being placed on passengers. On theother hand, carriers have ultimate
responsibility for the safety ofpassengers, and we believe that thebalance struck in the original ACAA
rule is a sensible one. Passengers havethe primary responsibility for making
the determination if they can travel
independently, but carriers can overrulethat determination, in a carefully
limited set of circumstances, andrequire a safety assistant. If it is reallyan overriding safety reason that compels
a carrier to overrule a passenger’s
decision and insist that he or she travelwith a safety assistant, then it isappropriate for the carrier to bear thecost of the safety judgment that it
makes. In the 17 years that the
Department has implemented thisprovision under the existing ACAA rule,
this requirement has not resulted, to thebest of our knowledge, either in safety
problems or frequent or significant
abuse by passengers.
Even on long flights, passengers withdisabilities, under a nondiscrimination

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

statute, have the right to determine
whether they will incur the discomfort
involved with not having someone
available to assist them with personalfunctions. A passenger may choose toforego the airline’s food and beverage
service. A passenger may dehydrate
himself and avoid the need to urinate.
The Foreign Carriers NPRM, like thepresent rule, emphasizes that flightattendants and other carrier personnel
are never required to perform personalcare functions for a passenger. To
ensure that passengers who make thechoice to fly unaccompanied have theopportunity to be fully informed of theimplications of their decision, theinformation to which passengers areentitled (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 andthereby retaining the substance of theexisting 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 safetyassistant, contrary to the passenger’s
self-assessment, we are deleting the
proposed language that would require
the carrier to make a good-faith effort tofind someone to perform the safetyassistant function. This language was
not part of the original 1990 rule, andwe do not think it is essential to add it.
As stated in the preamble to the 1990
rule (see 55 FR 8031), the carrier canplay an important role in selecting asafety assistant (e.g., a deadheadingcrew 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 orvolunteer to be the safety assistant, thecarrier cannot refuse to accept someone
designated by the passenger (i.e., withthe result that no one would beavailable to act as the safety assistant),
as long as that person is capable ofassisting the passenger in an evacuation.
With respect to passengers who havemobility impairments, we have clarified
the criterion relating to safety assistants
to say that the passenger with adisability 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
briefings required by foreign
government regulations, as well as thoseof 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 andvision impairment or is deaf-blind totravel with a safety assistant if
communication adequate fortransmission 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 tomake reasonable attempts to establish
adequate communication, beginningwith self-identification on thepassenger’s part. We further proposedthat if the carrier disagrees with thepassenger’s assessment that he or she iscapable of traveling independently, thecarrier must transport the safetyassistant free of charge and must also
make reasonable efforts to locate suchan assistant. We solicited comments on
the proposed joint responsibility, on
what might qualify as reasonableattempts to communicate, on whether
our proposal is specific enough for allparties concerned to understand their
responsibilities, and on whether adifferent standard might be more
appropriate. We also solicitedcomments 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 opposedbeing required to find a voluntary safetyassistant if they disagree with thedisabled passenger’s self-assessment ofbeing able to travel without one, and all
opposed being required to transport thesafety assistant without charge. They
contend that not only would therequirement to transport the safetyassistant without charge create
incentives for fraudulent assertions of
independence, but using voluntary
safety assistants would raise serious
insurance and liability issues, andrequiring free transportation would
saddle them with undue costs. Most
sought clarification of carriers’
responsibility for making reasonable
efforts to establish communication withpassengers whose hearing and vision areseverely impaired. For flights of twelve
hours or more, some carriers said,
inexperienced passengers may not beaware of what needs may arise for themduring their flight.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Of the disability organizations that
filed comments, one supported joint
responsibility for reasonable efforts toestablish communication to determine
the need for a safety assistant. Others
maintained that the rule should ensurethat persons with severe hearing andvision impairment are not denied travel
because a carrier’s employees lackadequate training in or knowledge ofbasic communication techniques.
In response to the comments we
received, we are modifying the
proposed rule in some respects. In sodoing, we are maintaining the basic
principle that has worked effectively inthe domestic airline industry since theoriginal 1990 rule: if a passenger is able
to establish adequate communication
with the carrier for purposes ofreceiving the safety briefing, and thecarrier nonetheless decides to overrule
the passenger’s assessment that he or
she can travel independently, the carriercannot charge for the transportation of
the safety assistant that the carrier
requires.
To allow the carrier an opportunity toconfirm that the passenger had such ameans of communication available, thefinal rule provides that the carrier canrequire the passenger to self-identify 48
hours before the flight. As part of thisnotification, 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 rulenonetheless requires the carrier toaccommodate the passenger as far as ispracticable.
For example, if a passenger withsevere hearing and vision impairments
does not notify the carrier 48 hours
before the flight of his or her intent totravel alone and of his or her ability tocommunicate adequately fortransmission of the safety briefing, thecarrier could refuse to transport thepassenger without a safety assistant. If,
however, the same passenger does notprovide advance notice but is taking anonstop flight, brings an interpreter tothe airport, and is able to establish
communication (in the gate area)
adequate for the transmission of thesafety briefing and to receive instruction
during an emergency evacuation, thecarrier must allow the passenger totravel 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 canuse a variety of means to establish the

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27623

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 thepassenger during the safety briefing andcan help the passenger agree withcarrier 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 tomake safety briefing information
available on Braille cards, they are free
to do so. The carrier may not require thepassenger 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 ademonstration of lip reading or finger
spelling ability.
In the case of codeshare flights, thecarrier whose code is used must informthe operating carrier that a passenger
with severe hearing and vision
impairment has provided notice 48
hours in advance of his or her intent totravel without a safety assistant. If there
is sufficient time before the 48-hourdeadline for the passenger to directly
contact the operating carrier, the carrier
whose code is being used could, as analternative, provide the passenger anumber where he or she could contact
the operating carrier to impart thisinformation.
Consistent with the treatment of thisissue in the rest of the rule, in cases
where carriers disagree with apassenger’s self-assessment that he or
she can travel alone, we will continue
to require that they transport the safetyassistant without charge. Of course, any
carrier that wishes to accommodate apassenger with severely impaired visionand hearing by designating a safetyassistant 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 freetransportation for the safety assistantalso applies in cases when the disabled
passenger who believes that he or she
does not need a safety assistant
proposes to establish communication bymeans of tactile signing or finger
spelling, but no member of the carrier’s
flight crew can communicate using
these methods. Carriers may decide as apractical matter that providing freetransportation for a safety assistant in

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27624Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

these cases is less costly than training
personnel to communicate using suchmethods.
Finally, with respect to a passenger
with a mental impairment (e.g.,someone with Alzheimer’s disease), theDepartment wants carriers andpassengers to understand that it is thepassenger himself, not someone
accompanying the passenger to the
airport, who must be able to understandsafety 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 thesituations in which carriers can requirea passenger to get a medical certificate
from a physician before traveling.
Many air carrier comments asked for
greater guidance on how to apply theprovisions of these sections. Some ofthese suggested incorporating past DOT
guidance that spelled out that a
combination of severity of healthconsequences and easy transmission ofa disease in the aircraft cabin
environment would create an
appropriate situation for restrictions on
an individual’s travel and/or arequirement for a medical certificate.
Commenters asked whether suchconditions as the common cold, SARS,
tuberculosis, or AIDS would meet therequirements of the proposed rule for
permitting restrictions on travel or therequirement for a medical certificate.
Some comments also asked how
directives or recommendations frompublic health authorities would playinto 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 ofpolices, practices, or procedures or
eliminated by the provision of auxiliary
aids or services. Disability community
commenters expressed the concern thatuse of this term—derived from theAmericans with Disabilities Act—would
make it too easy for carriers to use theirdiscretion 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 toprotect the health of travelers or that it
would be too burdensome for theirpersonnel to make judgments on thisbasis. A medical group suggested that a
direct threat be defined as a condition
that would be seriously exacerbated by

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

the flight itself or a serious
communicable disease that could betransmitted to another person in flight.
Some carriers questioned theobjectivity or qualifications of apassenger’s physician to make a sounddetermination of whether it was safe fora 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 bypassengers’ physicians. Generally,
carriers preferred to have wider
discretion to restrict passengers’ travel
than they perceived the provisions of
the Foreign Carriers NPRM as givingthem.
In response to comments, theDepartment has made somemodifications in the final ruleprovisions on these subjects. We haveincluded 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 witha communicable disease that was both
readily transmitted in the course of aflight and which had serious healthconsequences (e.g., SARS, but not AIDSor a cold). In addition, carriers could
conduct additional medical reviews of apassenger and, notwithstanding a
medical certificate, restrict travel undersome conditions. This additional review
would have to be conducted by medical
personnel (e.g., members of the carrier’s
medical staff or medical personnel towhom the carrier referred thepassenger), and this provision is not alicense for non-medically trained carrier
staff to disregard medical certificatespresented 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 alsosec. 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 isreasonable doubt that the individual cancomplete the flight safely without
requiring extraordinary medical
assistance. This language accommodates
the comment that one aspect of a direct
threat is a passenger having a condition
that would be seriously exacerbated by
the flight itself. We disagree with acommenter’s assertion that a carrier
should be able to ask for a medical
certificate if any medical attention
might be needed. This suggestion goes
too far in the direction of granting
carriers discretion to demand medical
documentation for potentially minor

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

medical conditions or for disabilities
that do not entail any acute medical
condition.
We have added language permitting
carriers to rely on instructions issued bypublic health authorities (e.g., the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control or Public
Health Service; comparable agencies inother countries; the World HealthOrganization) in making decisions aboutcarrying passengers with communicablediseases. For example, if CDC or WHO
issues an alert or directive telling
airlines not to carry a particular
individual who poses a serious healthrisk (e.g., an individual with multiple
drug-resistant tuberculosis), or persons
exhibiting symptoms of a serious healthcondition (e.g., SARS), we would expect
carriers to follow the public healthagency’s instructions. Carriers could do
so without contradicting therequirements of this Part.
Aircraft Accessibility Features
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed
extending to foreign carriers
requirements for aircraft accessibility
features based, with somemodifications, on provisions in theexisting ACAA rule. These features
include accessible lavatories, movableaisle armrests, provision of on-board
wheelchairs, and space to store
wheelchairs and other mobility aids inthe cabin. A few commenters apparently
misunderstood the proposal as requiring
retrofit of existing aircraft. This is not
the case; no such requirement has everexisted or been proposed.
1. Movable Aisle Armrests
The current rule requires U.S. carriers
using aircraft with 30 or more seats tohave movable aisle armrests on at least
half the passenger aisle seats. Sucharmrests need not be provided on
emergency exit row seats or on seats on
which movable aisle armrests are notfeasible. The carrier is required toprovide a means to ensure that
individuals with mobility impairments
or other passengers with disabilities canreadily obtain seating in rows having
movable aisle armrests. The requirement
applies to new aircraft ordered ordelivered after the rule went into effect(retrofitting was not required) or tosituations in which existing seats are
replaced by newly manufactured seats.
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed
retaining these requirements andapplying them to foreign carriers, withsome modifications and clarifications.
The exception for seats on whichmovable aisle armrests are not feasible
was not included in the Foreign Carriers
NPRM regulatory text, and a newrequirement was proposed that would

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
call on U.S. and foreign carriers toensure that movable aisle armrests were
proportionately provided in all classesof service. The information provided bycarriers about the location of movableaisle 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 ofservice were problematic. They said thatsome seats and seat console designs forfirst 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 classcabins often permitted horizontaltransfers of passengers from boarding
chairs to aircraft seats, making movablearmrests unnecessary in these cases.
The Department agrees that, if in agiven aircraft, seats and seat pitches are
configured so as to permit a horizontaltransfer of a passenger from a boarding
wheelchair to the aircraft seat (i.e., atransfer that can be accomplishedwithout lifting the passenger over theaisle armrest), it would not be necessary
to have a movable aisle armrest at thatlocation. Consequently, if a carrier canshow, through an equivalent alternative
request, that such transfers are feasible
with a given cabin configuration, theDepartment would grant the request forthe carrier’s aircraft using that
configuration. The underlying rule,
however, will be adopted as proposed,
because without a means of making ahorizontal transfer into aircraft seats,
passengers who board using boarding
wheelchairs will have to use the lesscomfortable, safe, and dignified methodof being lifted over the armrest. Carriers
that are unable to demonstrate anequivalent alternative would have toprovide 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 thesame type that formerly occupied thespace. Consistent with other provisionsof the ACAA, ADA, and section 504,
when a feature of a vehicle or facility isreplaced, it must be replaced with anaccessible item. (We note that,
according to information referred to in
the regulatory evaluation, movable aisle
armrests are now standard features of atleast some seat manufacturers’
products.) This obligation is not limited
to new models of a feature placed intoa space where older models formerly
were used. Indeed, adopting the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

commenters’ suggestion would create ameans 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. Whencarriers remove any of the old seats on
existing aircraft and replace them with
newly manufactured seats, half of thereplacement aisle seats must have
movable armrests.
Disability community commentersgenerally favored the Foreign Carriers
NPRM proposal, but suggested somemodifications. Some comments said thatemergency exit rows should be madepart of the base from which the 50
percent calculation should be made.
The Department believes, however, thatthe existing formula, which excludes
those rows from the calculation, will
result in sufficient rows being equippedwith movable aisle armrests. Other
comments suggested requiring somerows (presumably, in economy as wellas business or first-class sections) tohave wider seat pitches, the better toaccommodate service animals or
assistive devices, or to remove somerows entirely and provide securement
devices so that passengers could sit intheir own wheelchairs. The Department
regards these suggestions as impracticaland 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 seatsmust be certified to withstand specified
g-forces.
One comment suggested requiringthat in new aircraft or those subject toa cabin refit, the bulkhead row always
have a movable aisle armrest. While we
do not believe it is necessary to be thisspecific in the regulatory text, we
believe that this is a good idea thatcarriers and manufacturers should
consider, except when a bulkhead row
is unavailable to passengers withdisabilities because of FAA safety rules(e.g., a bulkhead row that is also an exit
row). Bulkhead rows are often used bypeople with disabilities (see the seatingaccommodations section of this Part).
2. Accessible Lavatories
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed
to retain the existing requirement thatcabins of aircraft with more than one
aisle (e.g., a twin-aisle aircraft like a747) 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

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27625

twin-aisle aircraft, it would have to do
so with an accessible lavatory. The
Foreign Carriers NPRM also proposed toclarify that if a carrier replaced acomponent of an existing, inaccessible
lavatory on a twin-aisle aircraft (e.g., asink) without replacing the entire
lavatory, the new component would
have to be accessible.
Many disability community
commenters believed the existing andproposed 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 ofaccessible lavatories makes travel
uncomfortable and difficult forpassengers with disabilities, they said.
Airline industry commenters, on theother hand, said that adding arequirement 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 transoceanic flights), it is clear that providing
accessible lavatories on single-aisle
aircraft would be a significant
improvement in airline service forpassengers with disabilities. One of theorganizations that commented on theForeign Carriers NPRM is in the process
of working with carriers andmanufacturers to develop an accessible
lavatory design for single-aisle aircraftthat would minimize seat loss. At thepresent time, however, the Department
is concerned that the revenue loss andother cost impacts of requiring
accessible lavatories on single-aisle
aircraft could be too great.
Consequently, we are not imposing sucha requirement at this time. Providing
accessible lavatories on single-aisle
aircraft remains a matter of interest to
the Department, and we will lookcarefully at ongoing developments inthis area to determine if futurerulemaking proposals may be
warranted.
Some comments objected to the
proposed requirement to use accessible
components (e.g., a sink) whenreplacing a component of a lavatory ona twin-aisle aircraft. Cost concerns
aside, the main point of these comments
was that lavatories typically are soldand installed as a unit, and that it isunusual to replace a single componentof a lavatory. Even when this happens,
because the lavatory is an integrated
unit, only a given component that isdimensionally consistent with its
original design is likely to fit. The
Department believes that this comment

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27626

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

has merit, and we are deleting thesentence in question.
Several foreign carriers objected to theapplication to them of the existing rule’s
requirement that when an inaccessible
lavatory unit was being replaced on atwin-aisle aircraft, it must be replacedwith an accessible lavatory. Their mainconcern was that since the accessible
lavatory unit would require more spacethan its inaccessible predecessor, theywould have to remove or forego seats,causing revenue loss. One carrier madevery high estimates of seat loss fromsuch a change (e.g., eight seats on someaircraft) and suggested that alternativemeans (e.g., a curtain) could provide asadequate restroom facilities as anaccessible lavatory. Consequently, thesecommenters urged, the rule should
require an inaccessible lavatory to be
replaced with an accessible lavatory
only in the context of a change in cabinlayout.
Since the original ACAA rule (see 55
FR 8020–8021; March 6, 1990), theDepartment has drawn a distinction
between single-aisle and twin-aisle
aircraft for purposes of accessible
lavatory requirements. While theDepartment has acknowledged since thetime of the original rule that requiring
accessible lavatories in twin-aisle
aircraft involves direct costs andrevenue losses (though some seat loss
estimates, like the one referred to above,
appear overstated), the Department
determined then and continues tobelieve now that the requirement isjustified in twin-aisle aircraft. The
cabins of these aircraft are physicallylarger, affording somewhat greater
flexibility than single-aisle aircraft inplacing 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 samerequirement for many years, and it isimportant to maintain a level playing
field between U.S. carriers and theirforeign carrier competitors in terms ofsuch 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 lessthan their foreign counterparts, use
twin-aisle aircraft on long-distanceinternational routes.
Several commenters requested aclarification with respect to theaccessible lavatory requirement in atwin-aisle airplane, to the effect that
only one accessible lavatory need beinstalled. For example, if a carrier was
refitting a cabin, and replacing all its old
inaccessible lavatories, it would only

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

have to install one accessible lavatory
unit. We believe that this is a reasonableinterpretation of the requirement, andwe will use this interpretation as we
implement and enforce the rule.
However, we do not believe that
additional regulatory language isnecessary.
3. Stowage Space for Wheelchairs
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed
to retain with some modifications, andto apply to foreign carriers’ aircraft, theexisting requirement that aircraft with
100 or more passenger seats have apriority space to stow at least one
passenger wheelchair. The
modifications proposed from theexisting rule were to add dimensions ofa wheelchair that would fit without
disassembly into the priority space andto 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 ofwheelchairs would apply to new
aircraft. Contrary to concerns expressedby a number of carriers, the Foreign
Carriers NPRM did not propose a retrofit
requirement. Nor would therequirement apply to ‘‘all types ofaircraft,’’ 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 ofthese comments said that thedimensions proposed for wheelchairs to
be carried in the cabin should beenlarged, 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 concerningwhether or not to carry a wheelchair inthe cabin. Some comments expressed
the concern that carriers could not fit aspace for a folding wheelchair into theircabin configurations without losing
seating capacity. One foreign carrier
added that crew luggage should havepriority over a passenger’s wheelchair.
The reasons for storing a wheelchairin the cabin are twofold. First, it canoften be more convenient for apassenger to have the wheelchair closeat hand when he or she leaves theaircraft 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 theoriginal ACAA rule (55 FR 8035; March
6, 1990), passengers with disabilities
have the same concerns as otherpassengers about loss of or damage to

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 sodoes 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 topay, in the context of anondiscrimination rule, for this service
to passengers with respect to theirmeans of mobility.
For these reasons, the Department is
adopting the proposed requirement. We
recognize that some foreign carriers areused to exercising their discretion about
where to carry passengers’ wheelchairs,
as were U.S. carriers prior to theadoption of the original ACAA rule.
U.S. carriers, with appropriate oversightfrom DOT, have successfully adapted tothis requirement, and foreign carriercomments did not contain any
compelling reasons why they could not
do so as well. It is important toremember that foreign carriers will not
be required to modify existing cabins
just for the purpose of creating a spacefor passengers’ wheelchairs.
There is a wide variety of wheelchairs
and mobility devices on the market. It
would not be practical to require spacesthat can handle every sort of device. The
rule’s requirement is now limited tospaces 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 thecontext of transportation in the cabin,and potential issues concerning stowageof 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 thecabin.
Based on the Department’s
experience, the dimensions in theForeign Carriers NPRM should be
sufficient to handle a considerable
majority of models of folding
wheelchairs. Consequently, while weagree that this required space will not be
sufficient for all models, we believe it isa reasonable compromise between theneeds of passengers and the spaceconstraints of carriers. We note that,
under the final rule, carriers are notrequired to carry electric wheelchairs in
the cabin.
One matter that some comments
raised was the so-called ‘‘seat-

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

strapping’’ method of carrying
wheelchairs in cabins. This involves
strapping down a wheelchair across arow of seats in an aircraft that does nothave the required space for stowing afolding wheelchair in the cabin. While
nowhere mentioned or authorized in thecurrent Part 382, this practice has been
permitted by DOT enforcement policy
in some cases. Some comments
supported allowing this approach as analternative to providing a stowage spacein the cabin. The Department does notbelieve that this is an appropriate
alternative to endorse in the rule,because it is a more awkward way ofcarrying a wheelchair and because it
can, on a given flight, reduce seating
capacity for other passengers. This is amore important consideration than ever,given frequently high load factors on
many flights. However, because DOT
practice has allowed this measure in thepast, 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 ordelivered to carriers after two years fromthe rule’s effective date. The
Department’s policy will not changewith respect to existing aircraft.
4. On-Board Wheelchairs
The existing rule requires that, on
aircraft with more than 60 seats, thecarrier must provide an on-board
wheelchair in any case if the aircraft has
an accessible lavatory, and on apassenger’s advance request even if theaircraft 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 theaisle 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 seatsin the existing regulation. The reason forthis proposal was that 50-seat regional
jets are becoming an increasingly
important component of the fleets ofmany carriers, and the accommodation
provided by this section should be madeavailable to passengers who use thoseaircraft.
Carriers and their associations
objected to the application of theprovision to 50-seat aircraft. Carriers
cited cost as one reason for theirposition. In addition, they said, 50-seataircraft typically have only one flightattendant on board. If that attendant is
assisting a passenger using an on-board
wheelchair, he or she will be unable tocarry out other duties. This could create

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

difficulties if an emergency occurred
while the flight attendant was assistinga user of an on-board wheelchair, whichmight also obstruct the aisle in an
emergency situation. In addition,
carriers questioned whether the interiorof a 50-seat regional jet could be
configured to provide storage space forthe on-board wheelchair when it was
not in use.
While the cost estimates ofcommenters for on-board wheelchairs
appear to be overstated, we believe thatthe operational concerns of carriers withrespect to the use of on-board
wheelchairs on 50-seat aircraft with one
flight attendant have merit. In addition,
the typically very confined spaces inlavatory units on these aircraft maketheir use by persons with limited
mobility problematic. Consequently, thefinal rule will retain the existing rule’s
provision applying on-board wheelchairrequirements to aircraft with more than
60 seats.
Stowage of Wheelchairs and Mobility
Aids
The current rule requires wheelchairsthat cannot be carried in the cabin to bechecked, carried as baggage, andreturned to users as closely as possible
to the door of the aircraft. These devices
have priority over other items in thebaggage compartment. Carriers must
accept battery-powered wheelchairs(and other battery-powered mobilityaids) in baggage, subject to applicablehazardous materials rules. Wheelchairs
powered by lithium batteries may not be
permitted under the hazardous
materials rules depending on thelithium content of the battery.
Generally, non-spillable batteries do notneed 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 nonspillable. Wet cell batteries which are
not non-spillable may require removalfrom the wheelchair if the wheelchaircannot be loaded and stowed in an
upright condition and secured against
movement in the cargo compartment.
Carriers may establish a one-houradvance check-in time to process
battery-powered wheelchairs.
Wheelchair users may provide written
instructions concerning assembly anddisassembly of their devices. On
domestic flights, U.S. carriers must fullycompensate passengers for loss of ordamage to wheelchairs, without regard
to rules limiting liability for lost or
damaged baggage.
The Foreign Carriers NPRM
essentially proposed to continue theseprovisions and apply them to foreign as

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27627

well as U.S. carriers. Commenters madea number of points in response. One
commenter asserted that therequirement to carry power wheelchairsin the baggage compartment wasinconsistent with ICAO technicalstandards 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 thecommenter, cannot impose a lesser
requirement than the international
standard. In the Department’s view,
there is no conflict. As cited by thecommenter, the ICAO/IATA standard
gives carriers the discretion to carrybattery-powered wheelchairs. The DOT
requirement tells carriers to exercise thediscretion permitted them by the ICAO/IATA standard by, in fact, carrying thewheelchairs. 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 thanthat 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 aspecial 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’srequest on October 30, 2007. Under the
special permit, the current term ofwhich expires January 31, 2009, a nonspillable battery that is completely
enclosed and protected from shortcircuits in a rigid case integral to themobility aid would not have to bedisconnected and its terminals further
protected from short circuits to be
carried on an aircraft. This special
permit should make handling of somebattery-powered wheelchairs easier for
carriers to which the permit applies. It
is PHMSA’s intention to issue arulemaking 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.

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27628

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

Carriers and passengers withdisabilities had differing views on theexisting and proposed requirements for
carriers to permit passengers to provide
written instructions about thedisassembly and reassembly ofwheelchairs. Some of the former
suggested requiring passengers toprovide the manufacturer’s instructions;some of the latter suggested that theairline employee who disassembles thewheelchair 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 bothsuggestions have some merit. To theextent that there are relevant
manufacturer’s instructions, it seems
useful for passengers to provide a copy
to carriers. We do not think it would beappropriate 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 auser of a particular device would be ina good position to provide experiencebased 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 thedestination, the information could be
helpful to the latter. However, theemployee may not have time to do so,and some passengers may prefer that theemployee does not do so (i.e., out ofconcern that the employee could get it
wrong). Consequently, we do notbelieve it advisable to change theproposed language.
Some carrier comments said that
Warsaw/Montreal convention
provisions controlled payments foritems carried as baggage and that the
Department should not attempt to alter
compensation requirements forinternational flights. We agree, and theForeign Carriers NPRM proposed tomake compensation requirements forlost or damaged mobility aids applicable
only to U.S. domestic passenger trips.
The final rule will do the same.
Some commenters suggested that theadvance check-in time for persons
delivering mobility aids fortransportation in the baggage
compartment should be 60 minutes
before the regular check-in time forpassengers, rather than 60 minutes
before scheduled departure time. We
agree, and we have changed the ruleaccordingly.
Some carrier comments noted that theexisting and proposed regulatory

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

language concerning luggage that
doesn’t make a flight because of thespace 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 ininternational service, where flights may
be scheduled at intervals of one a day
or less. This is a fair comment; we havechanged the language to say that suchluggage must be placed on the carrier’s
next flight. We believe this is areasonable standard for domestic as wellas 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 ofassistive device, in the baggage
compartment. Only devices that fit andthat meet all applicable hazardous
materials and other safety regulations
need be carried.
Some wheelchairs—such as thoseequipped with securely mounted nonspillable batteries or those for which thecarriers remove the batteries and stow
them separately under 49 CFR
175.10(a)(15) and (16)—are capable ofbeing stowed in other than an uprightposition without damage to thewheelchair or batteries. However, if thephysical size of the compartment—its
actual dimensions, not crowding causedby other items—do not permit awheelchair to be carried upright safely
without risk of serious damage to thewheelchair, or a load imbalance caused
by a large wheelchair in a small baggage
compartment may violate weight andbalance safety requirements, carriers
could legitimately declinetransportation of the item on that flightand 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 withrespect to carrying electric wheelchairs,
the carrier should use this time period
to find an arrangement that will get thepassenger and his or her chair to theintended destination. For example,
when a change to a smaller aircraft the
day before the flight’s departure will
preclude the passenger’s wheelchairfrom being accommodated in the cargohold (e.g., the cargo space dimensions
are too small for the chair to fit), thecarrier 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 aflight of a different carrier, the firstcarrier must, to the maximum extent
feasible, provide assistance to thesecond carrier in providing the

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

accommodation requested by theindividual from the first carrier.
A disability group also raised theconcern—which could apply to manual
as well as electric wheelchairs—that if
several wheelchair users were travelingon a small aircraft, like a commuteraircraft or a regional jet, there might not
be room in the baggage compartment foreveryone’s wheelchair. This situation
could occur, but we do not see aregulatory solution to it. If a group istraveling together, providing as muchnotice as possible to the carrier to work
the problem is advisable. Otherwise, thecarrier would probably have to put somepassengers’ wheelchairs on asubsequent flight. A carrier association
said that carriers should only have tocarry one motorized mobility device perpassenger. We do not believe it isnecessary to provide for this situation in
the regulatory text. However, in asituation like the above where there was
not room for all disabled passengers’
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 proposedcarrying 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 seatingaccommodation.
Some disability community
commenters suggested that, if adequate
seating accommodations for a personwith a disability were not present, theindividual should be seated in businessor first class without additional charge.
Carriers generally opposed this idea.
Under the current rule, carriers are notrequired to provide accommodations ina seating/service class for which a
passenger has not bought a ticket (seesection 382.38(i)). The final rule
continues this approach. Carriers are
responsible for making seatingaccommodations in the seating/service
class for which someone has bought aticket, but are not required to provide ahigher level of seat or service because
doing so would be more comfortable orconvenient for a passenger with adisability. Likewise, the Department is
continuing its existing approach that aperson who requires two seats for any
reason (e.g., because of obesity or adisability) can be required to pay fortwo seats.
Some carriers asked for an advancenotice requirement for passengers

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
needing a seating accommodation (e.g.,
48 hours). While it is always a good idea
for passengers and carriers tocommunicate about accommodations as
early as possible, the Department’s
ACAA regulations andnondiscrimination policies havediscouraged advance notice policies as
an undue limitation of the ability ofpassengers with disabilities to travel
freely and without discrimination. The
experience of U.S. carriers with theexisting seating accommodations
provision suggests that carriers canprovide needed seatingaccommodations without additional
advance notice.
There were several miscellaneouscomments concerning seatingaccommodations. One carriercommented that persons with fused legs
could be transported more comfortably
in a rear window seat rather than abulkhead seat in some aircraft
configurations. This approach appears
consistent with section 382.81 of the
final rule, which requires carriers to seata passenger with a fused leg in abulkhead seat ‘‘or other seat thatprovides greater legroom than otherseats.’’
Another carrier mentioned that
because it provides ‘‘soft bulkheads’’and ‘‘inflatable seatbelts’’ in some seats,
national safety regulations prohibit
seating some persons with disabilities inthose seats. In this case, the carrier
would then have to accommodate apassenger with a fused leg in any otherseat on the aircraft offering greater
legroom. If due to a particular aircraftmodel’s design, no seat on that modelother than those prohibited by national
regulations offered greater legroom, thecarrier would have to apply for a
conflict of law waiver. We do notbelieve it is appropriate, as somedisability groups suggested, to requirebulkhead row seating to be madeavailable to all wheelchair users. The
apparent rationale for this request was
to make it more convenient for suchpassengers to access their personal
wheelchairs quickly in order to transfer
to another flight or exit the airport. The
rationale of the bulkhead seatingaccommodation for people with fused
legs, however, is to make seating on theflight 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 notlimited to sitting in aisle seats. We
agree, like the existing ACAA rule, thefinal rule does not allow carriers to limit
seating options for passengers withdisabilities, except where needed to

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

comply with applicable safety rules(e.g., concerning exit rows).
Accommodations for Passengers Who
Use Oxygen Devices
A. Passenger-Owned Respiratory
Devices
1. Covered Entities
In the Oxygen NPRM, we proposedthat the requirements concerning theevaluation 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 coverforeign carriers operating flights to andfrom the United States in as similar afashion as possible to U.S. air carriers.
We also specifically requested commentas to whether the Department should
limit coverage of this section to carriers
operating larger than 60-seat aircraft andwhether flights operated by commuter
carriers should be covered.
Consumers argued against an
exception for aircraft with 60 or fewerseats and favored a regulation of generalapplicability because many carriers that
operate ‘‘hub and spoke’’ service as wellas many carriers that service smaller
cities and less frequently traveled routes
use small aircraft. Consumers also
asserted that it would frustrate thepurpose of the regulation to exempt
flights operated by commuter carriers as
many individuals who use medical
oxygen fly on commuter carriers fromsmall regional airports to larger airports
to connect to a flight to their ultimate
destination. However, small carriers
supported an exception for aircraft with60 or fewer seats because of the costs
associated with the regulation,
particularly the cost of testing todetermine if the electronic respiratory
assistive devices interfere with thenavigation or communication systems ofeach model of aircraft operated by the
carrier. These carriers explained that
testing would be more costly for small
carriers because they do not have thetechnical knowledge or personnel
necessary for testing, necessitating thehiring of subcontractors for compliancetesting. Small carriers also indicatedconcern 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 aircraftwith 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 anelectronic respiratory device such as aportable oxygen concentrator (POC)

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27629

onboard small aircraft is of limited
benefit because they contend that many
regional flights are one hour in lengthand carriers can prohibit the use ofelectronic devices during take-off andlanding 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 ofsection 382.133 to carriers, theDepartment believes that it is reasonable
to apply the requirements of this section
to U.S. and foreign carriers that conduct
passenger carrying service other thanon-demand air taxis and not to exempt
carriers that only operate aircraft with60 or fewer seats. The contention ofsmall carriers that the costs associatedwith the requirements in this section
would be unduly burdensome to themno longer carries the same weight, since
this final rule shifts the responsibility
for electromagnetic interference testingof the four types of electronic
respiratory assistive devices from thecarriers as proposed in the Oxygen
NPRM to the manufacturers of thesedevices, as the manufacturers have amarket incentive to test such devices.
(See the discussion of industry
comments on this issue in the section
below entitled ‘‘Testing and Labeling ofElectronic 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 theassistance of a flight attendant. We alsofind unpersuasive the argument thatelectronic 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 itpresumes that the devices cannot be
used during ascent and descent. A
device’s use during a particular phase ofa 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 orcommunications 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
We proposed in the Oxygen NPRM to
address the carriage of four types ofportable electronic respiratory assistive

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27630

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

devices excepted from coverage underapplicable FAA regulations, e.g., 14 CFR
121.306, 135.144, 121.574, 135.91 andSpecial Federal Aviation Regulation No.
106—ventilators, respirators,
continuous positive airway pressure(CPAP) machines and portable oxygen
concentrators. We sought informationfrom foreign governments, foreign
carriers and other interested parties
regarding any foreign safety restrictions
affecting the carriage and use of theseelectronic 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 anumber 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 ofthese foreign carriers are required tosubmit their aircraft passenger policies
to a government agency for approvaland 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 varietyof laws and regulations. We haverevised section 382.133 to clarify that
foreign carriers need to permit thecarriage and use of a ventilator,
respirator, CPAP machine and POC only
if among other things, the device can bestowed and used in the passenger cabinconsistent with applicable TSA, FAA,
and PHMSA regulations and the safety
or security regulations of its government(emphasis added). In addition, section
382.9 allows a foreign carrier to petition
the Department for a waiver ofcompliance with any provision in Part
382, including section 382.133, if anapplicable foreign law or regulationprecludes a foreign carrier fromcomplying with that provision. As noted
earlier in this document, theDepartment employs a narrow
definition of the phrases ‘‘the safety or
security regulations of its government’’and ‘‘foreign law or regulation.’’ Acarrier’s policy, even if approved by its
government, would not be considered aforeign nation’s law and would notexempt the carrier from compliancewith Part 382.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

3. Testing and Labeling of Electronic
Respiratory Assistive Devices
In the Oxygen NPRM, we proposedthat a U.S. carrier that conducts
passenger-carrying service other than an
on-demand air taxi operator perform thenecessary evaluation and testing of aventilator, respirator, CPAP machine or
FAA-approved POC to determine if thedevice causes interference with thenavigation or communication systems ofeach model of aircraft the U.S. carrier
operates. We also proposed requiring aforeign carrier that conducts passengercarrying service other than an ondemand air taxi operator to perform thenecessary evaluation and testing ofthese devices to ascertain whether suchdevice can be used safely by passengers
during a flight on each aircraft that theforeign carrier operates on flights to andfrom the U.S.
Industry commenters as well as someconsumers said that the burden of
testing should be shifted away from thecarriers. The Air Transport Associationand 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 RadioTechnical Commission for Aeronautics).
These commenters argued that if
carriers have the option of refusing tocarry any device that is not tested andmarked as approved by the RTCA thenthe device manufacturers would have an
incentive to test their devices andproduce safety testing results for the
carriers to review. Other commenterssuggested that the device manufacturers
and the aircraft manufacturers should be
required to conduct the testing and thenlabel the device as approved for use
aboard aircraft, as manufacturers havethe greatest incentive to test devices.
Industry commenters also requested that
the FAA create a generic safety standard
for testing respiratory devices as well asa uniform labeling system for all
approved devices to cut down on
confusion by carriers and passengers.
Having considered all of thesecomments, the Department is persuadedthat responsibility for electromagnetic
interference testing of the four types ofelectronic respiratory assistive devices
covered in the Oxygen NPRM should beborne by the manufacturers of suchdevices rather than the carriers.
However, this regulation does notmandate manufacturer testing. The FAA
is considering whether to issue an
NPRM in which the agency would
propose to require manufacturers thatwant to market their ventilators,
respirators, CPAP machines, and FAA-

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

approved POCs for passenger use on
aircraft to test those devices against
FAA-prescribed performance standards
and affix a label to each device statingthat 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 notintend 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 wantto market such devices for use on
aircraft but whose devices fail to meetthe 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 ifthey do so, to label the devices as FAAcompliant. The label should indicatethat 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 throughits Advisory Circular No. 91.21–1B
allows 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 havebeen tested by the manufacturer andfound to not exceed the maximum levelof radiated radio frequency interference
as described in section 21, Category M
of RTCA Document (DO)–160 while inall modes of operation, without any
further testing by the carrier to establish
compliance with this performancestandard. It is worth noting that the
FAA does not have a prohibition on theoperation of portable electronic devices
aboard civil aircraft registered in acountry other than the United States.
This rule requires U.S. carriers topermit individuals to use electronic
respiratory assistive devices in thepassenger cabin so long as the devices
have been tested and labeled by their
manufacturer(s) as meeting the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 therequirements of Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 106) and the device
can be stowed consistent with FAA
cabin safety requirements. At present, alabel indicating that the device complies
with RTCA standards meets FAA
requirements and need not specificallystate that the device is FAA approved.
The final rule also requires 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 therequirements for medical portableelectronic devices set by the foreign
carrier’s government. If the foreign
carrier’s government does not haveapplicable 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 notissued applicable rules on the testing orlabeling of electronic respiratory
assistive devices. We encourage foreign
carriers to apply FAA requirements for
medical portable electronics where theforeign carriers’ government has notissued applicable rules. Otherwise, it is
not clear how the foreign carrier can beassured that the electronic respiratory
assistive device that it is accepting foruse in the cabin is safe. Also, theelectronic respiratory assistive device
must be stowed and used in thepassenger cabin consistent with any
applicable U.S. regulations and theregulations of the carrier’s government.
We expect that both U.S. and foreign
carriers will inspect the device label atthe departure gate to ensure that it islabeled by the manufacturer inaccordance with the applicableregulations. U.S. carriers’ internal
procedures must ensure that approved
devices bearing labels indicating thatthey meet the FAA requirements are
accepted. For foreign carriers, devices
containing labels indicating that thedevice meets requirements set by theforeign carrier’s government or, if nosuch requirement exists, therequirements for medical portableelectronics set by the FAA for U.S.
carriers, should be accepted.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

4. Passenger Information
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 thecarrier’s flights (e.g., device can only be
used after takeoff and before landing,availability of electrical outlets). In thisregard, we indicated that we thought
carriers would need to maintain some
type of list of approved or disapproved
devices and sought comments as towhat 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 toprovide information on the limitation of
the carriers’ codeshare partners toaccommodate the use of respiratorydevices.
The Department received a number ofcomments from consumers strongly
urging that a centralized list of approved
and disapproved devices be provided bycarriers, airports and/or the government.
Industry comments varied, with somecarriers indicating a willingness toprovide this information, while others
believed a list of approved anddisapproved 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 Web siteand by phone. Carriers also expressed
concern about any requirement toprovide information on the limitation of
its codeshare partners to accommodate
the use of respiratory devices.
According to these carriers, somecarriers have up to ten codesharepartners and the burden of knowing thelimitation 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 thecarriers to the manufacturers of suchdevices 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 thelabel on his/her electronic respiratory
assistive device indicates that the device
has been approved for air travel (i.e., norestriction 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 adesire to use a respirator, ventilator,
CPAP machine, or FAA-approved POC
aboard an aircraft of the conditions that

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27631

must be met before these devices can beapproved for such use. For instance, thisfinal rule requires carriers through theirreservation agents to inform passengersof the maximum weight and dimensionsof a device that can be accommodated
in the aircraft cabin, the requirementthat an electronic respiratory assistive
device be labeled appropriately, any
requirement for advance check-in, any
requirement for the individual tocontact the carrier before the scheduled
departure to learn the expected
maximum duration of his/her flight, therequirement to bring an adequate
number of fully charged batteries (i.e.,battery is charged to full capacity) topower the electronic respiratory device
and to ensure that extra batteries arepackaged properly, and the requirementthat 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) froman 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 theindividual’s medical condition is suchthat there is reasonable doubt that theindividual can complete the flightsafely, without requiring extraordinary
medical assistance during the flight.
The Department understands theconcerns expressed by carriers regarding
the difficulty and the costs associatedwith providing information topassengers about the limitation on theability of its codeshare partners toaccommodate users of respiratorydevices. The Department also believes
that it is imperative that users ofelectronic respiratory assistive devices
receive, in advance, accurate
information concerning any limitationon the ability of the carrier toaccommodate their need to use such a
device in the cabin of the aircraft. The
Department has tried to balance thesesomewhat conflicting concerns/needs.
The final rule requires that, in acodeshare 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 tocontact the carrier operating the flightfor information about its requirements
for use of such a device in the cabin, or
provide such information on behalf ofthe codeshare carrier operating theflight. For example, consider a

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27632Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

passenger who buys a codeshare ticketfrom carrier A for a connecting itinerary
from New York to Cairo throughLondon, where carrier A operates the
New York to London leg and carrier B
operates the London to Cairo leg undercarrier A’s designator code. In thisexample, carrier A must upon inquiry
from the passenger: (1) Inform thepassenger about carrier A’s
requirements for the use in the cabin ofa ventilator, respirator, CPAP machineor POC and (2) inform the passenger
about carrier B’s requirements for theuse in the cabin of the aforementioned
devices or tell the passenger to contact
carrier B directly to obtain thisinformation.
5. Advance Notice
We sought comments in the Oxygen
NPRM about operational reasons, if any,in support of permitting carriers torequire a passenger with a disability toprovide 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 shouldbe permitted to require a passenger toprovide advance notice of his or her
intention to use the aircraft electricalsystem as well as what would be areasonable amount of advance notice.
Industry commenters provided anumber of operational reasons why theysaid there should be advance noticerequirements for individuals who wish
to use electronic respiratory assistive
devices aboard a flight. These
commenters explained that advancenotice is needed to: (1) Ensure thedevice is approved for use onboard theaircraft; (2) ensure that a passenger
brings an adequate battery supply topower his/her device; (3) ensure that the
respiratory device is medicallynecessary; (4) ensure the pilot incommand is apprised when a passenger
is using a POC; and (5) ensure that thepassenger has talked with his/her
physician regarding fitness to fly withthe respiratory assistive device. Many
consumers also indicated that they werecomfortable with an advance noticerequirement for individuals who wish touse a battery-operated CPAP machine,
an approved POC, a respirator or aventilator aboard a flight. There was,however, disagreement as to what
would constitute a reasonable amount ofadvance notice. While most consumer
and industry comments indicated that48 hours is a reasonable amount ofadvance notice, some industry
comments asked for 96 hours advancenotice for international flights and a few
consumers stated that 24 hours is
sufficient notification.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

With respect to electrical outlets,
industry comments strongly urged thatelectrical outlets not be relied upon by
respiratory device users. According tothese commenters, electronic device
users cannot depend on the presence ofan outlet, as most aircraft do not haveelectrical outlets; the electrical outlets
that are available on aircraft may not becompatible with the passenger’s device,
as most respiratory assistive devices
require more wattage; electrical outlets
may be turned off during takeoff andlanding; and the carrier may switch
aircraft and use aircraft with no outlets
at the last minute.
Based on the comments received andthe Department’s belief that providing
48 hours’ advance notice would not beburdensome 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 orinternational 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 acarrier has been permitted to require aqualified individual with a disability toprovide advance notice of his or her
need for certain accommodations or of
his or her disability as a condition ofreceiving the requested accommodation,that advance notice has been limited to48 hours. The Department also believes,as comments provided by the industry
representatives contend, that electricaloutlets are generally not reliable sourcesof 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 thisrule prohibits the carrier frompermitting a passenger to plug his/herelectronic respiratory assistive device
into such an outlet, consistent withapplicable FAA safety rules.
6. Advance Check-In Time
The proposed rule asked questions
about operational reasons, if any, forrequiring passengers who request to use
their respiratory assistive devices tocomply with an advance check-in
deadline. It also asked about issues
passengers who use respiratory assistive
devices would face if carriers werepermitted to require an advance checkin deadline, as well as what would bea reasonable length of time for theadvance 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

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

device is safe for use on board, to ensure
proper packaging of batteries, ensure anadequate supply of batteries).
Consumers questioned whether advancecheck-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 otherobligations and restrictions on theirtime and that advance check-in places
significant burdens on their time. If
advance check-in is required, consumer
commenters favored a one hour advancecheck-in requirement. Industry
comments supported one hour advancecheck-in for all domestic flights but twohour advance check-in for international
flights. Carrier comments also sought
the authority to deny boarding if apassenger has failed to comply with thecarrier’s procedural instructions on
using electronic devices onboard.
The Department believes that it isnecessary to permit carriers to require
advance check-in to enable the carrier
personnel to inspect the label on theelectronic respiratory assistive device toensure that it was labeled by the
manufacturer in accordance with theapplicable regulations and to ensurethat 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 forboth domestic and international flights,
especially since ‘‘advance check-in’’ as
used in this rule means checking in one
hour before the carrier’s normal checkin time for the general public. Thus, forexample, if a carrier’s normal check-in
deadline for all passengers for aninternational flight is one hour before
scheduled departure time, the carrier isfree to require passengers who wish touse electronic respiratory assistive
devices to check in two hours before
scheduled departure time. That having
been said, it would not be reasonable fora carrier to require one hour advancecheck-in in situations where a passenger
is not able to check-in one hour inadvance because the passenger’s
connecting flight arrived late. Consider
the example, of a codeshare connecting
itinerary from Washington, DC to
Johannesburg through Rome, where
carrier A operates the segment from
Washington, DC to Rome and carrier B
operates the segment from Rome to
Johannesburg. If carrier B has a one houradvance check-in requirement and thepassenger checks in for the flight toJohannesburg less than an hour before
departure due to carrier A’s late arrivalin Rome, the passenger must be
accepted on the flight to Johannesburg

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

up until carrier B’s general check-in
deadline for all passengers on thatflight. The Department is not persuaded
by consumer comments that one houradvance check-in would be a significant
burden on them, particularly since thisrule would not permit carriers to require
a one hour advance check-in for apassenger who is not able to meet that
requirement due to his/her connecting
flight arriving late. The Department isalso not persuaded by industry
comments that a two hour advancecheck-in is needed for international
flights, in part because the informationthat the carrier personnel will beverifying at the departure gate does notchange based on whether the flight is adomestic flight or an international
flight.
7. Seating Accommodations
In the Oxygen NPRM, we asked
whether a passenger who uses aventilator, respirator, CPAP machine oran FAA-approved POC should be given
priority over users of other types ofelectronic equipment that are notassistive devices (e.g., laptops) withrespect to obtaining power for thedevice from the aircraft’s electricaloutlets. Virtually all of the consumer
comments stated that upon request
airlines should be required to seat apassenger who self-identifies as using
an electronic respiratory assistive device
next to an electrical outlet, if one isavailable 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 thataccess to seats with electrical outlets is
an aircraft amenity based on otherconsiderations (e.g., frequent flierstatus) and explained that the cost of
ensuring access to electric outlets isburdensome. Some of the costs
attributed to implementing the proposedseating 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, andtraining flight attendants and others
regarding the location of each aircraft’s
electrical outlets. Also, as noted above,
many industry comments emphasizedthat not all aircraft have outlets and theunreliability 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

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

priority seating on the basis of costs
associated with such a seatingaccommodation 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 forelectronic respiratory assistive devices.
Therefore, this rule does not mandatethat carriers allow users of respiratory
assistive devices to plug their devices
into the aircraft’s power supply or toprovide priority seating near suchoutlets. 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 thecarrier is confident that the electricaloutlet on the aircraft is reliable (e.g.,
uninterrupted service).
8. Batteries
The Oxygen NPRM sought
information about whether the ruleshould allow carriers to require users ofelectronic respiratory devices to carry acertain number of batteries. It also
solicited comments about what action
the Department should authorize thecarrier to take if a passenger does notbring a sufficient number of batteries topower an electronic respiratory assistive
device or a passenger does not ensurethat the batteries for the device are
packaged in a manner to allow them tobe transported safely in the cabin.
Consumers generally agreed that it
would be appropriate to require users ofelectronic respiratory assistive devices
to carry a sufficient number of batteries
to power the device for 1.5 times thelength of the flight. Some carriers
suggested that users of electronic
respiratory assistive devices should
carry enough batteries to power thedevice for the length of the flight plus
an additional two hours. Other
comments suggested enough batteries topower the device for 1.5 times thelength of the flight plus one additional
battery. There were also comments
recommending that the passenger’s
physician should indicate theappropriate number of batteries in theprescription that indicates thepassenger’s medical need for the device.
A number of carriers asked for theauthority to refuse to carry a passenger
who does not have an adequate numberof batteries. A few carriers asked to beable 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

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27633

the discussion of the appropriate
number of batteries to carry in the cabin
to ensure that an excessive number ofbatteries is not carried onboard.
After fully considering the comments
received and consulting with FAA andPHMSA personnel, the Department hasdetermined that there is no need toplace 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 thatbatteries that are protected against shortcircuits and wrapped in strong outer
packagings can safely be transported in
the passenger cabin provided there aresufficient approved stowage locations
available. On March 26, 2007, PHMSA
published a safety advisory to informthe traveling public and airline
employees about the importance ofproperly packing and handling batteries
and battery-powered devices when they
are carried aboard aircraft. Federal
regulations require that electricalstorage 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 forcomplying with the regulations andminimizing transportation risks.
Recommended practices include
keeping batteries installed in electronic
devices; packing spare batteries in carryon baggage; keeping spare batteries intheir original retail packaging;separating batteries from other metallic
objects such as keys, coins and jewelryby packing individual batteries in a
sturdy plastic bag; securely packing
battery-powered equipment in a manner
to prevent accidental activation; andensuring batteries are undamaged andpurchased 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 bringan 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 theinformation provided in the physician’s
statement (e.g., flow rate for POCs). The
expected maximum flight duration isdefined as the carrier’s best estimate of
the total duration of the flight fromdeparture gate to arrival gate, including
taxi time to and from the terminals,
based on the scheduled flight time andfactors such as (a) wind and other
weather conditions forecast; (b)anticipated traffic delays; (c) one

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27634Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

instrument approach and possible
missed approach at destination; and (d)any other conditions that may delay
arrival of the aircraft at the destinationgate. This rule also makes it clear thata carrier may deny boarding, on thebasis of safety, to an individual who
does not carry the number of fully
charged batteries prescribed in the ruleor an individual who does not properly
package the extra batteries needed to
power his/her device. Information forpassengers on how to safely travel withbatteries is available atsafetravel.dot.gov. However, a carrier
may not deny boarding due to an
inadequate number of batteries unlessthe carrier can provide information froma 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 thebattery life indicated in the
manufacturer’s specification when thedevice is operating at the flow rate
specified in the physician’s statement. It
is also worth noting that therequirement 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 thepassenger will be using an FAA
approved POC while boarding or
disembarking from the aircraft and will
not be relying on the POC during flightbecause the passenger has contracted for
carrier-supplied oxygen. In instanceswhere the carrier denies boarding to anindividual, the carrier must provide theindividual a written statement of thereason for the refusal to provide
transportation within 10 days of theincident.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

B. Carrier-Supplied Oxygen
The Oxygen NPRM proposed torequire 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 andforeign carriers operating to and fromthe United States that conduct
passenger-carrying service with at least
one aircraft having a designed seating
capacity of more than 60 passengers toprovide passengers free in-flight
medical oxygen in accordance withapplicable 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 toobtain additional information about thecost of carrier-supplied in-flight medical

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 thatwould constitute an undue burden or
fundamentally alter the nature of thecarriers’ service. As a matter ofdisability law, undue burden implies
that there may necessarily be someburden (a ‘‘due burden’’) in
accommodating someone’s disability.
Generally, an action is deemed to be an
undue burden if it would requiresignificant difficulty or expense on thepart of the covered entity when
considered in light of factors such as theoverall size of the business, the financial
resources of the business, the type ofoperation, and the nature and cost of theaccommodation. There is no hard andfast rule about what is or is not an‘‘undue burden.’’ The portion of the costof carrier-supplied oxygen that would
constitute an undue burden could differ
among carriers and could differ fromone route to another with the same
carrier. We do not currently havesufficient information available todetermine if requiring a carrier toprovide free in-flight medical oxygen
would create an undue burden. The
Department will seek additionalcomment about the cost of carriersupplied 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 withrespect to this issue. In the interim,
carriers can continue to charge for inflight medical oxygen that they choose
to provide.
Service Animal Issues
The subject that attracted the mostcomments 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 theForeign Carriers NPRM’s proposed
regulatory text, but rather to a guidance
document concerning transportation ofservice animals that the Department had
issued in May 2003. As an informational
matter, this existing guidance document
was published as an appendix to theNovember 2004 NPRM. The paragraphin the document that was the focus of
most of the comments was thefollowing:
If the service animal does not fit in theassigned location, you should relocate thepassenger and the service animal to someother place in the cabin in the same class ofservice where the animal will fit under theseat in front of the passenger and not create
an obstruction, such as the bulkhead. If no

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

single seat in the cabin will accommodate theanimal and passenger without causing an
obstruction, you may offer the option ofpurchasing a second seat, traveling on a laterflight or having the service animal travel inthe cargo hold. As indicated above, airlines
may not charge passengers with disabilities
for services required by part 382, includingtransporting 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 theguidance 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 inwhich service animals have been denied
transportation, separated from theirowners, or charged for an extra seat.
Despite this apparent lack of problems
in the real world of air travel, hundredsof comments expressed the fear that
Department was proposing new
regulations that would unfairly limit thetravel opportunities of service animal
users. Many of these commentssuggested that there were no
circumstances under which a service
animal should be denied transportationin the cabin. If there were space
limitations concerning accommodatinglarger 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 toavoid future misunderstanding, theDepartment is republishing its service
animal guidance later in the preamble tothis final rule and has revised thelanguage in this guidance document
concerning carriage of larger, butotherwise acceptable, service animals toread 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 andanimal cannot be moved to another location
where such a blockage does not occur. In
such a situation, the carrier should first talkwith other passengers to find a seat location
where the service animal and its user can be
agreeably accommodated (e.g., by finding apassenger who is willing to share foot spacewith the animal). The fact that a service
animal may need to use a reasonable portionof an adjacent seat’s foot space—that does notdeny another passenger effective use of thespace for his or her feet—is not, however, anadequate reason for the carrier to refuse topermit the animal to accompany its user at
his or her seat. Only if no other alternative
is available should the carrier discuss less

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

desirable options concerning thetransportation of the service animal with thepassenger traveling with the animal, such as
traveling on a later flight with more room or
carrying the animal in the cargocompartment. As indicated above, airlines
may not charge passengers with disabilities
for services required by Part 382, includingtransporting their oversized service animals
in the cargo compartment.

In modifying this paragraph in theguidance, we deleted the phrase
concerning the potential purchase of asecond seat, since there are probably nocircumstances 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 seatunoccupied, someone with a service
animal could be seated next to thevacant seat, and it is likely that even alarge 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 withservice animals in first class orreconfigure cabins. We would regard
such mandates as potentially requiring
a fundamental alteration of airlines’
operations, and consequently outside
the scope of the statutory authority forthis 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 advancenotice requirements for service animals
in the cabin). These commentersgenerally wished to maintain such
restrictions.
As a general matter, foreign carrier
policies with respect to service animals,
like other foreign carrier policies, aresubject to the conflict of laws waiverand equivalent alternative provisions of
the final rule. Otherwise, modifying
carrier policies to accommodate U.S.
civil rights requirements is somethingforeign carriers must accept as part oftheir obligation to comply with U.S. law
when flying to and from the U.S.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

In addition to wishing to maintainexisting policies restricting the access ofservice animals, some commentersmentioned that some countries havequarantine rules that severely delay orlimit 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 berelieved of carrying such an animal tothat country. Such a waiver would becountry-specific; however. If the sameairline is asked to carry the same animal
to Country R, which does not have sucha prohibition, the carrier would have totransport the creature. The final rulealso requires carriers to promptly takeall steps necessary to comply with suchforeign regulations as are necessary tolegally transport service animals fromthe U.S. into foreign airports (e.g., theUnited Kingdom’s Pet Travel Scheme).
Commenters mentioned that somepersons may have religious or culturalobjections to traveling in proximity tocertain service animals. Other
commenters raised the issue ofpassengers who may have allergies tocertain animals. It has long been aprinciple of the Department’s ACAA
and other disability regulations that it isimproper 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) andsection 382.19(b) of the final rule). This
principle is again articulated in the final
rule’s service animal section. Only if asafety problem amounting to a direct
threat can be shown is restricting accessrequired 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 mustyield to the nondiscrimination mandateof 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 toaccommodate other passengers’
concerns by steps like seating
passengers with service animals andpassengers who are uncomfortable withservice animals away from one other.
We note that, on flights operated byforeign carriers that are not subject tothese rules, the carriers may, of course,
apply their own policies with respect tocarriage of service animals.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27635

A number of commenters objected to
the requirement that carriers accept
animals as service animals on the basisof the ‘‘credible verbal assurances’’ ofpassengers, especially in the absence ofcredentials from a training school thatthe carrier recognizes. Under U.S. law(the ADA as well as the ACAA), it isgenerally not permissible to insist on
written credentials for an animal as acondition for treating it as a service
animal. It would be inconsistent with
the ACAA to permit a foreign carrier, forexample, to deny passage to a U.S.
resident’s service animal because theanimal had not been certified by anorganization that the foreign carrier
recognized. When flying to or from theUnited States, foreign carriers are
subject to requirements of U.S.
nondiscrimination law, though carriers
may avail themselves of the conflict oflaws waiver and equivalent alternative
provisions of this Part. We acknowledge
that some foreign carriers may beunused to making the kinds of judgment
calls concerning the credibility of apassenger’s verbal assurances that the
Department’s service animal guidancedescribes, and which U.S. carriers havemade for over 17 years. However, thecomments 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 theoperation of their flights.
A number of carriers commented thatmaking provision for service animals onlong (e.g., trans-oceanic) flights was
especially problematic. The mainconcern focused on the animals’ eating,drinking, and elimination functions.
They pointed out that health andsanitation issues could arise. Some
service animal users said that theiranimals were well trained to avoid
creating sanitation problems on even avery long flight. The Department agrees
that, on very long flights, carriers havea 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 flightsegment 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 notneed to relieve itself on the flight or thatthe 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 forassisting with the eating, drinking, or
elimination functions of service animals
on board an aircraft.

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27636

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

Another important issue that a
number of commenters raised
concerned ‘‘emotional support
animals.’’ Unlike other service animals,
emotional support animals are often nottrained to perform a specific activefunction, such as pathfinding, picking
up objects, carrying things, providing
additional stability, responding tosounds, 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 totravel in the cabin would open the door
to abuse by passengers wanting to travelwith 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 thelikelihood of abuse. The final rule limits
use of emotional support animals topersons with a diagnosed mental oremotional disorder, and the rule permits
carriers to insist on recent
documentation from a licensed mental
health professional to support thepassenger’s desire to travel with such an
animal. In order to permit theassessment of the passenger’s
documentation, the rule permits carriers
to require 48 hours’ advance notice of apassenger’s wish to travel with anemotional 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, andtheir facilities and services, contrasted
with public accommodations likerestaurants 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 preventa concession from accepting a properly
documented emotional support animal.
We urge all parties at airports to beaware that their services and facilities
are intended to serve all passengers.
Airlines, airport operators, andconcessionaires should work together toensure that all persons who are able touse the airport to access the airtransportation system are able equally to
use all services and facilities provided
to the general public.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Because they make for colorfulstories, accounts of unusual service
animals have received publicity wholly
disproportionate to their frequency orimportance. Some (e.g., tales of service
snakes, which grow larger with eachretelling) 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, theDepartment has added language to thefinal 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 callabout whether any factors (e.g., size andweight 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 oftransportation to a service animal would
have to be explained, in writing, to thepassenger within 10 days.
While it is possible that foreign air
carriers may have safety-related reasonsfor objecting to service animals otherthan dogs, even ones that have beensuccessfully accommodated on U.S.
carriers, these reasons were generally
not articulated in their comments to thedocket. Nevertheless, to give foreign
carriers a further opportunity to raise
any safety-related objections specific toforeign airlines to carrying theseanimals, 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 thosepermitted to U.S. carriers. We intend toseek further comment on this subject in
the forthcoming SNPRM.
A few comments suggested adding, tothe section prohibiting carriers fromrequiring 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 asensible 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 theaccommodations that were available tothem for a particular flight. This
includes the location of seats with a

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

movable armrest as well as seats (e.g.,
those in an exit row) that are notavailable to passengers with a disability.
It also includes information about any
service limitation as well as the abilityof an aircraft to accommodate people
with disabilities (e.g., limitations onboarding assistance, limitations on
storage areas for mobility aids, presenceor absence of an accessible lavatory).
The Foreign Carriers NPRM recognizedthat there were circumstances (e.g.,change of aircraft because of weather ormechanical problems) that could affectthe 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 since1990. Some carrier comments objectedto the provision to identify seats withmovable armrests, saying that, given thevariety of cabin configurations andaircraft, it would be too hard and too
expensive to be able to know wherethese seats are located.
The final rule does not mandate thatcarriers reconfigure cabins on all aircraftin order to meet this requirement, assome commenters mistakenly appeared
to conclude. Rather, carriers would
provide the best information available atthe time a passenger made a reservation
or inquiry. If the location of movablearmrest seats on the aircraft actuallyproviding the flight did not match theinformation previously provided to thepassenger, gate and flight crew
personnel could modify the passenger’s
seating assignment prior to or at thetime of boarding in order to ensure thatthe passenger could transfer to a seatwith a movable armrest.
A carrier could make the necessary
information about seating configurationsof each aircraft available to its personnel
for this purpose, noting locations ofmovable armrest seats. We note that
there are at least two commercial Web
sites that make detailed information on
characteristics of each seat of eachconfiguration of most carriers’ various
aircraft models publicly available.
While these sites do not include
information on movable armrests, thedetailed information they makeavailable (e.g., the location of seats thathave sockets available to plug inlaptops) suggests that doing so would
not pose an insurmountable technicalproblem. Carriers that found a
computer-based system too challenging
could use a low-cost, low-tech means ofidentifying the movable armrest seats
for gate and flight crew personnel, suchas placing unobtrusive stickers on theseats or a photocopied seating chart that

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
flight attendants and gate agents could
use.
Another proposal carried over fromthe existing rule into the Foreign
Carriers NPRM would require carriers tomake 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 disabilityrelated assistance from the Department(i.e., via the Disability Hotline or
directly from the Aviation Consumer
Protection Division). We solicitedcomment on our proposals and on thepotential costs to carriers and benefits topassengers 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 madeavailable in other accessible formats aswell as hard copy. Some foreign carriercomments objected to making copies ofa U.S. regulation available, thoughothers did not. Most foreign carriers,
however, opposed any requirement thatthey have copies of Part 382 available atairports in accessible formats as
unreasonably burdensome and of little
practical use to passengers who are notalready aware of this regulation. Someforeign 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 theforeign jurisdictions have their own
disability-related requirements for
carriers serving them. Virtually all ofthem took the position that any
passenger desiring a copy of Part 382 inan accessible format should obtain it
from this Department rather than froma carrier. Some suggested thatpassengers should be made aware ofPart 382 and its availability from the
Department at the time of booking or atsome 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 endpointsof flights operated on a codeshare basiswith a U.S. carrier.
While we agree that carriers shouldmake a print copy of the rule available,
so that passengers can refer to it to assist

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

them in resolving any problems thatarise at the airport, the final rule will
not require copies to be made available
in other accessible formats, or inlanguages other than English. We also
will not adopt the proposed requirementin § 382.45 that carriers provide
information on the Department’s
Disability Hotline service or its Aviation
Consumer Protection Division topassengers with disability-related
complaints or concerns. Such arequirement is not necessary here, as
other sections of the rule require carriers
to tell passengers of their right tocontact the Department as part of theresolution of complaints (see 14 CFR
382.153, 382.155). We agree with thosecommenters who suggest that access toPart 382 is most useful to consumers
before they reach the airport. We are
therefore requiring carriers to include
notice on their Web sites that consumers
can obtain a copy of Part 382 inaccessible format from the Department
and information on how this may be
done. The performance requirement thatcarriers effectively communicate withpassengers—which carriers can meet ina variety of ways—should be sufficient
to ensure that passengers can use theregulatory information. Making a copyof 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 maketheir Web sites accessible to people withvision impairments and otherdisabilities. 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 topersons who make reservations by othermeans. Disability community
commenters strongly supported the
proposed requirements. Many carriersand carrier organizations opposed it,
primarily on the grounds that it would
be too difficult and expensive toaccomplish. Many of these comments
said the Department had
underestimated the cost of Web site
accessibility.
The Department continues to believethat Web site accessibility is extremely
important to nondiscriminatory accessto air travel for people with disabilities,
and we note that many existing carrier
Web sites provide a degree ofaccessibility. However, in order toobtain additional information about thecosts and any technical issues involved,
the Department is deferring final action
on this proposal and seeking additionalcomment in the SNPRM that we are

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27637

planning to issue. The preamble to the
SNPRM will discuss comments on Web
site accessibility and the issues theyraise in greater detail. In the meantime,in order to comply with the general
nondiscrimination requirement of Part
382, carriers will be prohibited fromcharging fees, or not making Web farediscounts available, to passengers withdisabilities who cannot use inaccessible
Web sites and therefore must makephone or in-person reservations.
TTY UseWe proposed in the DHH NPRM torequire carriers to ensure that theservice and response times are equal for
TTY information and reservation lines
and non-TTY information andreservation lines, including theprovision 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 tothe general public have been requiredby § 382.47 to offer TTY service as well.)
TTY users should not be subject tolonger wait times than other callers. We
stated our belief that the cost to carriersof 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 thisissue 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 inmany countries. Some opposed therequirement of a queuing system for
TTY calls, claiming that such systems
are in fact quite costly and that theexpense 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 othercallers be ‘‘equivalent,’’ arguing that thedelay inherent in typing text rather thanspeaking it makes equivalent response
times physically impossible.
The purpose of § 382.43 is to put deaf
and hard of hearing passengers on asubstantially equivalent footing with therest of the public in their ability tocommunicate 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.

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27638

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

Regarding access, both the comments
and our own further investigations into
voice relay services have persuaded usthat we need not require carriers tomake TTY service available per se.
Instead, we are requiring only thatcarriers make their telephone
reservation and information services
available to individuals who use a TTY.
Carriers may of course meet thisrequirement by using TTYs themselves,
but they may also do so by means ofvoice relay or any other available
technology that permits TTY users tocommunicate with them. Thisrequirement is set forth in § 382.43(a).
We are also adding a new accessrequirement in § 382.43(a)(4) to ensurethat deaf and hard of hearing passengers
are informed of how to reach carriers by
TTY: in any medium in which a carrierstates the telephone number of its
information and reservation service forthe general public, it must also state its
TTY number if it has one, or if not, it
must specify how TTY users can reachthe information and reservation service(e.g., via voice relay service). Such
media include, for example, Web sites,
ticket jackets, telephone books, andprint advertisements.
Regarding wait time, the comments
and our own experiments with voice
relay systems have persuaded us not torequire carriers that use TTYs to
implement a queuing system for TTY
calls even if they do maintain one forcalls from the rest of the public. Callsfrom a TTY to a carrier via a voice relay
service are treated exactly the same ascalls from conventional telephones. If
an agent is available to take the call, thecaller is connected to the agent. If not,if the carrier has a queuing system thecall goes into the queue along with nonTTY calls. (If the carrier does not havea queuing system, any caller gets a busy
signal.) Therefore, a TTY caller who
calls the carrier’s TTY number and getsa busy signal can hang up and
immediately try the carrier’s generalpublic number through a voice relay
service, where all calls receive identicaltreatment. We consider the timing inthis scenario to be ‘‘substantiallyequivalent’’ to the timing for the rest of
the public, the extra callnotwithstanding. 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 remainboth low and infrequent, we willconsider the treatment of these groups
to be substantially equivalent. Of
course, we can and will investigate
allegations of routine or lengthy

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

disparities and require corrective action
where appropriate.
We are concerned, moreover, thatgiven the reportedly high cost of
implementing a TTY queuing service
vis-á-vis the reportedly low incidence of
TTY calls, if we required queuingsystems 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 tooffer 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, especiallywhen the record in this proceeding
contains no evidence that the incidenceof busy signals in TTY-to-TTY calls ishigh 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 ofaccommodating the TTY callers so as to
avoid violating the ‘‘substantiallyequivalent’’ standard. For example,
rather than acquire and maintain aqueuing system, the carrier could allow
a TTY caller who cannot be
accommodated immediately to leave amessage 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 foraccommodating individuals who aredeaf and hard of hearing that apply tovideo displays on aircraft. First, we
proposed to require U.S. and foreign
carriers to caption all safety andinformational videos on aircraft within
set periods of time. The current rule,§ 382.47(b), only requires that U.S.
carriers make safety briefings on theaircraft 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 theexemption, require high-contrast
captioning of informational videos aswell as safety videos, requirecompliance for safety videos within 180
days of the rule’s effective date, andrequire 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

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

captioning requirement to informational
displays, and on the technical feasibilityof captioning all safety andinformational videos, DVDs, and otheraudio-visual displays in such a way thatthey 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 highcontrast captioning on entertainment
videos, DVDs, and other audio-visualdisplays on new aircraft, or aircraft
ordered after the rule’s effective date ordelivered more than two years after that
date. Aircraft on which the audio-visualmachinery is replaced after that datewould also be considered new for
purposes of § 382.69. We did notpropose requiring the captioning ofentertainment videos on existing
aircraft, believing that the costs of sucha requirement would exceed the benefits
that would follow. We solicitedcomment on the costs and feasibility ofboth modifying and replacing
equipment on existing aircraft andcomplying with the proposed rule withnew aircraft.
The carriers and carrier groups that
filed comments generally objected to the
proposals. RAA opposes requiring
videos on existing aircraft to becaptioned, contending that the costs ofmodification would greatly exceed any
potential benefits. One foreign carrier
contended that this provision should
not apply to foreign carriers. Somefaulted the Department for not
distinguishing between English andnon-English products and maintainedthat the latter should be excluded fromany captioning requirement. Some
carriers argued that the exact content of
any safety briefing provided by video
can always be found in print in eachseat pocket and maintain that thecontent of informational videos can befound in print both in seat pockets andelsewhere in the cabin. Most if not all
carriers and carrier groups objected toallowing less time for compliance withthe safety-video requirement than withthe requirement for informational
videos; some maintained that rather
than a specific deadline, carriers shouldbe permitted to comply if and when
they replace video equipment in thenormal course of operating the aircraft.
Some claimed to have no control overthe content of informational videos
provided by third parties. Some
opposed the requirement that
captioning be high-contrast—i.e., whiteletters on a consistent black background.
Several commenters called for retentionof the current rule’s exemption for
captioning a safety video when the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
captioning or inset would render thevideo ineffective.
All of the carriers and carrier groups
opposed requiring captioning for all inflight entertainment, advancing several
arguments: With existing technology,
the costs and difficulties of complianceare prohibitive; for overhead screens,the size of captioning relative to the sizeof the screen would degrade theentertainment value of the video
presentation for all passengers; onindividual 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 theaircraft features, is too costly and would
increase the price of air transportation;
in-flight entertainment is beyond theDepartment’s jurisdiction to regulate, as
it does not come within the purview ofaccess to air transportation; film owners’
restrictions on DVDs could makecompliance impractical to impossible;
in some cases, government censorship
could make compliance illegal; theproposal does not specify whether or
not captioning would be required inlanguages 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 manycalled 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 wouldinterfere with the video presentation soas to render it ineffective or if thecaptioning would itself be unreadable.
The individuals and disability
organizations that filed comments
unanimously supported the proposed
rule except insofar as they believed thecompliance dates to be too far in the
future. None of these commentersaddressed the costs or difficulties ofachieving compliance.
The WGBH Educational Foundation’s
National Center for Accessible Media(‘‘the Center’’), which reported that it isconducting a study on ways of making
airline travel more accessible topassengers with sensory disabilities,
filed comments on this proposal. The
Center maintained that all safety videos
are already being captioned and thatpre-recorded informational videos arereadily captionable, thus making theexisting exemption unnecessary. It
maintained that due to current
technologies, the rule need not specify
white letters on a black background toensure that captions can be read, andgiven the number of production

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

techniques available, a requirement that
displayed text be ‘‘legible’’ or‘‘readable’’ should suffice. The Center
stated that the next generation of inflight entertainment (‘‘IFE’’) systems canbe designed to accommodate captioningin various ways and that it is advancesin these systems, not new aircraft, thatwill make captions readily available. It
therefore recommended that the rule betied 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 datafor broadcast and cable television, it
stated, are incompatible with the digital
signals being routed to seat screens in
the newest IFE systems, and while thetransformation of these data for use on
in-flight systems can be developed, theprocess is not yet automatic, nor is it
trivial. A further complication,according to the Center, lies in thevariety in types of video signals being
provided in-flight. The Center statedthat despite the small size of seatscreens, properly rendered captions canbe as effective on these screens as they
are on home television sets. It reported
that the portable IFE systems that somecarriers use as alternatives to installedsystems—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 manyof the carriers. WAEA stated that its
members include both airlines andsuppliers to the IFE industry, the latterincluding aircraft manufacturers, major
electronics manufacturers, motion
picture studios, audio/video postproduction labs, broadcast networks,
licensing bodies, communications
providers, and others, worldwide.
WAEA took the position that some ofthe proposed captioning requirements
and implementation timelines would
impose undue and unacceptablefinancial burdens on the carriers andthat some of the requirements are noteven technologically or operationallyfeasible given the following: technicallimitations of both old and new IFE
systems, variations among proprietary
IFE systems currently in service andbeing installed, limited space for andreadability of captioning on both seatscreens and on more distant communal
screens, the intrusion factor of open
captions for passengers without asensory disability, limited cabin-serverstorage for additional captioned video
files to complement up to eight

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27639

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 implementationof the proposed new requirements
should be tied to IFE systemdevelopment and not the aircraft. Given
the limitations of video files that may beavailable on the aircraft, WAEA
contended that the rule should apply
only to English-language videos andonly 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 thatthey were not designed to accommodate
broadcast closed-captioning signals andtechnologies. Given the limitations of
IFE screens in terms of their size anddistance 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 mostof the picture visible and poses fewer
risks of copyright infringement.
Based on the comments, we havemade several changes to the final rule.
We are retaining the requirement thatsafety and informational audio-visualdisplays played on the aircraft be highcontrast captioned, but we have revised
the definition of that term to permit theuse 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 theflight. If the carrier makes
announcements both in English andanother language, captions must be in
both languages. We are retaining thecompliance dates set forth in the DHH
NPRM, based among other things on theCenter’s report that all safety videos are
already being captioned and that prerecorded informational videos can be
captioned readily. This report also
undercuts the carriers’ arguments forretaining the current rule’s exemption
for cases in which captioning wouldinterfere with the video presentation soas 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 thecontention that access to in-flight

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27640Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

entertainment falls outside the scope of
the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, as
amended, and that we therefore have noauthority to regulate IFE. Remedial
statutes such as the ACAA are properly
construed broadly, for the benefit of theprotected 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 toregulate, however, the record in thisproceeding does not provide a basis for
adopting a captioning requirement for
IFE at present. We cannot conclude on
the basis of the comments thatproviding high-contrast captioning forentertainment displays is technicallyand 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 morecurrent and more complete informationon the cost and feasibility of providing
high-contrast captioning forentertainment displays, information not
only on current technology but also on
the nature and pace of technologicaldevelopments. Regarding the latter, we
are aware that on March 6, 2007, after
the conclusion of the period forcommenting on the DHH NPRM.
WAEA’s Board of Directors adopted a
new specification as part of an ongoing
effort to establish a standard digitalcontent delivery system for IFE. This
new specification reflects progress
toward development of a common
methodology for delivering digitalcontent and greater interoperability for
in-flight entertainment systems.
Other Information for Individuals With
Hearing or Vision Impairments
We proposed in the DHH NPRM torequire carriers to provide the same
information to deaf, hard of hearing, anddeaf-blind individuals in airport
terminals that they provide to othermembers of the public. We proposedthat they must provide this information
promptly when such individuals
identify themselves as needing visual orauditory 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, schedulechanges, boarding, the checking andclaiming of baggage, the solicitation ofvolunteers on oversold flights (e.g.,offers of compensation for surrenderinga reservation), individuals being paged
by airlines, aircraft changes that affectthe travel of persons with disabilities,
and emergencies (e.g., fire, bomb threat).
We proposed that the rule apply to U.S.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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, ticketingareas, or other terminal facilities thatthey own, lease, or control at any U.S.
airport and at terminal facilities offoreign airports that serve flights
beginning or ending in the U.S. (Weinadvertently neglected to include thephrase ‘‘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 performancestandard, namely ‘‘prompt,’’ rather thanrequiring carriers to use a particular
medium (e.g., LCD screens, wirelesspagers, erasable boards, or handwritten
notes) to allow carriers to design theirown compliance plans in a manner thatbest suits their needs and serves theirpassengers. We solicited comment onwhether the term ‘‘prompt,’’ which we
believe to be a higher standard than‘‘timely,’’ is sufficiently specific. We
also stated our concern that methods ofcommunicating 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’spalm or forearm, using an index cardwith raised letters, with thecommunicator 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 solicitedcomment on other less specialized
methods of communicating with deafblind 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 hasboth of these disabilities.
The carriers and carrier groups that
filed comments all supported therequirement 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 suchstandard is too subjective to provide
effective guidance. One carriersuggested 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 sharedconsiderable concern over the costs ofcompliance, both in terms of having

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

personnel available at all of the areas
listed in the proposal and in terms ofpotential technical solutions. One
carrier opposed making therequirements applicable at foreign
airports, arguing that foreign carriers are
not likely to have the leverage theywould need to comply. Several
contended that the cost estimates in theinitial Regulatory Evaluation wereunrealistically low. Some proposed
limiting the required ‘‘promptness’’ toindividuals with either hearing or visual
impairment, not both, who are travelingwithout a companion; one stated that it
communicates the information at issue
here to deaf-blind passengers throughtheir 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, andwhich is explicitly not exhaustive.) One
U.S. carrier association was particularly
concerned about the financial burdensthat it assumes the rule would impose
on its regional-airline members. It
asserted that adoption of much of thetechnology discussed in the proposal is
impossible at small airports and statesthat in any case its members report very
few deaf-blind passengers flying fromthese 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 avery different perspective. Most of thesecommenters objected to the requirementof self-identification. Many took theposition that carriers should havereliable 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 thepast self-identification has failed toresult in this type of information’s beingtransmitted at all, much less ‘‘promptly’’or even in a ‘‘timely’’ manner.
Based on the comments, we havemade several changes to the proposal in
the final rule. First, we are adding thelanguage that we inadvertently omitted
in the proposed rule to limit therequirements for foreign carriers at
foreign airports to areas that thesecarriers 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 isconstantly changing, and we know of no
methods of communicating with deaf-

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
blind individuals that allow for prompttransmission of the information and do
not require highly specialized training.
We do encourage members of the public
to petition the Department for arulemaking to amend this rule in the
future if and when technology becomes
available that would permit the promptand efficient transmission of thecovered information to deaf-blind
individuals. We also encourage carriers
to acquire and use such technology on
their own initiative.
Third, we have determined that thecosts of requiring prompt transmissionof the covered information at all of theterminal 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, acustomer service desk is a location in
the terminal that a carrier dedicates toaddressing customer problems that are
not addressed at the gate or the ticket
counter, most commonly the reroutingof passengers affected by a delayed orcanceled flight. Fourth, we are adding aprovision for information about baggage.
This information must be transmitted topassengers 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 informationon collection of baggage is given toarriving passengers at the baggage claim
area, carriers can comply with this ruleby giving the information to selfidentifying passengers before theothers—e.g., onboard the flight or at thegate—or at the baggage claim area at thesame time as the others. Fifth, as in thecase 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 thecarrier jointly responsible.
We are retaining the selfidentification requirement, because webelieve that requiring simultaneous
visual transmission of the information
along with each and every publicaddress announcement would saddle
carriers with undue costs. In this regard,
passengers with impaired hearing or
vision must identify themselves tocarrier personnel at the gate area or thecustomer service desk even if they havealready 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 thetime that the information is transmitted
to the general public. For example,
when gate agents announce a flightcancellation or gate change, if they

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

provide the information to selfidentifying passengers with impaired
hearing or vision either immediately
before or immediately after they make ageneral announcement, the carrier will
be complying with § 382.53. If a gatechange is announced fifteen minutes
before a scheduled departure but thegate 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 toboard, or if they delay providing theinformation long enough that theindividual reasonably believes that heor she will probably miss the flight, thecarrier is violating the rule. The rule
requires that carrier personnel notify aself-identifying passenger with impaired
hearing that he or she has been paged
immediately after making theannouncement over a public address
system unless the same information isdisplayed visually on a screen. If a flightis 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 forthem to take advantage of the offer—i.e.,well before the quota has been filled byother 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 otherpassengers.
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 theinformation is otherwise only posted on
visual displays, and the notificationmust take place no later than theposting. 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 herof any change that has occurred that
affects his or her itinerary even if thechange has already been announced andis now posted on a screen. If a gatechange is posted on the screen but notannounced 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 oftypes 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27641

Having them explicitly stated informs
the carriers more effectively of their
responsibilities.
In the DHH NPRM, we proposed asomewhat similar requirement forproviding information aboard aircraft tothe proposed requirements pertaining to
information in airport terminals. U.S.
and foreign carriers would be required,
upon request, to provide deaf, hard ofhearing, and deaf-blind individuals withthe same information provided to otherpassengers in a prompt manner. We
again proposed a non-exhaustive list oftypes of information to be covered by
the rule: flight safety, procedures fortake-off or landing, flight delays,schedule or aircraft changes that affectthe 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, andemergencies (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 onwhether 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 tooprescriptive, particularly the expanded
list of types of information for whichaccommodation 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 andtheir duties related to safety andconcluded that if busy crew members
are further burdened with having totranscribe 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 thedetriment of all passengers andconstitute an undue burden not requiredby the ACAA. ATA proposed limiting
the covered information to critical flightand safety information. Some
commenters contended that they (ortheir members) already give passengers
with hearing or vision impairment thesame relevant information that they
announce aloud. The International Air
Transport Association (‘‘IATA’’)contended that the proposal would notallow carriers enough flexibility to make

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27642

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulationsindividual assessments and thatcompliance would require retraining of
all staff, redrafting of training manuals,
and dramatic changes in procedures athigh cost to the carriers and with little
benefit to passengers. Some carriers took
the position that individuals who are
not capable of communicating with theflight crew orally or in writing should
be required to travel with a companion
who can establish communication. RAA
characterized the scope of informationin the proposed list as excessive andmaintained that the ‘‘prompt’’ standard
should only apply to information aboutflight safety procedures for take-off orlanding. 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 requirementthat individuals with hearing
impairments identify themselves to thecarrier and request accommodation.
Most supported a requirement that alloral announcements made aboard theaircraft be simultaneously transmitted
visually; some claimed that in practice,
sporadic requests for accommodation
are not honored.
With minor clarifying changes to thelanguage of the proposed rule, we are
adopting its substance as proposed. As
with § 382.53, however, we havedetermined that it is not appropriate at
this time to require carriers to provide
the information covered in § 382.119 todeaf-blind passengers. As stated above,
the information is constantly changing,
and we know of no methods ofcommunicating with deaf-blind
individuals that allow for prompttransmission of information and do not
require highly specialized training. Also
as with § 382.53, we encourage membersof the public to petition the Department
for a rulemaking to amend this rule if
and when technology becomes available
that would permit the prompt andefficient transmission of the information
to deaf-blind individuals.
We are also following our approach in§ 382.53 with regard to maintaining theself-identification requirement, thestandard of promptness, and the list oftypes of information that the rule
covers. Here, as there, we believe that at
this time, requiring simultaneous visualtransmission of the information alongwith every spoken announcement
would saddle the carriers with undue
costs. Here, as there, carriers must
provide the information to selfidentifying passengers with hearing or
vision impairment as close as possible

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

to the time that the information isannounced 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 nonexhaustive and would thus cover theitems added here. Specifying our
expectation informs the carriers more
completely of what the ruleencompasses.
Finally, the carriers’ concerns thatcompliance with the requirements ofsection 382.119 could keep their flightcrews from performing their duties
related to safety are misplaced. The rule
expressly relieves the crew fromcomplying when this would interferewith their safety duties under FAA andforeign regulations. There is similar
language in § 382.53, though, given theduties of such personnel as gate agents,
ticket agents, and baggage claim
personnel, the likelihood of any conflict
between normal duties and legallymandated safety duties is probably
lower than in the air crew context,
outside, perhaps of an unusual
emergency situation.
Training
The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposedthat 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 withorganizations representing persons withdisabilities in developing training
programs. Refresher training to maintainproficiency 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 accomplishedwithin one year. New crewmembers
would have to be trained before starting
their duties, and other new employees
would have to be trained within 60 daysof 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, butthey would not need to submit thesematerials or a certification ofcompliance to DOT for review.
Disability community commentersgenerally supported the proposedtraining requirements, though several
said that U.S. carriers were notproviding adequate training. Some
commenters said that they had rarely, if
ever, encountered carrier personnel

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

who, when asked, recalled getting
ACAA training. Some of thesecommenters, as well as some carriers,
asked for a stronger DOT role inproviding training (e.g., preparing a
training curriculum, developing training
materials, or providing funding fortraining). One association representing
foreign carriers suggested a forum atwhich carriers and the Department
could discuss implementation issues
before the effective date of the rule.
Some foreign carriers mentioned thatthey 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 proposedtraining time frames were too short.
Other foreign carriers objected totraining their employees to meet U.S.
requirements, since they already trained
their personnel to meet applicablerequirements of their home countries.
Several of these commenters
particularly objected to consulting withdisability groups, some suggesting thatthe requirement should be waived ifthey 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 staffof the airline could consult with U.S.
groups if necessary, while another groupsuggested such a waiver could be
acceptable if the carrier showed it had
made good faith efforts to consult.) An
association of U.S. carriers cautionedthat any waiver available to foreign
carriers should also be available to U.S.
carriers.
The Department regards thoroughtraining of carrier personnel who
interact with passengers withdisabilities as vital to good service tothose passengers and to compliancewith the ACAA. We recognize thatmany foreign carriers already havedisability-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 fromthe U.S., in order to ensure that thepersonnel understand ACAA
requirements. Personnel serving U.S.related flights would not have to be
retrained from scratch, only provided
additional training on ACAA-specificmatters. 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 theeffective date.
While U.S. disability groups canundoubtedly be a useful resource forboth U.S. and foreign carriers, we do notbelieve it would be realistic to require
foreign carriers to seek out U.S.
disability groups for consultation (inmany cases, U.S.-based personnel ofthese carriers would be operations staff,
not management and training officials).
Consequently, we have modified thelanguage of this provision to refer toseeking disability groups in the homecountry of the airline. If home country
disability groups are not available, acarrier could consult individuals withdisabilities or internationalorganizations representing individuals
with disabilities. We do not believe thata waiver provision is needed, since it isunlikely that a carrier would becompletely unable to find anyone—home country or international disability
groups, individuals with disabilities—
with whom to consult. As a matter ofenforcement policy, however, theDepartment would take into
consideration a situation in which acarrier with an otherwise satisfactory
training program documented it had
made good faith efforts to consult but
was unable to find anyone with whomto consult.
The Department has posted a modeltraining program based on the current
Part 382 at http://
airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/training/index.htm, and we will consider
whether it would be useful to produce
additional training materials. Our staff
have long experience in working withcarriers on training and complianceissues, and they will continue to workwith both U.S. and foreign carriers on
training-related issues. We believe theidea 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 weare now planning to hold such ameeting in June 2008.
We understand the concern ofdisability group commenters that somecarrier personnel do not seem to havebeen 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 somecarrier employees may not be current intheir knowledge of ACAA requirements,
the final rule will require refresher
training at least every three years.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Carriers will have to develop a program
for this purpose. Refresher training is
intended to assist employees inmaintaining proficiency, both byreminding 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 forapproval, carriers will be required toretain records concerning both initialand refresher training, including the
instructional materials and individual
employee training records, for three
years. These records will be subject toinspection by the Department.
We also think that it is important tounderstand the relationship between
compliance with the ‘‘trained to
proficiency’’ requirement andcompliance with other provisions of therule. In the Department’s view, a patternor practice by a carrier ofnoncompliance 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 havenot been trained to proficiency withrespect 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 thecarrier’s training, and we may takeenforcement action and require
corrective action in the carrier’s training
activities.
Carriers generally supported the
proposal to not require submission ofmaterial in manuals and procedures to
DOT for review. The Department
believes, based on the experience ofreviewing carrier submissions at thetime 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 theidea of submitting certificates ofcompliance. However, the Department
believes that doing so would result inincreasing information collection
burdens without giving the Department
a significant additional amount of
information about carriers’ actual
compliance status. We believe it issufficient for the Department to be able
to review materials carriers have on fileas part of our compliance andenforcement process.
In the DHH NPRM, we proposed torequire carriers to train their employees
to recognize the requests for

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27643

communication accommodation bypassengers with impaired vision orhearing and to use the most common
methods that are readily available forcommunicating with these passengers.
The required training would be for
proficiency in basic visual and auditory
methods for communicating withpassengers whose disabilities affectcommunication. We explained that wewere not proposing to require carriers totrain their employees to use sign
language. Rather, employees would betrained in methods that are readily
mastered and of which one or more canbe used as required to communicate
with an individual who is deaf or hardof hearing (e.g., handwritten notes). We
solicited comment on whether the terms‘‘common methods’’ and ‘‘readily
available’’ give carriers sufficientguidance for complying fully with thistraining requirement. We also solicitedcomment on what kind of training
would meet the requirement and on theeffect, feasibility, and necessity of
expanding the proposal to require that
employees also be trained tocommunicate with deaf-blind
individuals.
The carriers and carrier associations
that filed comments generally
characterized the proposed
requirements as far too vague andpotentially too costly. Most objected torequiring training for all personnel andcontractors that deal with the travelingpublic. One carrier suggested that abetter approach would be to train all
personnel to better awareness ofcommunications needs and give carriers
discretion to choose how to satisfy thoseneeds—for example, by ensuring thatproficient communicators can be madeavailable 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 aperson without training would naturally
resort to writing to communicate with adeaf person and wondered what more
would be taught in formal training. One
carrier questioned the existence ofuniversally established orinternationally accepted methods inwhich to train carrier personnel. RAA
asked that training requirements not
apply to aircraft carrying 30 or fewer
passengers and that training tocommunicate 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27644Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

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 guidedogs, including not to pet or feed thedogs. One organization maintained thattrainers of carrier personnel should be
individuals with hearing loss and thatthey should focus on imparting an
understanding of the barriers that deaf,
hard of hearing, and deaf-blind
passengers face. This organization alsosuggested that effective communication
might involve visual communication,
appropriate seating arrangements,
lighting to ensure a clear line of sight tovisual information displays, andattention-getting techniques such as
gentle tapping on the shoulder.
In the final rule, we are retaining the
proposed training requirement withsome 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 foraccommodation in communicating andto communicate with these passengers
in ways that are common and readily
available. For example, employees
should be able to communicate withpassengers whose hearing or vision is
impaired via written notes or clear
enunciation, respectively. We areadding a requirement that the training
also cover deaf-blind passengers.
Examples of communicationaccommodations for the latter include
passing out Braille cards (which thisrule does not require), reading any
information sheet that a passenger
provides, and communicating with thepassenger through an interpreter. Given
that what we are requiring is fairly
rudimentary, the training costs should
not be high, nor should complianceotherwise be burdensome.
Complaints
Like the existing rule, the Foreign
Carriers NPRM emphasized the role ofCROs. These are individuals trained tobe the carrier’s experts in ensuring thatcarrier personnel correctly implement
ACAA requirements and that problemsof passengers with disabilities areresolved in a way that is consistent withPart 382. The purpose of having a CRO
is to resolve passengers’ problems as
quickly as possible, without resort toformal DOT enforcement procedures
and, we hope, in many cases, before aviolation 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

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 apassenger with a disability-related
complaint or problem to a CRO. The
Foreign Carriers NPRM also would tellcarriers to provide the number of the
DOT Disability Hotline to suchpassengers. CROs have the authority todirect other carrier personnel (except
pilots-in-command with respect tosafety matters) to take actions to resolve
problems so as to comply with the
ACAA. Carriers and CROs would haveto respond to consumer complaints in atimely 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 referpassengers who raise disability-related
issues to a CRO, since many individuals
may not know about the availability ofCROs otherwise.
A number of carriers said that they
thought that having CROs available topassengers at every airport was not costeffective and that existing customer
service offices could meet the need. One
foreign carrier thought that its personnel
could not be successfully trained tocarry out the CRO role. Some carriers
thought that they should not have torefer passengers to the DOT Hotline,
saying that this would undermine thepurpose of having CROs resolve
problems as close to the scene of theaction as possible. Some commentersobjected to providing TTY service as ameans 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 acomplaint with DOT was too long.
The final rule retains the role andfunctions of the CRO. Our experience
supports the proposition that the use ofCROs is crucial to prompt and efficientsolution of passengers’ problems.
However, we are making a few
clarifications and changes in response tocomments. Carriers may use otheraccessible technologies in lieu of TTYs
to permit hearing-impaired passengers

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to communicate with CROs. The
proposed requirement for carriers torefer passengers to the DOT Hotline has
been dropped. The time frame for acarrier 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 morepassenger seats, are covered. When therule speaks of ‘‘immediate’’ responses
by carriers, it means prompt and timelyreferral to a CRO when passengers raisea disability-related problem orcomplaint that cannot be quickly
resolved by carrier personnel on the
spot (e.g., a gate agent, a flightattendant). We have reduced from 18
months to six months the period after an
event in which a passenger may file acomplaint with DOT.
A few foreign carriers said that it was
improper to permit non-U.S. citizens tohave access to the U.S. DOT through thecomplaint process. In the commenters’view, this implied improper
extraterritorial jurisdiction under a lawthat was intended to create rights onlyfor U.S. citizens. We do not agree. First,
the ACAA protects ‘‘individuals withdisabilities,’’ with no limitation on thenationality of those individuals. Second,the Department has a legitimate interestin ensuring that its legal requirements
are implemented. It does not matter tothe 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 tocorrect a problem.
An association representing U.S.
carriers objected to a proposed
exception to the 45-day limitation on
accepting written complaints forcomplaints referred by the Departmentof Transportation. The commenter alsosuggested that carriers be allowed tolimit the means through which adisability-related complaint istransmitted to them to the means used
to accept non-disability-related
complaints. In the Department’s view, if
we think a complaint is importantenough to refer to an air carrier, it isimportant enough for the carrier to
respond. We also believe that, in
attempting to enforce rights under anondiscrimination statute, passengers
should be able to send a complaint by
any reasonable means available to them,without limitations placed by carrierson the transmission of other sorts ofconsumer complaints. These features of

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the proposed rule will be included in
the final rule without change.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The purpose of this portion of thepreamble is to describe each of thesections of the final rule. The focus of
the descriptions is on new or changed
material.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

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 rulemean?
This definitions section makes several
additions or changes to the definitionsin 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 takeotherwise prohibited actions withrespect to passengers with a disability,and ‘‘equivalent alternative,’’ which
concerns the standard used in 382.10 for
carriers to adopt policies, practices orother accommodations in lieu ofcompliance with the letter of provisionsof the rule. ‘‘Indirect air carrier’’ refers
to a person not directly involved withthe operation of aircraft who sells
transportation services to the generalpublic other than as the agent of acarrier. Two agencies concerned withsafety and security aspects of flight arealso recognized in this section: The
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration of DOT and theTransportation Security Administrationof 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 isfrequently used throughout the rule.
Finally, there is a new definition of‘‘portable oxygen concentrator’’ (POC), a
device used to provide oxygen topassengers who need it during flight.
We have also included in the final
rule a definition of ‘‘commuter carrier’’and ‘‘on-demand air taxi’’ as anunderstanding of those terms isessential to an understanding of theapplicability of section 382.133. The
Department also decided to include a
definition of ‘‘expected maximum flight
duration’’ in the final rule ascommenters had a number of questions
regarding how a carrier should
determine if a passenger has a sufficientnumber of batteries available to power
an electronic respiratory assistive

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 lessthan 150% of the expected maximum
flight duration. The definition of‘‘expected maximum flight duration’’provides carriers a list of factors thatthey must take into account indetermining the total length of a flight.
We proposed in the DHH NPRM tochange 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 areusing the new phraseology in the final
rule.
In the DHH NPRM, we proposed not
to include a definition of ‘‘hard ofhearing, deaf, and deaf-blind’’ in therule, 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 thisissue. We also proposed not to include
a definition of ‘‘captioning,’’ but wesolicited comments on this issue as
well. We further proposed not toinclude a definition of ‘‘informational,’’but we stated in the preamble that we
intended that word to apply to allvideos, DVDs, and other audio-visualdisplays that do not qualify as safety orentertainment displays, including but
not limited to the following: videos,DVDs, and other audio-visual displays
addressing weather, shopping, frequent
flyer programs, customs andimmigration information, carrier routes,
and other general customer service
presentations. We also solicitedcomments on this issue.
Of those who commented on § 382.3,
the carriers and carrier associations
generally opposed a definition of ‘‘hardof hearing, deaf, and deaf-blind,’’agreeing with the Department that suchindividuals are covered by thedefinition of an ‘‘individual with adisability.’’ They opposed any
definition of ‘‘captioning’’ that might bedifficult 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 ofhearing, deaf, and deaf-blind’’ in order
to cover the ‘‘entire spectrum’’ ofhearing disabilities. All disability
organizations supported a definition of
captioning that makes all audio-visualdisplays easily readable, and theyagreed with the proposal to explain the
purport of ‘‘informational’’ in thepreamble. One of these organizations
asked the Department to add safety,
entertainment, and other materials that

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27645

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 thatterm is defined in the governing statuteby engaging the services of a ‘‘direct air
carrier’’ (an airline). For example, whena tour operator or an air freight
forwarder contracts for space on awholesale level with an airline and thetour operator or air freight forwarderthen re-sells space on that flight on aretail basis, setting his own price andterms, bearing the entrepreneurial riskof profit or loss rather than acting as anagent, and controlling the inventory andschedule, that tour operator or air
freight forwarder is acting as an‘‘indirect air carrier’’ as defined in thestatute. 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 itat the price and terms set by thatprincipal, is acting as an agent rather
than a principal and is not an indirect
air carrier. Nor are other participants inthe 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 theneed for a separate definition to coverhearing and vision problems: thedefinition of an ‘‘individual with adisability’’ logically includes
individuals with the whole spectrum of
hearing and vision impairments.
Similarly, the comments do not show aneed for a definition of ‘‘informational’’in the rule. As we stated in the DHH
NPRM, by ‘‘informational’’ displays wemean all videos, DVDs, and other audiovisual displays that do not qualify as
safety or entertainment displays,
including but not limited to thefollowing: videos, DVDs, and otheraudio-visual displays addressing
weather, shopping, frequent flyer
programs, customs and immigration
information, carrier routes, and othergeneral 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 havedetermined 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27646

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

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 futuretechnologies to achieve captions that are
as effective as white on black or more
so. Some of the comments indicate thatsuch technology already exists, and we
think it would be poor public policy not
to allow for innovation andimprovement. The high-contrast
captioning may be either open—i.e., textthat is recorded directly in the video
and cannot be turned off at a user’s
discretion—or closed—i.e., text that canbe toggled on or off at the user’s choice.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

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 ruleon its effective date, which will be ayear from the date on which the rule ispublished in the Federal Register. This
phase-in period is intended to give
carriers time to take the steps they needto comply as well as to submit to the
Department, in a timely fashion,
requests for conflict of laws waivers andrequests 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 takeplace, except where otherwise provided
in the rule. With respect to foreign
carriers, the application of the rule ismore 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 meansa continuous journey of a passenger inthe same aircraft or using the same flightnumber. The rule provides several
examples of what constitutes a ‘‘flight’’
and what does not. Notably, a foreign
carrier is not covered under the rulewith respect to an operation between
two foreign points, even if, under acode-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 withrespect to the passengers travelingunder its code on such a flight, suchthat 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 theforeign carrier, responsible. Finally, acharter flight on a foreign carrier froma foreign airport to a U.S. airport andback would not be covered if the carrier
did not pick up any passengers in the
U.S.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

In the DHH NPRM, we proposed thatthe provisions concerning deaf, hard ofhearing, and deaf-blind passengers
apply to all U.S. carrier operations andto 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 codesharedwith 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 andequipment 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 solicitedcomments on the cost and feasibility ofrequiring 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 theDepartment, saying that it had acted
unilaterally in this area. Some
contended that Part 382 should not
apply to flights that are not part of asingle journey to or from the UnitedStates in the same aircraft with the same
flight number. One U.S. carrier, Delta,
expressed concern that its foreigncodeshare partners might find therequirements so onerous that they willend the code-sharing rather thancomply, precipitating declines inservice and competition. One
association of U.S. carriers supported
the applicability of Part 382 to foreign
carriers, as did the disability groups andindividuals that commented. The
Regional Airline Association (‘‘RAA’’)
asked the Department to exempt all
aircraft of up to 30 seats from the rulebecause 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 flightsthat originate or end at a U.S. airport
and to foreign carrier flights between
two foreign airports that are codesharedwith a U.S. carrier.
We find unpersuasive the foreign
carriers’ suggestions that in applying
these requirements to them we aresomehow exceeding our authority. As
we explained in the Foreign Carriersand DHH NPRMs, in the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Act for the 21st 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 implementsthat law. This Department’s authority toissue regulations that apply to foreign
carriers is well-established. This generalissue is discussed at greater length inthe ‘‘Response to Comments’’ portion of
the preamble above. In that section, theDepartment explains the final rule’s
approach to the issue of code-sharing,which applies to deaf and hard-ofhearing issues as well as to otherprovisions of Part 382.
The service-related requirements
regarding deaf, hard of hearing, anddeaf-blind passengers that apply to U.S.
carriers on codeshare flights operated bytheir 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 therequired information promptly to‘‘qualified individuals with a disability
who identify themselves as needingvisual and/or hearing assistance’’ andwhose 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 noequipment requirements specific todeaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind
passengers.
As for RAA’s request, the evidence inthe record does not provide a basis fora blanket exemption from Part 382 foraircraft 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 Secretaryrules (see 49 CFR Part 5) could be used
if a carrier or airport believes an
exemption is needed in a particularsituation.
382.9 What may foreign carriers do ifthey believe a provision of a foreign
nation’s law prohibits compliance witha provision of this Part?
This provision creates a conflict oflaws waiver mechanism to give
appropriate consideration torequirements of foreign law applicable
to foreign carriers. It is important to notethat this mechanism is intended toapply only to genuine conflicts withlegally binding foreign legal mandates.
A foreign law that requires a foreign
carrier to do something prohibited bythis rule, or that prohibits a foreign

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
carrier from doing something requiredby this rule, is an appropriate subject fora conflict of laws waiver. A foreign
carrier’s or foreign government’s policy,
authorized practice, recommendation,or preference is not. However, if aforeign government officially informs acarrier that it plans to take enforcement
action (e.g., impose a civil penalty)
against a carrier for failing to implementa provision of a government policy,
guidance document, or
recommendation, the Department wouldview the enforcement action as creatinga 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 thisrule, the Department would grant a
waiver. If the foreign carrier, as a matterof law, has any discretion in the matter,it must exercise that discretion bycomplying with this rule, even if
contrary to the carrier’s policy or therecommendation 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 ofachieving the rule’s objectives withrespect to any provision that is waived.
The Department wants to ensure thatwaiver requests are submitted andgranted or denied in a timely manner,
avoiding the dilemma for foreign
carriers of having to choose between
compliance with this rule and withconflicting foreign laws when the rulegoes 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 todeciding 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 orpractice involved until we do respond,
and if the request is denied theDepartment would not take any
enforcement action against the carrier
with respect to activities that took placeprior to the denial. Even with respect towaiver requests submitted after the 120day period, the Department will do its
best to respond before the effective dateof the rule. Again, the carrier can choose
to continue to follow the policy orpractice that is the subject of the request
until the Department does respond.
However, if such a request is denied, thecarrier risks enforcement action withrespect to the period between theeffective date of the rule and the date of
the Department’s response. The
Department has established this twostage waiver consideration process tohelp avoid a situation in which a foreign
carrier would delay submission of a

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

waiver request until shortly before theeffective 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 120day period following publication of therule (not an existing legal mandate thatis subsequently discovered or goes into
effect subsequently), then a foreign
carrier may submit a waiver request andcontinue to implement the policy orpractice involved until the Department
responds. In this case, the carrier would
not be subject to enforcement action forthe period prior to the Department’s
response.
This section also notes that if aforeign carrier submits a frivolous ordilatory waiver request, has not
submitted a waiver request with respect
to a particular policy or practice, or
continues to follow a policy or practiceconcerning 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 believea 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 notpreviously 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 isproviding an equivalent alternative topassengers with disabilities?
While the concept of equivalentfacilitation 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 ‘‘equivalentalternative’’ in this rule is somewhat
broader than the use of ‘‘equivalentfacilitation’’ in DOT or DOJ ADA rules
or in the Americans with Disabilities
Act Accessibility Guidelines issued by
the U.S. Access Board, which focusedon ‘‘hardware’’ modifications tovehicles and facilities. In the ACAA
context, equivalent alternative can also
refer to policies, practices, or otheraccommodations to passengers withdisabilities.
The key point of this section is that,in order to be viewed as an equivalentalternative, a policy, practice,accommodation, or piece of equipment
must really provide substantiallyequivalent accessibility to passengers
with disabilities than compliance with aprovision of the rule. It isn’t enough for

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27647

a carrier’s proposed alternative to bedifferent from a provision of the rule.
Alternatives that provide lessaccessibility than the provisions of therule, 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 tothis 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 dateof this Part, the Department will try to
respond before the effective date of therule. The carrier can implement thepolicy or practice it requests as anequivalent alternative beginning on theeffective date of the rule until the
Department does respond. (A U.S.
carrier subject to the current rule could
not begin implementing an equivalentalternative it had requested within the
120-day time period until the new rulegoes into effect, since the current rule
does not provide for equivalentalternatives.) If a carrier submits its
request after the 120-day period
following publication, the carrier mustcomply with the provision of theregulation pending the Department’s
response.
382.11 What is the general
nondiscrimination requirement of thisPart?
382.13 Do carriers have to modify
policies, practices, and facilities toensure nondiscrimination?
These sections are very similar tosection 382.7 of the current regulation.
One difference is that the new rule
specifies that carriers may requirepreboarding as a condition of receiving
certain seating or in-cabin stowage
accommodations. The requirement tomake modifications of policies,
practices, and facilities has been broken
out into a separate section. Thisrequirement recognizes that there can betimes when, in order to provide
nondiscriminatory service to aparticular individual, carriers mustchange or make an exception to anotherwise acceptable general policy orpractice for that individual. It should beemphasized that this provision is notintended to require carriers to makegenerally applicable changes in policies
for all passengers, or all passengers withdisabilities. The provision focuses on

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27648Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

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 forwhich he or she is ticketed.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

382.15 Do carriers have to make surethat contractors comply with therequirements of this Part?
It is a basic principle ofnondiscrimination law that while aregulated party can contract out its
functions, it cannot contract away its
responsibilities. Consequently, a carrierthat 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 thefunctions itself. Assurances and contract
conditions in the agreements between
carriers and their contractors are a key
measure to carriers’ compliance withthis section. Noncompliance with thesecontract conditions by the contractor
must be stated in the contract as beinga material breach of the contract. The
Department expects carriers to monitor
the performance of contractors to ensurethat the contractors’ performancecomplies with the requirements of thisPart 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 withthe 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 toforeign carriers, the key
nondiscrimination requirement of the
ACAA and the existing Part 382. With
narrow exceptions, a carrier isprohibited 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, todeny 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 apassenger on the basis of safety is thatthe individual’s disability creates asafety problem, the carrier’s decisionmust be based on a ‘‘direct threat’’analysis. This concept, grounded in theAmericans with Disabilities Act, callson carriers to make an individualized
assessment (e.g., as opposed to a
generalization or stereotype about whata person with a given disability can or

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

can’t do) of the safety threat the personis thought to pose. In doing so, thecarrier must take into account thenature, 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 theindividual no longer poses a direct
threat. In using its authority to make adirect threat determination and exclude
a passenger, a carrier must not act
inconsistently with other provisions ofPart 382. Direct threat determinations
must not be used as a sort of de facto
exception to specific requirements ofthis Part (e.g., the prohibition onnumber limits).
Exclusion of a passenger because his
disability-related appearance or
involuntary behavior may offend,
annoy, or inconvenience otherpersons—as distinct from creating a
direct threat to safety—is an importantpart of this nondiscrimination mandate.
The rationale for this requirement wasstated 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 totransportation on the basis that apassenger has a communicable diseaseor other medical condition?
As a general matter, carriers may not
exclude or impose other requirements orconditions on a passenger on the basisthat the passenger has a communicabledisease. However, if the passenger posesa direct threat, the carrier may takeappropriate action to safeguard thehealth and safety of other persons on theflight.
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 tobe readily transmitted by casual contact
in the course of a flight AND havesevere health consequences (e.g., SARS,
active tuberculosis). If a condition isreadily transmissible but does not
typically have severe healthconsequences (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 healthauthorities (e.g., in the context of afuture flu pandemic).
If a passenger who is deemed topresent a direct threat cannot travel at
his or her scheduled time as a result, thecarrier must allow the passenger totravel at a time up to 90 days from the

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 thissituation, and the passenger would not
be subject to any fare increases that may
occur in the meantime or any increasein that passenger’s fare due to the nonavailability 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 sectionin the current rule, this section
generally prohibits carriers fromrequiring medical certificates (i.e.,
written statements from a doctor sayingthat a passenger is capable ofcompleting 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 withdisabilities can have illnesses likeeveryone else). At the same time,airlines and their personnel are not
medical service providers, and it is notreasonable to expect them to perform
medical services. This provision isintended to balance these realities.
Oxygen users and, people traveling ina 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 havea reasonable doubt that someone cancomplete 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 suchassistance. 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 communicablediseases provision. Section 382.21(a)(4)allows a carrier to require a medical
certificate if the carrier determines thatthe passenger has a communicabledisease 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 thepassenger’s condition would not be
communicable to other persons during
the normal course of the flight. If it ispotentially transmissible during theflight but this can be prevented if

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

certain conditions or precautions are
implemented, the certificate would haveto describe those conditions or
precautions. Unlike the situation withrespect to medical certificates underparagraph (b)(3), a medical certificate in
the situation of a communicable disease
under paragraph (d) would have to bedated 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 thesection 382.23(c)(2) medical certificate
provides measures for preventing thetransmission of a disease, the carrier
must provide transportation to thepassenger—carrying out the prescribedmeasures—unless the carrier determinesthat it is unable to carry out themeasures. If the carrier is unable to doso, it can deny transportation to thepassenger. 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 apassenger with a medical certificate toadditional medical review (e.g., by the
carrier’s physician) if the carrier
believes either that there has been asignificant adverse change in thepassenger’s medical condition since theissuance of the medical certificate orthat the certificate significantly
understates the passenger’s risk to thehealth of other persons on the flight. If
this additional review shows that thepassenger is unlikely to be able tocomplete the flight without
extraordinary medical assistance orwould pose a direct threat to otherpassengers, 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 requirepassengers 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 inthe cabin with the passenger.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

382.25 May a carrier require a
passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice that he or she istraveling on a flight?
382.27 May a carrier require a
passenger with a disability to provide
advance notice in order to obtainspecific services in connection with aflight?
Carriers may not require a passenger
with a disability to provide advancenotice of the fact that he or she istraveling on a flight. That is, a carriercannot say to a passenger, in effect,‘‘You have a disability; therefore, youmust let me know in advance that you
are going to fly on my aircraft, Flight
XXX.’’On the other hand, there is a series ofaccommodations that many passengers
with disabilities may need or want thatcarriers reasonably require time toarrange. 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 acheck-in time one hour before thecheck-in time for the general public.
That is, if passengers generally are told
to arrive at the gate one hour before thescheduled departure time of the flight tocheck in, the carrier may tell passengers
seeking one of these listed
accommodations to check in two hours
before the scheduled departure time forthe flight. If the passenger with adisability meets the advance notice andcheck-in time requirements, the carrier
must provide the requested
accommodation. If not, the carrier muststill 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 canrequire advance notice are the same asunder 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 ormore 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 requiredof a passenger whether the carrier
provides the oxygen (i.e., via POC orcontainerized oxygen,) or the passenger
brings his or her own POC for use
during the flight. It should also be notedthat when requesting carrier-supplied
supplemental oxygen, advance notice ofup to 48 hours for domestic flights andup to 72 hours for international flights
may be required.
There are a few new situations inwhich the rule permits carriers to

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27649

require advance notice. These include
transportation of an emotional support
or psychiatric service animal,transportation of any service animal ona flight scheduled to take eight hours or
more, and accommodation of anindividual who has both severe visionand hearing impairments.
382.29 May a carrier require a
passenger with a disability to travel witha safety assistant?
The terminology of this section has
been changed from ‘‘attendant’’ to‘‘safety assistant’’ to more accuratelyreflect the role of the person
accompanying the passenger. A safetyassistant is not a personal care attendant
who looks after the personal care needsof a passenger. A carrier cannot requirea personal care attendant to travel witha passenger with a disability. Rather, thesafety assistant is someone who would
assist the passenger to exit the aircraftin 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 themodel of the corresponding section of
the existing regulation. However, withrespect to the situation of a passenger
with a severe mobility impairment, thecriterion for permitting the carrier torequire a safety assistant has beenclarified to address circumstanceswhere the passenger is unable tophysically assist in his or her own
evacuation. This change is made to
avoid potential confusion that apassenger could assist in his or her own
evacuation simply by calling for help.
The ‘‘Response to Comments’’ sectionof the preamble describes in greater
detail other changes, including a new
advance notice requirement, that would
apply to passengers who have bothsevere vision and hearing impairments.
In section 382.29(b)(4), it is mentionedthat 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 thesafety briefing and to enable thepassenger to assist in his or her own
evacuation of the aircraft in the event ofan 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 apassenger to assist in his or her own

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27650Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

evacuation refers to being able toestablish, at or around the time of thesafety briefing, a means by which thepassenger can receive 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 assistantthat the carrier has determined to benecessary, the passenger must becompensated 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 todomestic and international scheduledservice 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.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

382.31 May carriers impose special
charges on passengers with a disability
for providing services andaccommodations required by this rule?
Carriers may not impose charges onpassengers for accommodations
required by the rule. However, if acarrier voluntarily provides a service
that this rule does not require, thecarrier may charge a passenger with adisability for that service.
The issue of carrier web site
accessibility requirements has beendeferred to a forthcoming SNPRM.
While that issue is being considered, theDepartment is adding a provision toaddress 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 phoneor in person more than people who
make reservations on the web site, thissurcharge cannot be applied to persons
with disabilities who must makereservations by another means because
the web site is inaccessible to them.
Likewise, if there are ‘‘web only’’
discounts or special offers madeavailable 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.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

382.33 May carriers impose otherrestrictions on passengers with adisability 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 noticefor certain services). We hope that manyof the practices specifically banned inthis section are only of historicalinterest (e.g., making passengers withdisabilities sit on blankets or restricting
such passengers to so-called ‘‘corrals’’ interminals), but we believe they are still
useful examples of the sort ofdiscriminatory treatment that is
unacceptable in the context of anondiscrimination statute. Waivers of
liability or releases either for passengers
themselves or for loss or damage ofwheelchairs and other assistive devices
are among the forbidden practices,
although as we have stated in the past,
carriers are free to note pre-existingdamage to an assistive device to thesame extent that carriers do this withrespect to other checked baggage.
382.41 What flight-related informationmust carriers provide to qualified
individuals with a disability?
This provision is very similar to thecorresponding provision of the existing
rule. Carriers must provide information
about the accessibility features ofaircraft (e.g., the presence and locationof seats that can be accessed throughmovable armrests, and seats notavailable to passengers withdisabilities). In addition, carriers must
provide information about any service
limitations in accommodating apassenger with a disability. When levelentry boarding is not available on aparticular flight, carriers must also
provide information about boarding
assistance requiring the use of a ramp or
lift to all passengers who indicate thatthey will use a wheelchair for boarding,whether or not they specifically ask forthe information.
As a general matter under Part 382,
when an agent acting on behalf of anairline provides inaccurate information
to a passenger with a disability
concerning a disability-related
accommodation, in most instances theairline will be responsible for any
resulting information-related violationof the law. It should also be noted thatwhen a carrier agrees to provide aservice not specifically required underPO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

this Part to accommodate a particularpassenger’s disability, the carrier isobliged to provide that service to thepassenger 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 servedon those flights or it will be in violationof section 382.41.
382.43 Must information andreservation services of carriers beaccessible to individuals with hearing
and vision impairments?
The ‘‘Response to Comments’’ sectionof the preamble discusses therequirements 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 toput deaf and hard of hearing passengers
on a substantially equivalent footingwith the rest of the public in theirability to communicate with carriers bytelephone regarding information andreservations. We aim to ensure
substantial equivalence in both access toany carrier and wait time if an agent is
not available when a connection is first
made.
Carriers may meet this requirement byusing TTYs themselves, but they may
also do so by means of voice relay or
any other available technology that
permits TTY users to communicate withthem. This requirement is set forth in§ 382.43(a). We are also adding a newaccess requirement in § 382.43(a)(4) toensure that deaf and hard of hearing
passengers are informed how to reach
carriers by TTY: In any medium inwhich a carrier states the telephone
number of its information andreservation service for the generalpublic, it must also state its TTY
number if it has one, or if not, it mustspecify how TTY users can reach theinformation 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, weare also adding § 382.43(b), which statesthat the requirements of § 382.43(a) do
not apply to carriers in any country inwhich the telecommunications
infrastructure does not readily permit
compliance.
Carriers that provide written
information to passengers must ensurethat that this information can becommunicated effectively to passengers
with vision impairments. This could bedone through alternative formats or,

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
especially for brief or compact pieces of
information that can be comprehended
and remembered effectively by alistener, through verbal communication(e.g., the time and date of a specificflight, as distinct from the airline’s
entire timetable for a city pair).
For foreign carriers, theserequirements apply only with respect toinformation and reservation services forflights covered by section 382.5. With
respect to TTY services, the requirement
applies to foreign carriers only withrespect to flights for which reservation
phone calls from the U.S. are accepted.
Please see the ‘‘Response toComments’’ section for further
information about the requirement thata copy of Part 382 be made available inairports served by carriers subject to thisrule.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

382.45 Must carriers make copies ofthis Part available to passengers?
U.S. carriers must keep a copy of Part
382 at each airport they serve and makeit available to anyone who asks for it.
Foreign carriers must do this at any
airport serving a flight that begins orends at a U.S. airport. An Englishlanguage copy of the rule is sufficientfor this purpose. Carriers are notrequired 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 obtainan accessible copy of the rule from DOT.
382.51 What requirements must
carriers meet concerning theaccessibility of airport facilities?
The principal substance of airport
facility accessibility requirements is thesame 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 ina foreign country.
U.S. facilities that a carrier owns,
controls, or leases must meetrequirements applicable to Title III
facilities under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The requirements arethose 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 notavailable to an aircraft. The ADAAG
reference in paragraph (a)(2) is to theformer version of the ADAAG, which isstill the version incorporated in the DOJ
rules. When DOJ incorporates the new

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

version of ADAAG in their Title III
rules, we will update this reference.
Inter-terminal and intra-terminaltransportation owned, leased, or
controlled by a carrier at a U.S. airport
must meet DOT ADA rules. Since DOT
has already incorporated the newversion 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 aredeparting, arriving, or connecting at thefacility.
At foreign airports, to which the
ADAAG do not apply, Part 382 applies
a performance requirement to make surethat passengers with a disability canreadily use the facilities the carrierowns, leases, or controls at the airport.
For foreign carriers, this requirement
applies only to terminal facilities thatserve flights that begin or end in the U.S(i.e., those covered by section 382.5).
Both U.S. and foreign carriers must meetthe requirements at foreign airports
within one year after the effective dateof the rule. As noted elsewhere in thepreamble, carriers may rely on thefacility accessibility services provided
by airport operators at foreign airports,
supplementing where needed to ensure
full compliance with this rule.
In the DHH NPRM, we proposedseveral requirements for U.S. andforeign carriers at terminal facilities thatthey own, lease, or control at any U.S.
airport. First, we proposed arequirement that carriers enable any
existing captioning feature (preferably
high-contrast) on all televisions andother audio-visual displays providing
safety, information, or entertainment
content in those portions of the airportthat are open to the general public andthat they keep this captioning feature on
at all times. Second, we proposed arequirement that in areas of restrictedpassenger 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 audiovisual displays that do not have a highcontrast 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 audiovisual displays be equipped with highcontrast captioning capability. We
solicited comments both on these
proposals and on whether any carriers

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27651

have leases for terminal facilities at aU.S. airport whereby the airport retains
control over the televisions and otheraudio-visual displays in that facility. If
so, we said, we would consider
requiring the carriers and airports towork 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 withscreens of at least 13 inches made or
sold in the U.S. since July 1, 1993, havebeen required to have captioning
capabilities.) We further solicitedcomment on whether televisions andother audio-visual displays equippedwith captioning features would
necessarily have high-contrast
captioning (e.g., white letters on aconsistent black background), whether
such equipment may have some type of
captioning other than ‘‘high-contrast,’’and whether the availability of highcontrast captioning, as opposed to lowor medium-contrast captioning, depends
on the age, cost, or screen size of theequipment.
None of the comments addressed thequestion of high- versus medium- versus
low-contrast captioning. Most of thecarriers and carrier groups that filed
comments claimed not to have control
over the audio-visual equipment at theirterminal facilities. The individuals anddisability organizations that filed
comments strongly objected to different
standards for audio-visual equipment inareas 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 ourintentions clearer, and based on thecomments, we are also adding languagethat places joint responsibility forcompliance on the carrier and the
airport in cases where the latter has
control over the televisions and otheraudio-visual equipment that this section
addresses. (To this end, we will also be
amending 49 CFR Part 27, Subpart B, tocodify the requirement for airports.) We
have determined, based both on thecomments from individuals anddisability groups and on the lack ofobjections from carriers and carriergroups, that the same standard should
apply to all equipment, whether it be inareas to which the general public hasaccess or in areas to which access islimited. 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.

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27652Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

382.53 What information must carriers
give individuals with a vision and/or
hearing impairment at airports?
With some variations for thesituations 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, orcontrols, a carrier must ensure thatpassengers with a disability who
identify themselves as persons needingvisual or hearing assistance haveprompt access to the same information
provided to other passengers. Thisrequirement applies to a wide variety of
information, concerning such subjects
as flight safety, ticketing, flight check-in,
flight delays or cancellations, schedulechanges, boarding information,connections, gate assignments, checking
baggage, volunteer solicitation on
oversold flights (e.g., offers ofcompensation for surrendering areservation), individuals being paged byairlines, aircraft changes that affect thetravel of persons with disabilities, andemergencies (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 thecountry in which the airport is located.
If a carrier wants to go beyond thosemandated procedures, it must make surethat it treats passengers with disabilities
equally with other passengers. Security
personnel may examine assistive
devices and must provide, on request,
private screenings for passengers withdisabilities requiring secondary
screening.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

382.57 What services must carriers
provide if their automated kiosks areinaccessible?
The Department will seek further
comment on kiosk accessibility issues inan SNPRM. Meanwhile, if existingkiosks are inaccessible (e.g., towheelchair users because of height orreach issues, to visually-impaired
passengers because of issues related tovisual displays or touch screens),
carriers must ensure equal treatment for
persons for disabilities who cannot use
them. This can be done in a variety ofways. For example, a passenger who
cannot use the kiosk could be allowed
to come to the front of the line at thecheck-in counter, or carrier personnel

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

could meet the passenger at the kiosk
and help the passenger use the kiosk.
382.61 What are the requirements formovable aisle armrests?
This section is very similar to the
movable aisle armrest provisions of thepresent 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 amobility impairment can sit under FAA
rules (e.g., an exit row), then that row
does not constitute part of the base fromwhich the calculation of half the rows
is made, and of course such a row is not
one in which a movable armrest isneeded.
The provision clarifies that movableaisle 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 awheelchair 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 withdisabilities can locate specific seats they
can access with movable armrests.
A carrier wishing to submit anequivalent alternative request
concerning movable armrests mustshow 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 thecarrier that such transfers were possible.
‘‘Show your work’’ is the appropriate
maxim. Diagrams could be one usefulpart of such a showing. What the
Department recommends, however, is avideo of a demonstration showing
carrier personnel actually transferring
passengers with disabilities—preferably,passengers of various sizes—into theseat or row in question from an aisle orboarding 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 seatswith newly manufactured seats, at least
half the replacement seats must have
movable armrests. For example, if acarrier replaces four aisle seats with
newly manufactured seats, then two ofthese seats have to have movablearmrests. If the carrier is replacing an
odd number of seats, a majority of the
newly manufactured aisle seats installed

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

must have movable armrests. For
example, if the carrier is replacing fiveold 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% movablearmrests in the cabin, however. For
example, suppose an aircraft has 40
aisle seats, 20 of which have movablearmrests. The carrier decides to replace
five aisle seats that do not have movablearmrests with newly manufactured
seats. These new seats would not haveto include movable armrests.
The timing of the application of theserequirements is as follows: Foreign
carriers must comply with ‘‘newaircraft’’ requirements with respect toplanes ordered after the effective date ofthis Part or delivered more than one
year after the effective date of this Part.
Foreign carriers must comply with therequirement for replacement seats(paragraph (e)) beginning on theeffective date of the rule. U.S. carriers
are already subject to the requirementsof 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’’ inthis context, we mean aircraft that were
new at the time they were ordered by ordelivered to the U.S. carrier. U.S.
carriers will have to comply withparagraph (c) for new aircraft orderedafter the effective date of this Part orwhich 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, thedate the aircraft was originally orderedfrom the manufacturer or initiallydelivered by the manufacturer
determines whether the aircraft issubject to the aircraft accessibility
requirements of this Part.
382.63 What are the requirements foraccessible lavatories?
As under the present rule, only
aircraft with more than one aisle musthave an accessible lavatory. U.S. carriers
are already subject to theserequirements for new aircraft theyordered after April 5, 1990, or whichwere delivered after April 5, 1992.
Foreign carriers must comply withrespect to new aircraft ordered after theeffective 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 itmust replace the lavatory with anaccessible unit. A carrier need not havemore than one accessible lavatory on an

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

382.65 What are the requirements
concerning on-board wheelchairs?
These requirements are also patternedon the existing rule. In aircraft withmore than 60 passenger seats, carriersmust 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, thecarrier must provide an on-board
wheelchair on the request, with advancenotice, of a person who can use theinaccessible lavatory but cannot reach itfrom his or her seat without use of an
on-board wheelchair. U.S. carriers are
already subject to these requirements.
Foreign carriers must meet theserequirements by a date one year after the
rule’s effective date.
Under the current rule, theDepartment had granted exemptions to
the requirement for providing arequested on-board wheelchair to twoaircraft models, the ATP and the ATR–
72. These exemptions will remain inforce under the new rule.
382.67 What is the requirement forpriority space in the cabin to store apassenger’s wheelchair?
The most important change in thissection from the present regulation isthat carriers are no longer required tostow any kind of electric wheelchair inthe 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 atleast one adult-size manual wheelchairof the stated dimensions. Thisrequirement applies to aircraft with 100
or more passenger seats. The space must
be in addition to the normal under-seatand overhead compartment storage
made available for carry-on luggage.
Where a carrier plans to use a closet orother storage area to comply with thisrequirement, we emphasize that insaying priority storage we mean that the
space for a wheelchair trumps otherpossible uses for that closet or otherstorage area, including passenger
hanging bags and crew luggage. Thisrequirement 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. Thisrequirement already applies to U.S.
carriers for new aircraft they orderedafter April 5, 1990, or which weredelivered after April 5, 1992. Foreign
carriers must comply with respect to

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 theaccessibility of videos, DVDs, and otheraudio-visual presentations shown on
aircraft to individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing?
This section requires carriers toensure that all new videos, DVDs, andother audio-visual displays played on
aircraft for safety purposes, and all suchaudio-visual displays played on aircraft
for informational purposes that werecreated under the carrier’s control, arehigh-contrast captioned. The captioning
must be in the predominant language or
languages in which the carrier
communicates with passengers on theflight. 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, wemean that carriers are not required toretrofit or replace existing videos.
For purposes of this section, we viewa video as being controlled by a carrier
not only if the carrier directly producesit, 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 thevideo’s content. Note that the provision
about carrier control of a video applies
only to informational materials. Safetymaterials 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 toinformational videos. This timing is thesame for both U.S. and foreign carriers.
The corresponding section of thecurrent version of Part 382 permits
carriers to use a non-video alternative
only if neither open captioning nor asign language interpreter inset can beused without so interfering with thevideo as to render it ineffective. This
exception is not included in the newrule. The overall effective date of therule is one year after the rule ispublished, 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 effecton 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

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27653

to comply with a requirement identicalto 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 tocarriers?
This provision, like its counterpart in
the existing rule, requires maintenanceof accessibility features in proper
working order and tells carriers toensure 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 incircumstances not covered by section
382.81(a) through (d)?
Carriers must provide a seat that willaccommodate a passenger with adisability other than one listed in
section 382.81(a)–(d) when thepassenger self-identifies and requests
the accommodation in order to readily
access and use the carrier’s airtransportation service.
382.87 What other requirements
pertain to seating for passengers with adisability?
These provisions are essentially thesame as their counterparts in theexisting regulation. The provisions arebroken out into additional sections forclarity. The rule requires carriers toensure an adequate number of seats tohandle a reasonably expectable demand
for seating accommodations of various
kinds and emphasizes the need forpassengers to self-identify in order to getseating accommodations. The
provisions already apply to U.S. carriers
and will apply to foreign carriers on theeffective 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 theserequirements.
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 underthe existing rule. The arriving carrier(i.e., the one that operates the first of thetwo flights that are connecting) has the
responsibility for connecting assistance.
It is permissible for the two carriers tomutually agree that the carrier operating
the departing connecting flight (i.e., the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27654

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

second flight of the two) will provide
this assistance, but the carrier operating
the arriving flight remains responsible
under this section for ensuring that theassistance is provided.
The requirements concerning
movement through the terminal areclarified to say that the carrier’s
assistance responsibility starts at theterminal 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 aftera flight.
One addition concerns enroute stops
at the entrance to a rest room. If thepassenger is being assisted along thebasic route from entrance to gate or viceversa, or to make a connection, and theroute goes by a rest room, the person
assisting the passenger must stop andallow the passenger to use the amenity,
if doing so will not result in
unreasonable delay. To receive thisassistance, the passenger must selfidentify. It could also be very helpful toa passenger to be able to stop at a
takeout food or beverage vendor thatwas enroute, if doing so would would
not result in an unreasonable delay. The
final rule does not require a stop for thispurpose, 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 apassenger to a service animal relief area.
Finally, carriers would have to assist
passengers with disabilities intransporting their carry-on or gatechecked luggage to or from the gate.
This obligation would arise only if thepassenger could make credible verbal
assurances of his or her inability tocarry the item due to his or her
disability. If the passenger’s verbal
assurances to the carrier are notcredible, the carrier may require thepassenger to produce documentation asa condition of providing the service. All
the services mentioned in thisparagraph would be provided only on
request of a passenger with a disability.
At foreign airports, as mentioned inconnection 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 withthe provisions of this Part.
382.93 Must carriers offer preboarding
to passengers with a disability?
Carrier must offer an opportunity forpreboarding to passengers with a

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

disability who self-identify at the gate asneeding additional time or assistance toboard, stow accessibility equipment, orbe seated. This obligation exists
regardless of the carriers’ preboarding
policies for other persons (e.g., families
with small children). Carriers are notrequired to make generalannouncements about preboarding in
the gate area specifically for passengers
with disabilities, where no preboarding
announcements are made for other typesof passengers. However, as a matter ofgeneral nondiscrimination principles, acarrier that makes a preboarding
announcement in the gate area for othertypes or classes of passengers would
have to make the announcement for
persons with disabilities as well.
382.95 What are carriers’ generalobligations with respect to boarding anddeplaning assistance?
Carriers must promptly provide
assistance to passengers in getting on
and getting off aircraft. The assistancecan use a variety of means toaccomplish the section’s objective;
examples are listed in paragraph (a).
This obligation exists at both U.S. andforeign airports.
At U.S. airports with 10,000 or moreannual enplanements, boarding
assistance must be provided through theuse of lifts or ramps, where level-entry
boarding is not otherwise available(paragraph (b)).
382.97 To which aircraft does therequirement to provide boarding anddeplaning assistance through the use oflifts apply?
At U.S. airports where lift or ramp
boarding is required, the requirement
applies to aircraft with 19 or morepassenger seats, with a few statedexceptions. The Department reserves theoption to expand the list of aircraft towhich the requirement does not apply,
if we determine that there is no modelof boarding device on the market thatwill accommodate the aircraft without asignificant risk of serious damage to theaircraft or injury to persons, or that
there are internal barriers in the aircraftthat would preclude passengers who use
a boarding or aisle chair from reachinga non-exit row seat. The Department
need not amend this rule in order tomake 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 haveagreements with the airport operators toprovide, operate, and maintain lifts andramps used to meet the boarding
requirement of section 382.95(b). This

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requirement already applies to U.S.
carriers. Foreign carriers would have ayear 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 fromscratch. Foreign carriers would have
two years from the effective date of therule to ensure that the boarding
assistance called for in this rule wasactually being provided.
Carriers may require passengers
needing lift assistance for boarding tocheck in for the flight an hour before thestandard check-in time for the flight.
382.101 What other boarding anddeplaning assistance must carriers
provide?
When level-entry boarding is not
required, carriers must still takewhatever actions are necessary to assist
people with disabilities to get on and off
aircraft. For example, boarding anddeplaning assistance using lifts is not
required at smaller U.S. airports andforeign airports, or when severe weather
or unexpected mechanical breakdowns
prevent the use of a lift. In thosecircumstances, airlines must still
provide enplaning and deplaning
assistance by other available means,such as by placing the passenger in aboarding chair and carrying him or her
up the boarding stairs unless the designof 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 ofproviding this assistance is that handcarrying by carrier personnel as definedin that section is prohibited, except insituations of an emergency evacuation
where no other timely means ofassistance is available.
382.103 May a carrier leave apassenger unattended in a wheelchairor other device?
The carrier and its contractors may
not leave a passenger unattended in awheelchair or other device in which thepassenger is not independently mobile
for more than 30 minutes.
382.105 What is the responsibility ofcarriers at foreign airports at which
airport operators have responsibility for
enplaning, deplaning, or connecting
assistance?
This section reemphasizes that at aforeign airport where airport operators
have this responsibility, both U.S andforeign carriers can rely on the airport
operator’s services. If these services do
not fully meet the requirements of this

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Part, then the carrier must supplement
the airport operator’s services to ensurethat the requirements are met. If acarrier 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 adisability on board the aircraft?
These sections are parallel to theircounterparts in the existing rule.
Personal care services like assistance in
actual eating and drinking are notrequired, but more limited assistancesuch as assisting with the opening of
packages is required.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

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 travelwith service animals?
This section has been made moredetailed than the current rule’s service
animal provision, in response to thecomments discussed earlier in thepreamble. 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 denytransportation 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 aservice animal, the carrier should do its
best to satisfy all passengers by offering
the uncomfortable passenger theopportunity to sit elsewhere. Forcing
the passenger with the service animal to
move to another seat to make anotherpassenger 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 takeeight 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 createa health or sanitation issue on the flight.
The only acceptable reason for notallowing 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

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

safety regulations, must remain
unobstructed. If, for this reason, theanimal cannot be accommodated at theuser’s seat, the carrier must allow thepassenger and the animal to sit
elsewhere on the aircraft, if anappropriate place exists.
There are new, more detailed
procedures for the carriage of emotional
support and psychiatric service animals.
The carrier may require the passenger toprovide current documentation from amental health professional caring for thepassenger that the passenger has a
specific, recognized mental or emotional
disability and that the passenger needs
to be accompanied by the specificemotional support or psychiatric service
animal in question, either on the flightor at the passenger’s destination.
Certain unusual service animals need
never be accommodated (e.g., rodents,
snakes). Other uncommonly usedanimals (e.g., miniature horses,
monkeys) can travel as service animals
on U.S. carriers, but the carrier can
decide to exclude a particular animal ona 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 safetyrelated reasons for excluding animals
that may be specific to foreign carriers.
Near the end of this preamble, theDepartment 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 theDepartment issued on service animal
matters in May 2003. As guidance, itdoes not have independent mandatory
effect, but rather describes how the
Department understands therequirements of section 382.117. It also
makes suggestions andrecommendations concerning how
carriers can best accommodate service
animals and their users.
The guidance document notes thatcarriers can properly apply the same
policies to ‘‘psychiatric service animals’’
as they do for emotional support
animals. This is because carriers and theDepartment have encountered instancesof attempted abuse of service animaltransportation policies by persons
traveling with animals in bothcategories. Should the Department
encounter a pattern of abuse concerning
service animals in other categories, we
can consider additional safeguards withrespect to those categories as well.
We would call also readers’’ attention
to recent DOT guidance concerning thetransportation of service animals into

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27655

the United Kingdom. ‘‘GuidanceConcerning the Carriage of Services
Animals in Air Transportation Into theUnited Kingdom’’ (February 26, 2007)
discusses the transportation of service
dogs and cats into the U.K. via U.S. andforeign 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 ofService Animals in Air Transportation
Into the United Kingdom and Foreign
Health Documentation Requirements forService Animals in Air Transportation’’(July 17, 2007), provides further
information for carriers and the publicconcerning carriage of, anddocumentation needed for, carriage ofservice animals into countries otherthan 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 orhearing impairment on aircraft?
This section requires that carriers
ensure that passengers with a disability
who identify themselves as needingvisual or hearing assistance haveprompt access to the same information
provided to other passengers on theaircraft. In providing this information,
carriers are not required to take steps
that would interfere with crewmembers’safety duties as set forth in FAA andapplicable foreign regulations.
The covered information includes, but
is not limited to, information
concerning flight safety, procedures fortakeoff and landing, flight delays,schedule or aircraft changes that affectthe 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, andemergencies (e.g., fire or bomb threat).
The requirement of this section applies
whether the information is provided topassengers by the carrier in the aircraft
or in the terminal (e.g., the gate area).
We intend to require carriers toprovide information that a reasonableconsumer would deem important, even
if it falls outside the list in § 382.119(b).
Conversely, carriers are not required toprovide information that a reasonableconsumer would not deem important.
For example, we do not consider
information on sightseeing at the flight’s
destination or an announcement that the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27656

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

aircraft is flying over the Grand Canyon
to be covered by this rule.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

382.121 What mobility aids and otherassistive devices may passengers with adisability bring into the aircraft cabin?
Passengers may bring manual, but notelectric wheelchairs, other mobility aids
(e.g., canes, including those used byblind passengers), and other assistive
devices (e.g., POCs), as well asprescription medications and any
medical devices needed to administerthem (e.g., syringes, auto-injectors), as
long as they comply with applicablesafety, security and hazardous materials
rules. These devices and aids cannot becounted against the airline’s carry-on
limits.
382.123 What are the requirements
concerning priority cabin stowage forwheelchairs and other assistive devices?
This section is related to therequirements 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 topreboard can stow his or her wheelchairin the aircraft’s priority stowage area,with priority over other passengers’
items brought onto the aircraft at thesame airport, consistent with applicablesafety 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 onboard wheelchairs or crew luggage, even
if these items came on board at an
earlier stop of the plane’s itinerary. Ifsuch items are in the space when awheelchair user comes on board, theymust be moved to accommodate thepassenger’s wheelchair. Carriers mustalso offer this opportunity for otherassistive devices, though wheelchairsretain priority. Passengers withwheelchairs or other assistive devices
who do not preboard must still beallowed 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 socalled ‘‘seat-strapping’’ method of
securing passengers’ wheelchairs in thecabin, usually in situations in which,contrary to the existing rule in somecases, aircraft did not have closets orother 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 inthese times of frequently full flights.
The Department emphasizes thatproviding priority stowage spaces as

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

required by section 382.67 is essential.
To limit the ability of carriers to use theseat-strapping method as a way ofgetting around the designated priority
stowage requirement, carriers may not
use the seat-strapping method in any
aircraft ordered after the effective dateof 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 cabinmust be transported in the cargocompartment. These items have priority
over other passengers’ items. If otherpassengers’ items are bumped as aresult, 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 flightwithin an hour or two with respect toa domestic destination; it could be amatter of days with respect to somecarriers’ international flights.
382.127 What procedures apply to thestowage of battery-powered mobility
aids?
This provision does not makesubstantive changes from its counterpart
in the existing rule, except to say thatcarriers may require a passenger
wishing to check his or her device tocheck in an hour before the standard
check-in time for the flight. DOT’s
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) has issued aspecial permit which may affectprocedures 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 forstowage?
382.131 Do baggage liability limits
apply to mobility aids and otherassistive devices?
These provisions are substantively thesame as their counterparts in theexisting 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, aregoverned by the Montreal Convention
and other international agreements,
rather than by 14 CFR Part 254.

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

382.133 What are the requirements
concerning the evaluation and use ofpassenger-owned electronic devices thatassist passengers with respiration in thecabin during flight and do not containhazardous 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 mustmeet FAA or foreign government
requirements, as applicable, and display
a manufacturer’s label that indicatesthat 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 thepassenger about the requirements forcarrying such a device on board,
touching on such matters as meeting
FAA requirements, having the
manufacturer’s label, bringing anadequate number of fully charged
batteries, any check-in or advancenotice requirements, medical certificate
requirements, and the expected durationof 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 notcomply with the conditions outlined in
the rule, the carrier can deny him or hertransportation on the flight.
382.141 What training are carriers
required to provide for their personnel?
This section continues, for the mostpart, the requirements of the existing
rule. There are a few differences, inview of the rule’s application to foreign
carriers. The requirement to consult
with disability groups now focuses on
disability groups in the carrier’s homecountry. If such groups are notavailable, consulting with individuals
with disabilities or disability groups inother countries is appropriate.
382.143 When must carriers complete
training for their personnel?
Employees of U.S. carriers that havealready received initial training must be
trained on changes to Part 382 at theirnext recurrent training after the rulegoes into effect or within one year after
the effective date of the rule, whichevercomes first. New crewmembers have to
be trained before they assume theirduties. 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
date of the rule. After that date, newcrewmembers 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 firstyear after the effective date of the rule—training must occur before the second
anniversary of the effective date of therule or 60 days from their start date,
whichever is later.
While the rule provides a reasonableamount of time for employees to be
trained, carriers are neverthelessresponsible for violations that occur
between the effective date of the ruleand the training deadlines. We strongly
encourage carriers to expedite theirtraining schedules so that as many
employees as possible are trained by the
final rule’s effective date.
To ensure that foreign carriers haveresource 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 tocomplete training for CROs aboutchanges in Part 382, by the effective
date of the rule. Given the critical role
played by CROs in carriers’
implementation of the rule, it isessential for CROs to be trained before
the rule becomes effective. U.S. carriers
have been subject to requirements totrain CROs under the existing rule, andadditional training for these CROs
should be limited in scope, since itwould need only to cover changes
between the existing rule and this final
rule. Since foreign carriers will have ayear between the publication of the ruleand its effective date, they too shouldhave adequate time to train CROs by theeffective date of the rule.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

382.145 What records concerning
training must carriers retain?
Carriers must maintain records of theprocedures they use to comply with thisrule, including those portions ofmanuals 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 forreview, but it must be made available to
the Department if we ask to look at it.
If we determine that something in thesematerials needs to be changed in theinterest of compliance with the rule, thecarrier must make the changes the
Department directs.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

382.151 What are the requirements forproviding Complaints Resolution
Officials?
The CRO requirement is essentiallythe same as under the current rule. U.S.
carriers must make a CRO available—
either in person or via telephone—ateach 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 otherdays, 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 madeavailable in languages in which thecarrier provides services to the generalpublic.
This rule clarifies that carriers are
responsible for making passengers
aware of the availability of a CRO insome circumstances even if thepassenger does not say ‘‘I want to talkto a CRO.’’ If a passenger raises adisability-related concern, and thecarrier’s personnel do not immediately
resolve the issue to the customer’ssatisfaction, the carrier must say, in
effect, ‘‘We have a CRO available thatyou 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, orcall, our CRO.’’
CROs must have authority todefinitively resolve complaints. Thismeans they must have the power tooverrule decisions of other carrier
personnel, except that they are notrequired to have authority tocountermand a safety decision of apilot-in-command of an aircraft. Of
course, even decisions of pilots, if they
later are shown to be in noncompliancewith this rule, can subject the carrier to
DOT enforcement action.
382.153 What actions do CROs take oncomplaints?
382.155 How must carriers respond to
written complaints?
CROs are to promptly take action toresolve complaints made to them. In
some cases, CROs can take quick action
to prevent a potential violation (e.g., athreatened denial of service) frombecoming a real violation. If a CRO
determines that a violation has alreadyoccurred, the CRO must write thecomplainant and describe the carrier’s

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27657

corrective action. Of course, not allcomplaints have merit, and if the CRO
decides that a violation did not occur,
the CRO must also write thecomplainant and explain thisdetermination. CRO responses are due
30 days from the date of the complaint.
Often, complaints to carriers may bemade in writing (letters, e-mails etc.).
These complaints may or may not havebeen processed through the carrier’sCRO, though they need to state whether
a CRO was involved. Except forcomplaints DOT refers to a carrier, thecarrier is not required to respond to acomplaint transmitted more than 45days 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 disabilityrelated complaint reporting. The
language referring to carriers ‘‘coveredby 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 addressfor sending an informal complaint by
mail, and the Web address for filing an
informal complaint on the Air
Consumer Web site.
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 theconvenience of readers, information on
where material found in a given sectionof the existing version of Part 382 isfound in the new version of Part 382.
Guidance Concerning Service Animals
Introduction
In 1990, the U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) promulgated theofficial regulations implementing the
Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). Those
rules are entitled Nondiscrimination on
the Basis of Disability in Air Travel (14CFR part 382). Since then the number ofpeople with disabilities traveling by air
has grown steadily. This growth has

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27658Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

increased the demand for airtransportation accessible to all people
with disabilities and the importance ofunderstanding DOT’s regulations andhow 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 ofJustice (DOJ) in July 1996. The purposeof 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 canbe refused carriage in the cabin.
This guidance will also be used by
Department of Transportation staff inreviewing the implementation of§ 382.117 of this Part by carriers.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Background
The 1996 DOT guidance document
defines a service animal as ‘‘any guidedog, signal dog, or other animal
individually trained to provide
assistance to an individual with adisability. If the animal meets thisdefinition, 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 asservice animals and ensuring that, in
situations concerning emotional support
animals and psychiatric service animals,
the authority of airline personnel torequire documentation of theindividual’s disability and the medical
necessity of the passenger traveling withthe animal is understood.
Today, both the public and people
with disabilities use many different
terms to identify animals that can meetthe legal definition of ‘‘service animal.’’
These range from umbrella terms suchas ‘‘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 adisability.
3 61 FR 56409, 56420 (Nov. 1, 1996).
4 See Glossary for definition of this and otherterms.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

When Part 382 was first promulgated,most service animals were guide orhearing dogs. Since then, a wider
variety of animals (e.g. cats, monkeys,etc.) have been individually trained toassist 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 awheelchair, assisting persons withmobility impairments with balance).
These developments can make it
difficult for airline employees todistinguish service animals from pets,
especially when a passenger does notappear to be disabled, or the animal has
no obvious indicators that it is a service
animal. Passengers may claim that theiranimals are service animals at times to
get around airline policies that restrict
the carriage of pets. Clear guidelines areneeded to assist airline personnel andpeople with disabilities in knowing
what to expect and what to do whenthese assessments are made.
Since airlines also are obliged toprovide all accommodations inaccordance with FAA safety regulations,educated consumers help assure thatairlines provide accommodations
consistent with the carriers’ safety
duties and responsibilities. Educatedconsumers also assist the airline inproviding them the services they want,
including accommodations, as quickly
and efficiently as possible.
General Requirements of Part 382
In a nutshell, the main requirementsof Part 382 regarding service animals
are:• Carriers shall permit dogs and otherservice animals used by persons withdisabilities to accompany the persons
on a flight. See § 382.117(a).
➣ Carriers shall accept as evidence
that an animal is a service animal
identifiers such as identification cards,
other written documentation, presenceof harnesses, tags or the credible verbal
assurances of a qualified individualwith 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 theanimal obstructs an aisle or other areathat must remain unobstructed in orderto facilitate an emergency evacuation or
to comply with FAA regulations.
• If a service animal cannot be
accommodated at the seat location of
the qualified individual with adisability whom the animal isaccompanying, the carrier shall offer thepassenger the opportunity to move withthe animal to a seat location in the sameclass of service, if present on the

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

aircraft, where the animal can beaccommodated, as an alternative torequiring that the animal travel in the
cargo hold (see § 382.117(c)).
• Carriers shall not impose charges
for providing facilities, equipment, orservices that are required by this Part tobe provided to qualified individuals
with a disability (see § 382.31).
Two Steps for Airline Personnel
To determine whether an animal is aservice animal and should be allowed toaccompany its user in the cabin, airline
personnel should:
1. Establish whether the animal is apet or a service animal, and whether thepassenger is a qualified individual witha disability; and then
2. Determine if the service animalpresents either:• A ‘‘direct threat to the health orsafety 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
How do I know it’s a service animal andnot a pet?
Remember: In most situations the key
is training. Generally, a service animal
is individually trained to performfunctions to assist the passenger who isa qualified individual with a disability.
In a few extremely limited situations, ananimal such as a seizure alert animal
may be capable of performing functions
to assist a qualified person with adisability without individualized
training. Also, an animal used foremotional support need not havespecific training for that function.
Similar to an animal that has been
individually trained, the definition of aservice animal includes: An animal thathas been shown to have the innate
ability to assist a person with adisability; or an emotional support
animal.
These five steps can help one
determine whether an animal is aservice animal or a pet:
1. Obtain credible verbal assurances:
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 youranimal perform for you?’’ or➣ ‘‘What has it been trained to do foryou?’’ or➣ ‘‘Would you describe how theanimal performs this task (or function)
for you?’’

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations• As noted earlier, functions include,
but are not limited to:
A. Helping blind or visually impaired
people to safely negotiate theirsurroundings;
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 toanother, maintain balance; or
D. Alert or respond to a disabilityrelated need or emergency (e.g., seizure,extreme social anxiety or panic attack).
• Note that to be a service animal thatcan properly travel in the cabin, theanimal need not necessarily perform afunction for the passenger during theflight. For example, some dogs aretrained to help pull a passenger’s
wheelchair or carry items that thepassenger cannot readily carry while
using his or her wheelchair. It would
not be appropriate to denytransportation in the cabin to such adog.
• If a passenger cannot provide
credible assurances that an animal has
been individually trained or is able toperform 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 performa 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 theanimal 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 thepassenger.
2. Look for physical indicators on the
animal: 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 nota service animal. Similarly, the presenceof a harness or vest on a pet for which
the passenger cannot provide suchcredible verbal assurance may not be
sufficient evidence that the animal is, infact, a legitimate service animal.
3. Request documentation for service
animals other than emotional support
or psychiatric service animals: The law
allows airline personnel to ask for
documentation as a means of verifying

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 withhis 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 acondition for allowing the animal to
travel in the cabin. This should be an
infrequent situation. The purpose of
documentation is to substantiate thepassenger’s disability-related need forthe animal’s accompaniment, which theairline may require as a condition topermit 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 psychiatricservice animals: With respect to an
animal used for emotional support(which need not have specific training
for that function but must be trained tobehave appropriately in a public
setting), airline personnel may requirecurrent documentation (i.e., not morethan one year old) on letterhead from alicensed mental health professional
stating (1) that the passenger has amental health-related disability listed in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM IV); (2) thathaving the animal accompany thepassenger is necessary to the passenger’s
mental health or treatment; (3) that theindividual providing the assessment of
the passenger is a licensed mental
health professional and the passenger isunder his or her professional care; and(4) the date and type of the mental
health professional’s license and thestate or other jurisdiction in which it
was issued. Airline personnel may
require this documentation as acondition of permitting the animal toaccompany the passenger in the cabin.
The purpose of this provision is toprevent abuse by passengers that do nothave a medical need for an emotional
support animal and to ensure thatpassengers who have a legitimate needfor emotional support animals are
permitted to travel with their service
animals on the aircraft. Airlines are notpermitted to require the documentation
to specify the type of mental healthdisability, 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 aprofessional trainer, to perform tasks
such as fetching medications, reminding
the user to take medications, helping

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27659

people with balance problems caused by
medications or an underlying condition,bringing a phone to the user in an
emergency or activating a speciallyequipped emergency phone, or acting as
a buffer against other people crowding
too close. As with emotional support
animals, it is possible for this categoryof animals to be a source of abuse by
persons attempting to circumvent
carrier rules concerning transportationof pets. Consequently, it is appropriate
for airlines to apply the same advancenotice and documentation requirements
to psychiatric service animals as they doto emotional support animals.
5. Observe behavior of animals:
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 theaircraft, bite or jump on people, or
urinate or defecate in the cabin or gatearea. An animal that engages in suchdisruptive behavior shows that it has
not been successfully trained tofunction as a service animal in public
settings. Therefore, airlines are notrequired to treat it as a service animal,
even if the animal performs an assistive
function for a passenger with adisability or is necessary for apassenger’s emotional well-being.
What about service animals in training?
Part 382 requires airlines to allow
service animals to accompany theirhandlers 5 in the cabin of the aircraft,
but airlines are not required otherwise
to carry animals of any kind either inthe cabin or in the cargo hold. Airlines
are free to adopt any policy they choose
regarding the carriage of pets and otheranimals (e.g., search and rescue dogs)
provided that they comply with otherapplicable requirements (e.g., theAnimal 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 ofservice animal. However, like pet
policies, airline policies regarding
service animals in training vary. Someairlines permit qualified trainers tobring service animals in training aboard
an aircraft for training purposes.
Trainers of service animals should
consult with airlines, and become
familiar with their policies.
5 Service animal users typically refer to theperson who accompanies the animal as the‘‘handler.’’

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27660Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

What about a service animal that is notaccompanying a qualified individualwith a disability?
When a service animal is notaccompanying a passenger with adisability, the airline’s general policies
on the carriage of animals usually apply.
Airline personnel should know theircompany’s policies on pets, service
animals in training, and the carriage ofanimals generally. Individuals planningto travel with a service animal otherthan their own should inquire about theapplicable policies in advance.
Qualified Individuals with Disabilities 6
How do I know if a passenger is aqualified individual with a disability
who is entitled to bring a service animalin the cabin of the aircraft if thedisability is not readily apparent?

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2• Ask the passenger about his or her
disability as it relates to the need for aservice animal. Once the passenger
identifies the animal as a service
animal, you may ask, ‘‘How does youranimal assist you with your disability?’’
Avoid the question ‘‘What is yourdisability?’’ as this implies you areasking for a medical label or the causeof the disability, which is intrusive andinconsistent with the intent of the
ACAA. Remember, Part 382 is intended
to facilitate travel by people withdisabilities by requiring airlines toaccommodate them on an individual
basis.
• Ask the passenger whether he or
she has documentation as a means ofverifying the medical necessity of thepassenger traveling with the animal.
Keep in mind that you can ask but
cannot require documentation as proofof service animal status UNLESS (1) apassenger’s verbal assurance is notcredible 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 psychiatricservice animal.
• Using the questions and otherfactors above, you must decide whether
it is reasonable to believe that thepassenger is a qualified individual witha disability, and the animal is a service
animal.

6 See Glossary.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Denying a Service Animal Carriage in
the Cabin
What do I do if I believe that carriageof 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 donot (1) pose a direct threat to the healthor safety of others (e.g., animal displays
threatening behaviors by growling,snarling, lunging at, or attempting tobite other persons on the aircraft) or (2)cause a significant disruption in cabin
service (i.e., a ‘‘fundamental alteration’’to passenger service). Offense orinconvenience to other passengers (e.g.,a cultural or personal discomfort withbeing in proximity to certain kinds ofanimals, allergies that do not rise to thelevel 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 thewishes of other passengers in thissituation, such as by relocating them toa different part of the aircraft.
What do I do if a passenger claims thathe or she is allergic to someone else’s
service animal?
• First, remember that not all allergies
rise to the level of a disability. The factthat someone may have a stuffy nose orsneeze when exposed to dog or cat
dander does not necessarily mean thatthe 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 theuncomfortable passenger theopportunity to change to a seat further
away from the animal. Passengers whostate they have allergies or other animal
aversions should be located as far awayfrom the service animal as practicable.
Each individual’s needs should be
addressed to the fullest extent possible
under the circumstances and inaccordance with the requirements ofPart 382 and company policy.
• If a passenger provides credible
verbal assurances, or medical
documentation, that he or she has anallergy to a particular sort of animal thatrises to the level of a disability (e.g.,
produces shock or respiratory distressthat could require emergency orsignificant medical treatment), and there
is a service animal of that kind seatednearby, the carrier should try to place asmuch distance as possible between theservice animal and the individual withthe allergy. Depending on where the

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 theback.
• It is unlikely that the mere presenceof an animal in the same cabin would,
by itself, even if located at a distancefrom an allergic passenger, produce asevere allergic reaction rising to thelevel of a disability. However, if there
was strong evidence that this was thecase, it could be necessary to rebook oneof the passengers on another flight.
Since one disability does not trump
another, the carrier should consider adisability-neutral means of determining
which passenger would have to berebooked (e.g., which passenger madethe earlier reservation). We emphasizethat 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 ananimal 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 bringsa very serious potential allergy situation
to the attention of your personnel, it isappropriate to seek a medical certificate
for the passenger.
What do I do if I believe that apassenger’s assertions about having adisability or a service animal are notcredible?
• Ask if the passenger has
documentation that satisfies therequirements for determining that the
animal is a service animal (seediscussion of ‘‘Documentation’’ above).
• 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 forservice animals. Explain your airline’s
policy on pets (i.e., will or will not
accept for carriage in the cabin or cargohold), and what procedures to follow.
• If the passenger does not accept
your explanation, avoid getting into anargument. Ask the passenger to wait
while you contact your airline’s
complaint resolution official (CRO). 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 theauthority to make the final decision
regarding carriage of service animals. In

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the rare instance that a service animal
would raise a concern regarding flightsafety, the CRO may consult with thepilot-in-command. If the pilot-incommand makes a decision to restrict
the animal from the cabin or the flightfor safety reasons, the CRO cannot
countermand the pilot’s decision. This
does not preclude the Department fromtaking subsequent enforcement action,
however, if it is determined that thepilot’s decision was inconsistent withPart 382.
• If a CRO makes the final decision
not to accept an animal as a service
animal, then the CRO must provide awritten statement to the passenger
within 10 days explaining the reason(s)for that determination. If carrier
personnel other than the CRO make thefinal decision, a written explanation is
not required; however, because denying
carriage of a legitimate service animal isa potential civil rights violation, it isrecommended 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 thecabin, 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 transportthem.
• In all other circumstances for U.S.
carriers, each situation must be
considered individually. Do not makeassumptions about how a particular
unusual animal is likely to behave basedon 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 tocarry animals other than dogs.
• Before deciding to exclude theanimal, you should consider and try
available means of mitigating the
problem (e.g., muzzling a dog that barks
frequently, allowing the passenger areasonable amount of time under thecircumstances to correct the disruptive
behavior, offering the passenger adifferent 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 withPart 382 and company policy (e.g.,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

27661

accept the animal for carriage in the
cargo compartment at no cost to thepassenger).

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

What about unusual service animals?

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 theanimal blocks a space that, per FAA or
applicable foreign government safety
regulations, must remain unobstructed(e.g., an aisle, access to an emergencyexit) AND the passenger and animalcannot 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 finda seat location in the cabin where theservice animal and its user can be
agreeably accommodated (e.g., byfinding a passenger who is willing toshare foot space with the animal). The
fact that a service animal may need touse a reasonable portion of an adjacentseat’s foot space that does not denyanother passenger effective use of thespace for his or her feet by taking all ormost of the passenger’s foot space is not,however, an adequate reason for the
carrier to refuse to permit the animal toaccompany 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 moreroom or carrying the animal in cargo. As
indicated above, airlines may not charge
passengers with disabilities for services
required by Part 382, includingtransporting their oversized service
animals in the cargo compartment.

• As indicated above, certain unusual
service animals, (e.g., snakes, otherreptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders)pose unavoidable safety and/or publichealth concerns and airlines are notrequired to transport them. The releaseof such an animal in the aircraft cabin
could result in a direct threat to thehealth or safety of passengers andcrewmembers. For these reasons,airlines are not required to transport
these types of service animals in thecabin, and carriage in the cargo holdwill 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-casebasis by U.S. carriers. Factors toconsider 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 orsafety 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 thepassenger in the cabin. In most othersituations, the animal should be carriedin the cargo hold in accordance withcompany policy. Under the 2008 final
rule, foreign carriers are not required totransport animals other than dogs.
Miscellaneous Questions
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 makeevery reasonable effort to accommodate
them in the cabin in accordance withPart 382 and company policies on
seating. This might include permitting
the passenger to purchase a second seatso that the animals can beaccommodated in accordance with FAA
safety regulations. You may offer thepassenger a seat on a later flight if thepassenger and animals cannot be
accommodated together at a single
passenger seat. Airlines may not charge
passengers for accommodations that are
required by Part 382, includingtransporting service animals in the cargocompartment. If carriage in the cargocompartment is unavoidable, notify thedestination station to return the service
animal(s) to the passenger at the gate assoon as possible, or to assist thepassenger as necessary to retrieve themin the appropriate location.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Should passengers provide advancenotice to the airline concerning multiple
or large service animals?
In most cases, airlines may not insist
on advance notice or health certificatesfor service animals under the ACAA
regulations. However, it is very usefulfor passengers to contact the airline wellin advance if one or more of theirservice animals may need to betransported in the cargo compartment.
The passenger will need to understandairline policies and should find out
what type of documents the carrier
would need to ensure the safe passageof the service animal in the cargocompartment and any restrictions forcargo travel that might apply (e.g.,temperature conditions that limit live
animal transport).

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27662Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Accommodating Passengers With
Service Animals in the Cabin
How can airline personnel help ensurethat 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 abulkhead 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 whatkinds 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, theymust be assigned to other available
priority seats of their choice in the samecabin class. Part 382.81(c) requires
airlines to provide a bulkhead seat or aseat other than a bulkhead seat at therequest of an individual traveling witha service animal.
• Passengers should comply withairline recommendations or
requirements regarding when theyshould 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 beavailable. If you wish to request
preboarding, tell the agent at the gate.
• A timely request for preboarding bya passenger with a disability must be
honored (see sections 382.83(c) and
382.93)
Part 382 does not require carriers tomake modifications that would
constitute an undue burden or would
fundamentally alter their programs(382.13(c)). Therefore, the following are
not required in providing
accommodations for users of service
animals➢ Requiring another passenger togive up all or a most of the space infront of his or her seat to accommodatea service animal. (There is nothing
wrong with asking another passenger if
the passenger would mind sharing footspace 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, andacceptable, method of finding anappropriate place for someone traveling

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

with a service animal that may not beable to be seated in his or her original
seat location.)➢ Denying transportation to any
individual on a flight in order toprovide an accommodation to apassenger with a service animal;➢ Furnishing more than one seat per
ticket; and➢ Providing a seat in a class ofservice other than the one the passenger
has purchased. (While a carrier is not
required to do so, there could besituations in which the carrier could
voluntarily reseat a passenger with aservice animal in a different seatingclass. For example, suppose that theeconomy cabin is completely full andno alternate seat location in that cabin
can be found for a service animal thatcannot be seated at the passenger’s
original seat location. If the business or
first class cabin has vacant space, thecarrier could choose to move thepassenger and animal into the vacant
space, rather than make the passenger
and animal take a later flight.)
Are airline personnel responsible for thecare and feeding of service animals?
Airline personnel are not required toprovide care, food, or special facilities
for service animals. The care andsupervision of a service animal is solely
the responsibility of the passenger witha disability whom the animal isaccompanying.
May a carrier charge a maintenance or
cleaning fee to passengers who travelwith service animals?
Part 382 prohibits carriers from
imposing special charges foraccommodations required by theregulation, 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 nondisabled passengers for similar kinds ofdamage. For example, it could charge apassenger with a disability for the costof 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• 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 (apriority seat such as a (bulkhead seat oraisle seat)) up to 24 hours before
departure? or (3) should a passenger

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

request an advance seat assignment at
the gate on the day of departure?
• 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 yourphysician or other licensed professional
confirming your need for the service
animal. Passengers with unusual service
animals also may want to carry
documentation confirming that theiranimal has been trained to perform afunction or task for them.
• If you are traveling with anemotional support or psychiatric service
animal, you may be required by theairline to provide 48 hours’ advancenotice.
• If you need a specific seat
assignment for yourself and your service
animal, make your reservation as far inadvance as you can, and identify yourneed at that time.
• You may have to be flexible if yourassigned seat unexpectedly turns out tobe 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 berequired by FAA regulations to move toanother seat.
• Arrive at the gate when instructedby 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 checkin 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 theairline’s preboard offer.
• If you have a very large service
animal or multiple animals that mightneed to be transported in the cargocompartment, contact the airline well inadvance of your travel date. In mostcases, airlines cannot insist on advancenotice, except for emotional support or
psychiatric service animals, or on healthcertificates for service animals under the
ACAA regulations. However, it is very
useful for passengers to contact theairline well in advance if one or moreof their service animals may need to betransported in the cargo compartment.
The passenger will need to understandairline policies and should find out
what type of documents the carrier
would need to ensure the safe passageof the service animal in the cargocompartment and any restrictions for

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27663Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
cargo travel that might apply (e.g.,temperature conditions that limit live
animal transport).
• 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 ofoperation. The CRO is a resource forresolving difficulties related todisability accommodations.
• Another resource for resolving
issues related to disability
accommodations is the U.S. Departmentof 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
OthersA significant risk to the health orsafety of others that cannot be
eliminated by a modification of policies,
practices, or procedures, or by theprovision of auxiliary aids or services.
Fundamental Alteration
A modification that substantiallyalters the basic nature or purpose of aprogram, service, product or activity.
Individual With a Disability• ‘‘Any individual who has a physicalor mental impairment that, on apermanent or temporary basis,
substantially limits one or more major
life activities, has a record of such an
impairment, or is regarded as havingsuch an impairment.’’ (Section 382.5)

Qualified Individual With a Disability
Any individual with a disability who:(1) ‘‘Takes those actions necessary toavail himself or herself of facilities orservices offered by a carrier to thegeneral public with respect toaccompanying or meeting a traveler, useof ground transportation, using terminal
facilities, or obtaining information aboutschedules, fares or policies’’;(2) ‘‘Offers, or makes a good faithattempt to offer, to purchase orotherwise validly to obtain * * * aticket’’ ‘‘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 beenpurchased or obtained; and meetsreasonable, nondiscriminatory contractof carriage requirements applicable toall passengers.’’ (Section 382.5).
Service Animal
Any animal that is individually
trained or able to provide assistance toa qualified person with a disability; or
any animal shown by documentation to
be necessary for the emotional wellbeing of a passenger.
Sources
In addition to applicable provisions ofPart 382, the sources for this guidance
include the following: ‘‘GuidanceConcerning Service Animals in Air
Transportation,’’ (61 FR 56420–56422,(November 1, 1996)), ‘‘Commonly Asked
Questions About Service Animals in
Places of Business’’ (Department ofJustice, July, 1996), and ‘‘ADA Business

Brief: Service Animals’’ (Department ofJustice, April 2002).
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and ProceduresThis action has been determined to besignificant 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 firsttime and adds requirements concerning
passengers who use medical oxygen andaccommodations for deaf and hard-ofhearing passengers. These are areas ofconsiderable importance to passengers
and air carriers and are of interest to the
public and members of Congress.
The costs and benefits of the rule aresummarized 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 hasvery significant nonquantifiable
benefits, which these tables do notaddress. These nonquantifiable benefits
include increased opportunities forindividuals with disabilities to accessthe air travel system without
discrimination and with fewer
unnecessary barriers. This access opens
up business and personal travel
opportunities and the personal andeconomic benefits that result from theincreased chance to travel. These
nonquantifiable benefits make the rule
cost-beneficial, even without
considering the significant economic
benefits displayed in the tables below.

TABLE A.—SUMMARY OF FOREIGN CARRIER COST AND BENEFIT ESTIMATES[Millions 2005$]

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Low Impact Case:
Present Value over 20
years ...........................
Year 20 undiscounted ....
High Impact Case:
Present Value over 20
years ...........................
Year 20 undiscounted ....

VerDate Aug<31>2005

On-board
wheelchairs

Cabinstowagearea foron-board
wheelchairand passenger’s
folding
wheelchair

Accessible
lavatories

Personnel
training
costs

Total costs($M)

Total carrier benefits highMC case($M)

Net carrier
benefits
high MC
case($M)

Total carrier benefits low MC
case
($M)

Net carrier
benefits
low MC
case
($M)

1.161
0.010

2.507
0.061

0.260
0.044

138.373
32.13222.959
2.769

165.3
35.0

112.0
35.8

¥53.3
0.8

179.2
57.2

13.9
22.2

2.245
0.013

3.051
0.075

0.260
0.044

276.747
64.26445.917
5.539

328.2
69.9

224.0
71.5

¥104.2
1.6

358.4
114.5

30.2
44.5

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Boarding
equipment(lifts/ramps,
chairs)

16:54 May 12, 2008

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27664Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE B.—SUMMARY OF DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING COST AND BENEFIT ESTIMATES[Millions 2005$]
Assistants’fares forgone

Reservation TTY

Copy ofpart 382

Captioning in
waiting
areas

Public announcements

Awarenesstraining

3.500
0.500

2.420
0.080

0.108
0.000

0.250
0.017

1.400
0.000

80.000
6.400

7.000
1.000

4.840
0.160

0.216
0.000

0.500
0.034

2.800
0.000

160.000
12.800Low Impact Case:
Present value over 20
years ...........................
Year 20 undiscounted ....
High Impact Case:
Present Value over 20
years ...........................
Year 20 undiscounted ....

Total carrier benefits highMC case($M)

Net carrier benefits highMC case($M)

Total carrier benefits low
MC case($M)

Net carrier benefits low
MC case
($M)

87.7
7.0

110.1
16.4

22.4
9.4

176.2
26.2

88.5
19.2

175.4
14.0

220.2
32.7

44.9
18.7

352.4
52.3

177.0
38.3

Total
costs
($M)

TABLE C.—SUMMARY OF MEDICAL OXYGEN COST AND BENEFIT ESTIMATES[Millions 2005$]

Low Impact Case:
Present Value over 20 years ............................................................
Year 20 undiscounted .......................................................................
High Impact Case:
Present Value over 20 years ............................................................
Year 20 undiscounted .......................................................................

Total costs($M)

Total carrier
benefits
high MCcase($M)

Net carrier
benefits
high MC
case($M)

Total carrier
benefits low
MC case($M)

Net carrier
benefits low
MC case
($M)

97.2
15.9

449.8
76.3

352.6
60.4

719.7
122.2

622.5
106.3

194.4
31.8

899.6
152.7

705.2
120.9

1,439.4
244.3

1,245.0
212.5

TABLE D.—AGGREGATE COST AND BENEFIT ESTIMATES[Millions 2005$]

Low Impact Case:
Present Value over 20 years ............................................................
Year 20 undiscounted .......................................................................
High Impact Case:
Present Value over 20 years ............................................................
Year 20 undiscounted .......................................................................

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency toreview regulations to assess their impact
on small entities unless the agency
determines that a rule is not expected tohave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities. A
direct air carrier or a foreign carrier isa small business if it provides airtransportation 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 toboarding equipment (small U.S. carriers
already are subject to this requirement).
These costs represent a total present

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Total costs($M)

Total carrier
benefits
high MCcase($M)

Net carrier
benefits
high MC
case($M)

Total carrier
benefits low
MC case($M)

Net carrier
benefits low
MC case
($M)

350.1
57.9

671.9
128.5

321.8
70.6

1,075.1
205.6

724.9
147.6

698.0
115.7

1,343.9
256.9

645.9
141.2

2,150.2
411.1

1,452.2
295.4

value ranging from $1.161 million to$2.245 million, or from $39,000 to$75,000 per carrier, almost entirely inthe 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 withmore than 19 seats and which serve agreater number of airports.
Both small U.S. and small foreign
carriers would incur costs related totraining. We project that U.S. carriers
would need to provide two hours of
training to each of their employees withrespect to new requirements concerning
oxygen and deaf and hard-of-hearing
passengers. On this assumption, thepresent value of training costs would be$2.6 million or $7,738 for each of the338 carriers affected by the rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Our analysis estimates that training
costs for foreign carriers would amountto a present value of $0.8 million to $1.6
million over 20 years. Assuming thenumber of carriers affected to be 30, thecost 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, wewould 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 withlarger airlines that process reservations
for them.
Following the line of argument
adopted throughout Department’s
overall regulatory evaluation, thesecosts should be offset by an expected

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
increase in the number of PWDs willing
and able to fly on small carriers.
We note that, while we haveexamined the effects of the rule on small
foreign as well as small U.S. carriers, theRegulatory Flexibility Act does not
apply to foreign entities. On the basis of
this examination, the Department
certifies that this rule will not have asignificant economic impact on asignificant number of small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency toreview regulations to assess their impact
on small entities unless the agency
determines that a rule is not expected tohave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities. A
direct air carrier or a foreign carrier isa small business if it provides airtransportation 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 toboarding 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 inthe first two years. mall carrier use thesame 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 andwhich serve a greater number of
airports.
Both small U.S. and small foreign
carriers would incur costs related totraining. We project that U.S. carriers
would need to train their employees twohours each with respect to new
requirements concerning oxygen anddeaf 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 training
costs for foreign carriers would amountto a present value of $0.8 million to $1.6
million over 20 years. Assuming thenumber of carriers affected to be 30, thecost 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, wewould 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 withlarger airlines that process reservations
for them.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Following the line of argument
adopted throughout Department’s
overall regulatory evaluation, thesecosts 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 haveexamined the effects of the rule on small
foreign as well as small U.S. carriers, theRegulatory Flexibility Act does not
apply to foreign entities. On the basis of
this examination, the Department
certifies that this rule will not have asignificant economic impact on asignificant number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This final rule has been analyzed inaccordance with the principles andcriteria contained in Executive Order13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This final rule
does not include any provision that: (1)Has substantial direct effects on theStates, the relationship between thenational government and the States, orthe distribution of power andresponsibilities among the various
levels of government; (2) imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments; or (3)preempts state law. Therefore, theconsultation and funding requirementsof Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
D. Executive Order 13084
This final rule has been analyzed inaccordance with the principles andcriteria contained in Executive Order
13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’).
Because this final rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect thecommunities of the Indian tribal
governments and does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs onthem, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13084
do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule does contain a new
information collection requirement that
requires approval by the Office ofManagement 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 thisrequirement during the year between
the publication and effective dates of
the rule.
Section 382.157 involves disabilityrelated complaint reporting to the
Department. This provision is identicalto a provision of the existing Part 382,
and it is subject to an existing
Paperwork Reduction Act approval by

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27665

OMB. No further approvals are needed
for this section at the present time.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Department has determined thatthe requirements of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
do not apply to this rulemaking.
Issued this 28th Day of April, 2008, at
Washington, DC.
Mary E. Peters,
Secretary of Transportation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382
Air carriers, Consumer protection,
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
■ For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, the Department revises 14
CFR part 382 to read as follows:
PART 382—NONDISCRIMINATION ON
THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIRTRAVELSec.
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 thisPart apply?
382.9 What may foreign carriers do if they
believe a provision of a foreign nation’s
law prohibits compliance with aprovision of this Part?
382.10 How does a carrier obtain adetermination that it is providing anequivalent alternative to passengers withdisabilities?
Subpart B—Nondiscrimination and Accessto Services and Information
382.11 What is the general
nondiscrimination requirement of thisPart?
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 therequirements of this Part?
382.17 May carriers limit the number ofpassengers 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 totransportation on the basis that apassenger has a communicable disease orother 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 advancenotice that he or she is traveling on aflight?
382.27 May a carrier require a passenger
with a disability to provide advancenotice in order to obtain certain specificservices in connection with a flight?

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27666

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

382.29 May a carrier require a passenger
with a disability to travel with a safetyassistant?
382.31 May carriers impose special charges
on passengers with a disability forproviding services and accommodations
required by this rule?
382.33 May carriers impose otherrestrictions on passengers with adisability that they do not impose on
other passengers?
382.35 May carriers require passengers witha 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 toindividuals with hearing and vision
impairments?
382.45 Must carriers make copies of thisPart 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 requiredin airports for individuals with a vision
impairment and individuals who aredeaf 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 areinaccessible?
Subpart E—Accessibility of Aircraft
382.61 What are the requirements formovable aisle armrests?
382.63 What are the requirements foraccessible 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 ofvideos, DVDs, and other audio-visualpresentations shown on aircraft toindividuals who are deaf or hard-ofhearing?
382.71 What other aircraft accessibility
requirements apply to carriers?

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

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 incircumstances not covered by 382.81(a)—(d)?
382.87 What other requirements pertain toseating for passengers with a disability?

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Subpart G—Boarding, Deplaning, andConnecting Assistance
382.91 What assistance must carriers
provide to passengers with a disability inmoving within the terminal?
382.93 Must carriers offer preboarding topassengers with a disability?
382.95 What are carriers’ generalobligations with respect to boarding anddeplaning assistance?
382.97 To which aircraft does therequirement to provide boarding anddeplaning assistance through the use oflifts apply?
382.99 What agreements must carriers havewith 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 otherdevice?
382.105 What is the responsibility ofcarriers at foreign airports at which
airport operators have responsibility for
enplaning, deplaning, and connecting
assistance?

382.145 What records concerning training
must carriers retain?

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 adisability on board the aircraft?
382.115 What requirements apply to onboard 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?

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 makeaircraft, other facilities, and services
accessible; and requires carriers to takesteps to accommodate passengers with adisability.

Subpart I—Stowage of Wheelchairs, Other
Mobility Aids, and Other Assistive Devices
382.121 What mobility aids and otherassistive devices may passengers with adisability bring into the aircraft cabin?
382.123 What are the requirements
concerning priority cabin stowage spacefor 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 stowageof battery-powered mobility aids?
382.129 What other requirements apply
when passengers’ wheelchairs, othermobility aids, and other assistive devices
must be disassembled for stowage?
382.131 Do baggage liability limits apply tomobility aids and other assistive
devices?
382.133 What are the requirements
concerning the evaluation and use ofpassenger-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?

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Subpart K—Complaints and Enforcement
Procedures
382.151 What are the requirements forproviding Complaints Resolution
Officials?
382.153 What actions do CROs take oncomplaints?
382.155 How must carriers respond to
written complaints?
382.157 What are carriers’ obligations forrecordkeeping and reporting on
disability-related complaints?
382.159 How are complaints filed with
DOT?
Appendix A to Part 382—Disability
Complaint Reporting FormAppendix B to Part 382—Cross-Reference
Table
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41705.

Subpart A—General Provisions§ 382.1§ 382.3
mean?

What is the purpose of this Part?

What do the terms in this rule

In this regulation, the terms listed inthis section have the following
meanings:
Air Carrier Access Act or ACAA
means the Air Carrier Access Act of
1986, as amended, the statute thatprovides the principal authority for thisPart.
Air transportation means interstate or
foreign air transportation, or thetransportation of mail by aircraft, as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102.
Assistive device means any piece ofequipment that assists a passenger witha disability to cope with the effects of
his or her disability. Such devices areintended to assist a passenger with adisability to hear, see, communicate,maneuver, or perform other functions ofdaily life, and may include medical
devices and medications.
Battery-powered mobility aid means
an assistive device that is used byindividuals with mobility impairments
such a wheelchair, a scooter, or a
Segway when it is used as a mobility
device by a person with a mobilityrelated 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
arrangement, to engage in airtransportation.
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 flightschedules that specify the times, days of
the week and places between whichthose flights are performed.
CPAP machine means a continuous
positive airway pressure machine.
Department or DOT means the UnitedStates Department of Transportation.
Direct threat means a significant risk
to the health or safety of others thatcannot be eliminated by a modificationof policies, practices, or procedures, orby the provision of auxiliary aids orservices.
Equivalent alternative means a policy,
practice, or other accommodation thatprovides substantially equivalent
accessibility to passengers withdisabilities, compared to compliancewith a provision of this Part.
Expected maximum flight durationmeans the carrier’s best estimate of thetotal duration of the flight fromdeparture gate to arrival gate, including
taxi time to and from the terminals,
based on the scheduled flight time andfactors 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 destinationgate.
FAA means the Federal Aviation
Administration, an operating
administration of the Department ofTransportation.
Facility means a carrier’s aircraft andany portion of an airport that a carrierowns, leases, or controls (e.g.,
structures, roads, walks, parking lots,
ticketing areas, baggage drop-off andretrieval sites, gates, other boarding
locations, loading bridges) normallyused by passengers or other members of
the public.
High-contrast captioning means
captioning that is at least as easy to readas white letters on a consistent black
background.
Indirect carrier means a person notdirectly involved in the operation of anaircraft who sells air transportation
services to the general public other thanas 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 arecord of such an impairment, or is

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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, andendocrine; or(2) Any mental or psychologicaldisorder, such as mental retardation,organic brain syndrome, emotional ormental 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 beenclassified, or misclassified, as having amental 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 substantiallylimit major life activities but that istreated by an air carrier as constituting
such a limitation;(2) Has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits amajor life activity only as a result of theattitudes of others toward such an
impairment; or(3) Has none of the impairments set
forth in this definition but is treated byan air carrier as having such an
impairment.
On-demand air taxi means an air taxi
operator that carries passengers orproperty and is not a commuter carrier
as defined in this section.
PHMSA means the Pipeline andHazardous Materials Safety
Administration, an operating
administration of the Department ofTransportation.
POC means portable oxygen
concentrator.
Qualified individual with a disability
means an individual with a disability—

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27667(a) Who, as a passenger (referred to asa ‘‘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 toobtain such a ticket;(2) With respect to obtaining airtransportation, or other services or
accommodations required by this Part,(i) Buys or otherwise validly obtains,or makes a good faith effort to obtain, aticket 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 toaccompanying or meeting a traveler,using ground transportation, using
terminal facilities, or obtaining
information about schedules, fares,
reservations, or policies, takes thoseactions necessary to use facilities orservices offered by an air carrier to thegeneral public, with reasonableaccommodations, as needed, provided
by the carrier.
Scheduled service means any flightscheduled 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 theUnited States of America, including its
territories and possessions.
§ 382.5 When are U.S. and foreign carriers
required to begin complying with theprovisions of this Part?

As a U.S. or foreign carrier, you arerequired to comply with therequirements of this Part on May 13,
2009, except as otherwise provided inindividual sections of this Part.
§ 382.7 To whom do the provisions of thisPart apply?

(a) If you are a U.S. carrier, this Partapplies to you with respect to all youroperations and aircraft, regardless of
where your operations take place,
except as otherwise provided in thisPart.
(b) If you are a foreign carrier, thisPart applies to you only with respect toflights you operate that begin or end at
a U.S. airport and to aircraft used forthese flights. For purposes of this Part,a ‘‘flight’’ means a continuous journeyin the same aircraft or with one flightnumber that begins or ends at a U.S.

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27668Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

airport. The following are someexamples 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’’ forpurposes of this Part.
Example 2 to paragraph (b): A passenger
books a journey on a foreign carrier fromNew York to Prague. The foreign carrier flies
nonstop to Frankfurt. The passenger gets off
the plane in Frankfurt and boards aconnecting flight (with a different flightnumber), on the same foreign carrier or adifferent carrier, which goes to Prague. The
New York-Frankfurt leg of the journey is a‘‘flight’’ for purposes of this Part; theFrankfurt-Prague leg is not. On the reverse
routing, the Prague-Frankfurt leg is not acovered 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 fromNew York to Prague. The plane stops forrefueling 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 flightnumber remains the same) and continue toPrague, they remain on a covered flight for
purposes of this Part. This is because theirtransportation takes place on a direct flightbetween 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 Frankfurtoriginating 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.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2(c) As a foreign carrier, you are notsubject to the requirements of this Part
with respect to operations between two
foreign points, even with respect toflights involving code-sharing
arrangements with U.S. carriers. As a
U.S. carrier that participates in a codesharing arrangement with a foreign
carrier with respect to operations
between two foreign points, you (asdistinct from the foreign carrier) areresponsible for ensuring compliancewith the service provisions of subparts
A through C, F through H, and K withrespect to passengers traveling under
your code on such a flight.
Example 1 to paragraph (c): A passenger
buys a ticket from a U.S. carrier for a journeyfrom New York to Prague. The ticket carries
the U.S. carrier’s code and flight number
throughout the entire journey. There is achange of carrier and aircraft in Frankfurt,
and a foreign carrier operates the FrankfurtPrague segment. The foreign carrier is not
subject to the provisions of Part 382 for theFrankfurt-Prague segment. However, the U.S.
carrier must ensure compliance with theapplicable provisions of Part 382 on the
Frankfurt-Prague segment with respect topassengers flying under its code, and the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 operatea charter flight from a foreign airport toa 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 therequirements of this Part.
(e) Unless a provision of this Part
specifies application to a U.S. carrier ora 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 andsecurity regulations having legally
mandatory effect that apply to you.
§ 382.9 What may foreign carriers do ifthey believe a provision of a foreign
nation’s law conflicts with compliance witha 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 ofthis Part, you may request a waiver ofthe 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, SE., Room W96–
322, Washington, DC 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 thisPart;(3) A description of the alternativemeans the carrier will use, if the waiveris granted, to effectively achieve theobjective of the provision of this Part
subject to the waiver or, if applicable, ajustification of why it would be
impossible to achieve this objective inany way.
(d) The Department may grant thewaiver request, or grant the waiver
request subject to conditions, if it
determines that the foreign law applies,that it does preclude compliance with aprovision of this Part, and that thecarrier has provided an effective
alternative means of achieving theobjective of the provisions of this Part
subject to the waiver or have

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence that it would be impossible toachieve this objective in any way.
(e) (1) If you submit a waiver request
on or before September 10, 2008, theDepartment will, to the maximum
extent feasible, respond to the request
before May 13, 2009. If the Department
does not respond to the waiver request
by May 13, 2009, 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 yourimplementation of the policy or practiceduring the time prior to the
Department’s response.
(2) If you submit a waiver request
after September 10, 2008, theDepartment will, to the maximum
extent feasible, respond to the request
by May 13, 2009 or within 180 days ofreceiving it, whichever is later. If the
Department does not respond to thewaiver request by this date, you may
continue to implement the policy orpractice that is the subject of yourrequest until the Department does
respond. However, the Department may
take enforcement action with respect toyour implementation of the policy orpractice during the time between May
13, 2009 and the date of the
Department’s response.
(3) If you submit a waiver request
after September 10, 2008, and therequest pertains to an applicableprovision of the law of a foreign nationthat did not exist on September 10,
2008, you may continue to implement
the policy or practice that is the subjectof 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 withrespect to your implementation of thepolicy or practice during the time prior
to the Department’s response.
(f) Notwithstanding any otherprovision of this section, theDepartment may commence
enforcement action at any time after
May 13, 2009 with respect to the policy
or practice that is the subject of therequest if it finds the request to be
frivolous or dilatory.
(g) If you have not submitted a request
for a waiver under this section withrespect to a provision of this Part, orsuch a request has been denied, you
cannot raise the alleged existence ofsuch a conflict as a defense to an
enforcement action.

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations§ 382.10 How does a U.S. or foreign carrierobtain a determination that it is providing
an equivalent alternative to passengers withdisabilities?

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2(a) As a U.S. or foreign carrier, you
may apply to the Department for adetermination that you are providing anequivalent 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, SE., Room W96–
322, Washington, DC 20590.
(c) Your application must be in
English and include the following
elements:(1) A citation to the specific provisionof this Part concerning which you areproposing an equivalent alternative.
(2) A detailed description of thealternative policy, practice, or otheraccommodation you are proposing touse in place of compliance with theprovision of this Part that you cite, andan explanation of how it provides
substantially equivalent accessibility topassengers with disabilities.
(d) The Department may grant theapplication, or grant the application
subject to conditions, if it determinesthat the proposed facilitation does
provide substantially equivalent
accessibility to passengers withdisabilities, compared to compliancewith the provision of this Part inquestion.
(e) If your application is granted, youwill be deemed to be in compliancewith this Part through implementing theequivalent alternative. If yourapplication is denied, you must
implement this Part as written.
(f)(1) If you submit your application
on or before September 10, 2008, theDepartment will respond to the request
before May 13, 2009 to the maximum
extent feasible. If the Department does
not respond to the application by May
13, 2009, you may implement yourpolicy or practice that is the subject ofyour application until the Department
does respond.
(2) With respect to an application you
make after September 10, 2008, youmust comply with the provisions of thisPart without change from May 13, 2009
until the Department responds to yourapplication.
Subpart B—Nondiscrimination andAccess to Services§ 382.11 What is the general
nondiscrimination requirement of this Part?

(a) As a carrier, you must not do anyof the following things, either directly or

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

through a contractual, licensing, orother arrangement:(1) You must not discriminate against
any qualified individual with adisability, 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 notlimited to, preboarding) that theindividual does not request. However,
you may require preboarding as acondition of receiving certain seating or
in-cabin stowage accommodations, as
specified in §§ 382.83(c), 382.85(b), and382.123(a) of this Part.
(3) You must not exclude a qualified
individual with a disability from ordeny the person the benefit of any airtransportation or related services thatare available to other persons, except
where specifically permitted by thisPart. This is true even if there are
separate or different services available
for individuals with a disability, except
when specifically permitted by anothersection 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 behalfof others, rights protected by this Part or
the Air Carrier Access Act.
(b) If, as an indirect carrier, youprovide facilities or services for othercarriers that are covered by sections
382.17 through 382.157, you must do soin a manner consistent with thosesections.
§ 382.13 Do carriers have to modify
policies, practices, and facilities to ensure
nondiscrimination?

(a) As a carrier, you must modify yourpolicies, practices, and facilities whenneeded to provide nondiscriminatory
service to a particular individual with adisability, consistent with the standardsof section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,as amended.
(b) This requirement is part of yourgeneral nondiscrimination obligation,and is in addition to your duty to makethe specific accommodations requiredby this Part.
(c) However, you are not required tomake modifications that would
constitute an undue burden or would
fundamentally alter your program.
§ 382.15 Do carriers have to make surethat contractors comply with therequirements of this Part?

(a) As a carrier, you must make surethat your contractors that provide
services to the public (including airports
where applicable) meet therequirements of this Part that would

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27669

apply to you if you provided theservices yourself.
(b) As a carrier, you must include anassurance of compliance with this Partin your contracts with any contractorsthat provide services to the public thatare subject to the requirements of thisPart. Noncompliance with thisassurance is a material breach of thecontract on the contractor’s part.
(1) This assurance must commit thecontractor to compliance with allapplicable provisions of this Part in
activities performed on behalf of thecarrier.
(2) The assurance must also commit
the contractor to implementing
directives issued by your CROs under§§ 382.151 through 382.153.
(c) As a U.S. carrier, you must also
include such an assurance ofcompliance in your contracts oragreements of appointment with U.S.
travel agents. You are not required toinclude such an assurance in contracts
with foreign travel agents.
(d) You remain responsible for yourcontractors’ compliance with this Partand for enforcing the assurances in yourcontracts with them.
(e) It is not a defense against an
enforcement action by the Department
under this Part that your noncomplianceresulted from action or inaction by acontractor.
§ 382.17 May carriers limit the number ofpassengers 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 specificallypermitted by this Part.
(b) You must not refuse to provide
transportation to a passenger with adisability because the person’s disability
results in appearance or involuntary
behavior that may offend, annoy, orinconvenience crewmembers or otherpassengers.
(c) You may refuse to provide
transportation to any passenger on thebasis 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 applicablerequirements of a foreign government.
(1) You can determine that there is adisability-related safety basis forrefusing to provide transportation to apassenger with a disability if you areable to demonstrate that the passenger

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27670Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

poses a direct threat (see definition in§ 382.3). In determining whether anindividual poses a direct threat, youmust 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 severityof the risk;(ii) The probability that the potential
harm to the health and safety of others
will actually occur; and(iii) Whether reasonable modificationsof policies, practices, or procedures will
mitigate the risk.
(2) If you determine that the passenger
does pose a direct threat, you mustselect the least restrictive response fromthe point of view of the passenger,
consistent with protecting the healthand safety of others. For example, youmust not refuse transportation to thepassenger if you can protect the healthand safety of others by means short ofa refusal.
(3) In exercising this authority, youmust not act inconsistently with theprovisions 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 abasis relating to the individual’s
disability, you must provide to theperson a written statement of the reason
for the refusal. This statement must
include the specific basis for the
carrier’s opinion that the refusal meetsthe standards of paragraph (c) of thissection or is otherwise specificallypermitted by this Part. You must
provide this written statement to theperson within 10 calendar days of therefusal of transportation.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.21 May carriers limit access totransportation on the basis that apassenger has a communicable disease orother medical condition?

(a) You must not do any of thefollowing things on the basis that apassenger has a communicable diseaseor infection, unless you determine thatthe passenger’s condition poses a direct
threat:(1) Refuse to provide transportation to
the passenger;(2) Delay the passenger’s
transportation (e.g., require thepassenger 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.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001(b) In assessing whether thepassenger’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 publichealth authorities (e.g., the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control or Public HealthService; comparable agencies in othercountries; the World HealthOrganization).
(2) In making this assessment, youmust consider the significance of theconsequences of a communicabledisease and the degree to which it canbe readily transmitted by casual contact
in an aircraft cabin environment.
Example 1 to Paragraph (b)(2): The
common cold is readily transmissible in anaircraft cabin environment but does not havesevere health consequences. Someone with acold would not pose a direct threat.
Example 2 to Paragraph (b)(2): AIDS hasvery severe health consequences but is notreadily transmissible in an aircraft cabin
environment. Someone would not pose adirect threat because he or she is HIVpositive or has AIDS.
Example 3 to Paragraph (b)(2): SARS may
be readily transmissible in an aircraft cabin
environment and has severe healthconsequences. Someone with SARS probably
poses a direct threat.

(c) If a passenger with acommunicable disease meeting thedirect threat criteria of this section gives
you a medical certificate of the kindoutlined 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 themeasures.
(d) If your action under this section
results in the postponement of apassenger’s travel, you must permit thepassenger to travel at a later time (up to
90 days from the date of the postponed
travel) at the fare that would haveapplied to the passenger’s originallyscheduled trip without penalty or, at thepassenger’s discretion, provide a refund
for any unused flights, including return
flights.
(e) If you take any action under thissection 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 witha disability to have a medical certificate
as a condition for being provided
transportation.

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700(b)(1) You may require a medical
certificate for a passenger with adisability—(i) Who is traveling in a stretcher or
incubator;(ii) Who needs medical oxygen during
a flight; or(iii) Whose medical condition is suchthat there is reasonable doubt that theindividual can complete the flightsafely, without requiring extraordinary
medical assistance during the flight.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph, a
medical certificate is a written statementfrom the passenger’s physician sayingthat the passenger is capable ofcompleting 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 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 orcondition that could pose a direct threat
to the health or safety of others on theflight.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph, a
medical certificate is a written statementfrom the passenger’s physician sayingthat the disease or infection would not,under the present conditions in theparticular passenger’s case, becommunicable 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 thetransmission of the disease or infection
to other persons in the normal course ofa flight. A medical certificate under thisparagraph must be dated within 10 daysof the date of the flight for which it ispresented.
(d) As a carrier, you may require thata passenger with a medical certificate
undergo additional medical review by
you if there is a legitimate medical
reason for believing that there has beena significant adverse change in thepassenger’s condition since the issuanceof the medical certificate or that thecertificate significantly understates thepassenger’s risk to the health of otherpersons on the flight. If the results ofthis medical review demonstrate thatthe passenger, notwithstanding the
medical certificate, is likely to be unable
to complete the flight without requiringextraordinary medical assistance (e.g.,

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the passenger has apparent significant
difficulty in breathing, appears to be insubstantial pain, etc.) or would pose adirect threat to the health or safety ofother 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 noticethat 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.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.27 May a carrier require a passenger
with a disability to provide advance noticein order to obtain certain specific services
in connection with a flight?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph(b) of this section and §§ 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 toobtain services or accommodations
required by this Part.
(b) You may require a passenger witha disability to provide up to 72 hours’
advance notice and check in one hour
before the check-in time for the generalpublic to receive carrier-supplied inflight medical oxygen on international
flights, 48 hours’ advance notice andcheck-in one hour before the check-intime 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 thegeneral public to use his/her ventilator,
respirator, CPAP machine or POC.
(c) You may require a passenger witha disability to provide up to 48 hours’
advance notice and check in one hour
before the check-in time for the generalpublic to receive the following services
and accommodations. The services
listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3)of this section are optional; you are notrequired 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 theaircraft 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 suchpackaging;(6) Accommodation for a group of ten
or more qualified individuals with adisability, who make reservations andtravel as a group; andVerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001(7) Provision of an on-board
wheelchair on an aircraft with morethan 60 seats that does not have anaccessible 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 8hours or more;(10) Accommodation of a passenger
who has both severe vision and hearing
impairments (see § 382.29(b)(4)).
(d) If the passenger with a disability
provides the advance notice you
require, consistent with this section, fora service that you must provide (seeparagraphs (c)(4) through (c)(10) of thissection) or choose to provide (seeparagraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of thissection), you must provide therequested service or accommodation.
(e) Your reservation and otheradministrative systems must ensure thatwhen passengers provide the advancenotice that you require, consistent withthis section, for services andaccommodations, the notice iscommunicated, clearly and on time, tothe people responsible for providing therequested 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 toanother flight (e.g., because of a flightcancellation), you must, to the
maximum extent feasible, provide theaccommodation on the new flight. If the
new flight is another carrier’s flight, youmust provide the maximum feasible
assistance to the other carrier inproviding the accommodation thepassenger requested from you.
(g) If a passenger does not meetadvance notice or check-in requirements
you establish consistent with thissection, you must still provide theservice or accommodation if you can doso by making reasonable efforts, without
delaying the flight.
§ 382.29 May a carrier require a passenger
with a disability to travel with a safetyassistant?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph(b) of this section, you must not requirethat a passenger with a disability travelwith another person as a condition of
being provided air transportation.
(b) You may require a passenger witha disability in one of the following
categories to travel with a safetyassistant as a condition of being
provided air transportation, if you
determine that a safety assistant isessential for safety:(1) A passenger traveling in a stretcher
or incubator. The safety assistant for

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27671

such a person must be capable ofattending to the passenger’s in-flight
medical needs;(2) A passenger who, because of amental disability, is unable tocomprehend or respond appropriately tosafety 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 isunable 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 somemeans of communication with carrier
personnel that is adequate both topermit transmission of the safety
briefing required by 14 CFR 121.57(a)(3)and (a)(4), 14 CFR 135,117(b) or thesafety regulations of a foreign carrier’s
government, as applicable, and toenable the passenger to assist in his or
her own evacuation of the aircraft in theevent of an emergency. You may requirea passenger with severe hearing andvision 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 tomeet 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 travelwith a safety assistant, contrary to theindividual’s self-assessment that he or
she is capable of travelingindependently, you must not charge forthe 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, thatan individual with both severe hearing
and vision impairments must travelwith a safety assistant if you determine
that—(i) The means of communication thatthe individual has explained to you
does not adequately satisfy theobjectives identified in paragraph (b)(4)of this section; or(ii) The individual proposes toestablish communication by means offinger 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

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27672Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

or safety assistant that you do not
require, you may charge for thetransportation of that person.
(d) If, because there is not a seatavailable on a flight for a safety assistantwhom the carrier has determined to benecessary, a passenger with a disability
holding a confirmed reservation isunable to travel on the flight, you mustcompensate the passenger with adisability 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 safetyassistant, you must deem the safetyassistant to have checked in at the sametime as the passenger with a disability.
(f) Concern that a passenger with adisability may need personal careservices (e.g., assistance in using
lavatory facilities or with eating) is nota basis for requiring the passenger totravel with a safety assistant. You must
explain this clearly in training or
information you provide to youremployees. You may advise passengers
that your personnel are not required toprovide such services.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.31 May carriers impose special
charges on passengers with a disability forproviding services and accommodations
required by this rule?

(a) Except as otherwise provided inthis 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 forservices that this Part does not require.
(b) You may charge a passenger for
the use of more than one seat if thepassenger’s size or condition (e.g., use ofa 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 adisability, you must not charge a fee tothe passenger who is consequently
unable to make a reservation orpurchase a ticket on that site for using
another booking method (e.g., making areservation by phone). If a discount ismade available to a passenger whobooks a flight using an inaccessible website, you must make that discountavailable to a passenger with a disability
who cannot use the web site and whopurchases a ticket from you using
another method.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001§ 382.33 May carriers impose otherrestrictions on passengers with a disability
that they do not impose on otherpassengers?

(a) As a carrier, you must not subject
passengers with a disability torestrictions that do not apply to otherpassengers, except as otherwise
permitted in this Part (e.g., advancenotice 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 ina holding area or other location in orderto receive transportation, services, or
accommodations;(3) Making passengers sit on blankets
on the aircraft;(4) Making passengers wear badges orother special identification (e.g., similar
to badges worn by unaccompanied
minors); or(5) Otherwise mandating separate
treatment for passengers with adisability, unless permitted or requiredby 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 requirepassengers with a disability to sign arelease or waiver of liability in order toreceive transportation or to receive
services or accommodations for adisability.
(b) You must not require passengers
with a disability to sign waivers of
liability for damage to or loss ofwheelchairs or other assistive devices,or for the loss of, death of, or injury toservice animals. Carriers may note preexisting damage to an assistive device tothe same extent that carriers do thiswith respect to other checked baggage.
Subpart C—Information for
Passengers§ 382.41 What flight-related informationmust carriers provide to qualified
individuals with a disability?

As a carrier, you must provide thefollowing information, on request, toqualified individuals with a disability or
persons making inquiries on their behalf
concerning the accessibility of theaircraft expected to make a particularflight. The information you provide
must be specific to the aircraft you
expect to use for the flight unless it isunfeasible for you to do so (e.g., because
unpredictable circumstances such as
weather or a mechanical problem
require substitution of another aircraft

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that could affect the location oravailability of an accommodation). The
required information is:(a) The specific location of seats, ifany, with movable armrests (i.e., by row
and seat number);(b) The specific location of seats (i.e.,
by row and seat number) that thecarrier, consistent with this Part, does
not make available to passengers with adisability (e.g., exit row seats);(c) Any aircraft-related, servicerelated or other limitations on theability to accommodate passengers witha disability, including limitations on theavailability of level-entry boarding to
the aircraft at any airport involved withthe flight. You must provide thisinformation to any passenger who statesthat he or she uses a wheelchair forboarding, even if the passenger does not
explicitly request the information.
(d) Any limitations on the availabilityof storage facilities, in the cabin or in
the cargo bay, for mobility aids or otherassistive devices commonly used bypassengers with a disability, including
storage in the cabin of a passenger’s
wheelchair as provided in §§ 382.67 and382.123 of this Part;(e) Whether the aircraft has anaccessible lavatory; and(f) The types of services to passengers
with a disability that are or are notavailable on the flight.
§ 382.43 Must information and reservation
services of carriers be accessible toindividuals 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 makethis service available to individuals who
use a text telephone (TTY), whether via
your own TTY, voice relay, or otheravailable technology, as follows:(1) You must provide access to TTY
users during the same hours as thetelephone service is available to thegeneral public.
(2) You must ensure that the responsetime for answering calls and the level ofservice provided to TTY users issubstantially equivalent to the responsetime and level of service provided to thegeneral public (i.e., non-TTY users).
(3) You must not subject TTY users tocharges 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 yourinformation and reservation service forthe general public, you must also list
your TTY number if you have one. If
you do not have a TTY number, youmust state how TTY users can reachyour information and reservation
service (e.g., via a voice relay service).

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations(5) If you are a foreign carrier, youmust meet this requirement by May 13,2010.
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a)do not apply to you in any country inwhich the telecommunications
infrastructure does not readily permit
compliance.
§ 382.45 Must carriers make copies of thisPart available to passengers?

(a) As a carrier, you must keep acurrent 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 makethis copy available for review by any
member of the public on request.
(b) If you have a Web site, it must
provide notice to consumers that they
can obtain a copy of this Part in anaccessible format from the Departmentof Transportation by any of thefollowing means:(1) For calls made from within the
United States, by telephone via the TollFree 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 Web site (http://
airconsumer.ost.dot.gov).
Subpart D—Accessibility of Airport
Facilities

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.51 What requirements must carriers
meet concerning the accessibility of airport
facilities?

(a) As a carrier, you must comply withthe 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 airtransportation are readily accessible toand usable by individuals withdisabilities, including individuals who
use wheelchairs. You are deemed tocomply with this obligation if the
facilities meet requirements applying toplaces of public accommodation underDepartment of Justice (DOJ) regulations
implementing Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
(2) With respect to any situation inwhich boarding and deplaning by levelentry loading bridges or accessible
passenger lounges to and from an

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

aircraft is not available, you must ensurethat there is an accessible route between
the gate and the area from which aircraft
are boarded (e.g., the tarmac in asituation in which level-entry boarding
is not available). An accessible route isone meeting the requirements of theAmericans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG),
sections 4.3.3 through 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 applicablerequirements of the Department ofTransportation’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 yourairport accessibility responsibility under
this Part and that of the airport operator
under applicable section 504 and ADA
rules of the Department ofTransportation and Department ofJustice.
(5) In cooperation with the airport
operator and in consultation with local
service animal training organization(s),you must provide animal relief areas forservice 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 audiovisual displays that are capable ofdisplaying captions and that are locatedin any portion of the terminal to which
any passengers have access on May 13,
2009. The captioning must be highcontrast insofar as is feasible.
(7) You must replace any televisions
and other audio-visual displays
providing passengers with safety
briefings, information, or entertainmentthat do not have high-contrast
captioning capability with equipmentthat does have such capability wheneversuch equipment is replaced in thenormal course of operations and/or
whenever areas of the terminal in whichsuch equipment is located areundergoing substantial renovation or
expansion.
(8) If you newly acquire televisions
and other audio-visual displays forpassenger safety briefings, information,or entertainment on or after May 13,
2009, such equipment must have highcontrast captioning capability.
(b) As a carrier, you must ensure thatpassengers with a disability can readily
use all terminal facilities you own,
lease, or control at a foreign airport. In
the case of foreign carriers, thisrequirement applies only to terminal
facilities that serve flights covered by§ 382.7 of this part.

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27673(1) This means that passengers with adisability must be able to move readily
through such terminal facilities to get toor from the gate and any other area fromwhich passengers board the aircraft you
use for such flights (e.g., the tarmac in
the case of flights that do not use levelentry boarding). This obligation is inaddition 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 otherappropriate means consistent with thesafety and dignity of passengers with adisability.
(c) As a foreign carrier, you must meetthe requirements of this section by May
13, 2010. As a U.S. carrier, you mustmeet the requirements of paragraph (b)of this section by May 13, 2010.
§ 382.53 What information must carriers
give individuals with a vision or hearing
impairment at airports?

(a)(1) As a U.S. carrier, you mustensure that passengers with a disability
who identify themselves as persons
needing visual or hearing assistancehave prompt access to the same
information provided to otherpassengers 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 thisdoes 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 eachgate, ticketing area, and customer
service desk that you own, lease, or
control at any U.S. airport. At foreign
airports, you must make thisinformation 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 paragraphwhere the airport has effective control
over the covered gates, ticketing areas,and customer service desks, you and the
airport are jointly responsible forcompliance.
(b) The information you must provide
under paragraph (a) of this section
includes, but is not limited to, thefollowing: Information concerning flightsafety, ticketing, flight check-in, flightdelays or cancellations, schedulechanges, boarding information,connections, gate assignments, checking
baggage, volunteer solicitation on
oversold flights (e.g., offers of

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27674Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

compensation for surrendering areservation), individuals being paged byairlines, aircraft changes that affect thetravel of persons with disabilities, andemergencies (e.g., fire, bomb threat).
(c) With respect to information on
claiming baggage, you must provide theinformation to passengers who identify
themselves as persons needing visual or
hearing assistance no later than you
provide this information to otherpassengers.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.55 May carriers impose security
screening procedures for passengers withdisabilities that go beyond TSA
requirements or those of foreign
governments?

(a) All passengers, including thosewith disabilities, are subject to TSA
security screening requirements at U.S.
airports. In addition, passengers at
foreign airports, including those withdisabilities, may be subject to security
screening measures required by law of
the country in which the airport islocated.
(b) If, as a carrier, you impose security
screening procedures for passengers
with disabilities that go beyond thosemandated by TSA (or, at a foreign
airport, beyond the law of the country
in which the airport is located), youmust ensure that they meet thefollowing requirements:(1) You must use the same criteria for
applying security screening procedures
to passengers with disabilities as toother passengers.
(2) You must not subject a passenger
with a disability to special screening
procedures because the person istraveling with a mobility aid or otherassistive device if the person using theaid 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, mayconceal a weapon or other prohibited
item.
(ii) You may conduct security
searches of qualified individuals with adisability whose aids activate thesecurity system in the same manner as
for other passengers.
(3) You must not require private
security screenings of passengers with adisability to a greater extent, or for any
different reason, than for otherpassengers.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph(c) of this section, if a passenger with adisability requests a private screening ina timely manner, you must provide it intime for the passenger to enplane.
(d) If you use technology that canconduct an appropriate screening of apassenger with a disability without

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

necessitating a physical search of theperson, you are not required to provide
a private screening.
§ 382.57 What services must carriers
provide if their automated kiosks areinaccessible?

As a carrier, if your automated kiosks
in airport terminals cannot readily be
used by a passenger with a disability forsuch functions as ticketing andobtaining boarding passes that thekiosks make available to otherpassengers, you must provide
equivalent service to the passenger (e.g.,
by assistance from your personnel inusing the kiosk or allowing thepassenger to come to the front of theline at the check-in counter).
Subpart E—Accessibility of Aircraft§ 382.61 What are the requirements formovable aisle armrests?

(a) As a carrier, you must ensure thataircraft with 30 or more passenger seats
on which passenger aisle seats havearmrests are equipped with movableaisle armrests on at least one-half of theaisle 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 thesemovable aisle armrests are provided
proportionately in all classes of service
in the cabin. For example, if 80 percentof the aisle seats in which passengers
with mobility impairments may sit arein coach, and 20 percent are in firstclass, then 80 percent of the movableaisle armrests must be in coach, with 20
percent in first class.
(d) For aircraft equipped withmovable aisle armrests, you must
configure cabins, or establish
administrative systems, to ensure thatpassengers with mobility impairments
or other passengers with a disability canreadily identify and obtain seating inrows 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 tocomply with the requirements of thissection. However, if you replace any ofan aircraft’s aisle seats with newly
manufactured seats, the new seats must
include movable aisle armrests as
required by this section. However, anaircraft is never required to have
movable aisle armrests on more than
one half of the aisle seats.

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700(f) As a foreign carrier, you mustcomply with the requirements ofparagraphs (a) through (d) of this section
with respect to new aircraft you operatethat were initially ordered after May 13,
2009 or which are delivered after May
13, 2010. As a U.S. carrier, therequirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (d),and (e) of this section applies to you
with respect to new aircraft you operatethat were initially ordered after April 5,
1990, or which are delivered after April5, 1992. As a U.S. carrier, paragraph (c)of this section applies to you withrespect to new aircraft you operate thatwere initially ordered after May 13,
2009 or which were delivered after May
13, 2010.
(g) As a foreign carrier, you mustcomply with the requirements ofparagraph (e) of this section withrespect to seats ordered after May 13,2009.
§ 382.63 What are the requirements foraccessible lavatories?

(a) As a carrier, you must ensure thataircraft with more than one aisle inwhich lavatories are provided shall
include at least one accessible lavatory.
(1) The accessible lavatory must
permit a qualified individual with adisability to enter, maneuver within asnecessary to use all lavatory facilities,
and leave, by means of the aircraft’s onboard wheelchair.
(2) The accessible lavatory must
afford privacy to persons using the onboard wheelchair equivalent to thatafforded ambulatory users.
(3) The lavatory shall provide door
locks, accessible call buttons, grab bars,
faucets and other controls, anddispensers usable by qualified
individuals with a disability, including
wheelchair users and persons withmanual impairments.
(b) With respect to aircraft with only
one aisle in which lavatories areprovided, you may, but are not required
to, provide an accessible lavatory.
(c) You are not required to retrofit
cabin interiors of existing aircraft tocomply with the requirements of thissection. However, if you replace alavatory on an aircraft with more than
one aisle, you must replace it with anaccessible lavatory.
(d) As a foreign carrier, you mustcomply with the requirements ofparagraph (a) of this section withrespect to new aircraft you operate thatwere initially ordered after May 13,
2009 or which are delivered after May
13, 2010. As a U.S. carrier, thisrequirement applies to you with respect
to new aircraft you operate that were
initially ordered after April 5, 1990, or

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
which were delivered after April 5,
1992.
(e) As a foreign carrier, you mustcomply with the requirements ofparagraph (c) of this section beginning
May 13, 2009. As a U.S. carrier, theserequirements 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?

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2(a) As a carrier, you must equip
aircraft that have more than 60
passenger seats, and that have anaccessible lavatory (whether or nothaving 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 thisrequirement.
(b) If a passenger asks you to provide
an on-board wheelchair on a particularflight, 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 onboard wheelchair.
(2) You may require the passenger toprovide 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 aremovable or removable, adequate
occupant restraint systems, a backrestheight that permits assistance topassengers in transferring, structurallysound handles for maneuvering theoccupied chair, and wheel locks oranother adequate means to prevent chair
movement during transfer or turbulence.
(2) The chair must be designed to becompatible with the maneuvering space,aisle width, and seat height of theaircraft on which it is to be used, andto be easily pushed, pulled, and turnedin the cabin environment by carrier
personnel.
(d) As a foreign carrier, you must meetthis requirement as of May 13, 2010. As
a U.S. carrier, you must meet thisrequirement by May 13, 2009.

(a) As a carrier, you must ensure that
there is a priority space in the cabin of

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001§ 382.69 What requirements must carriers
meet concerning the accessibility of videos,DVDs, and other audio-visual presentations
shown on-aircraft to individuals who aredeaf or hard of hearing?

(a) As a carrier, you must ensure that
all new videos, DVDs, and other audiovisual displays played on aircraft forsafety purposes, and all such new
audio-visual displays played on aircraft
for informational purposes that werecreated under your control, are highcontrast 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 November 10, 2009.
(c) Between May 13, 2009 andNovember 9, 2009, U.S. carriers mustensure that all videos, DVDs, and otheraudio-visual displays played on aircraft
for safety purposes have open
captioning or an inset for a sign
language interpreter, unless suchcaptioning or inset either wouldinterfere with the video presentation soas to render it ineffective or would not
be large enough to be readable, in whichcase these carriers must use anequivalent non-video alternative fortransmitting 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 January 8,
2010.
§ 382.71 What other aircraft accessibility
requirements apply to carriers?

§ 382.67 What is the requirement forpriority space in the cabin to store
passengers’ wheelchairs?

VerDate Aug<31>2005

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 morepassenger seats; and(b) This space must be other than theoverhead compartments and under-seat
spaces routinely used for passengers’
carry-on items.
(c) As a foreign carrier, you must meetthe requirement of paragraph (a) of thissection for new aircraft ordered after
May 13, 2009 or delivered after May 13,
2010. As a U.S. carrier, this requirement
applies to you with respect to new
aircraft you operate that were orderedafter April 5, 1990, or which weredelivered after April 5, 1992.

(a) As a carrier, you must maintain all
aircraft accessibility features in proper
working order.

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27675(b) You must ensure that any
replacement or refurbishing of theaircraft cabin or its elements does not
reduce the accessibility of that element
to a level below that specified in thisPart.
Subpart F—Seating Accommodations§ 382.81 For which passengers must
carriers make seating accommodations?

As a carrier, you must provide thefollowing seating accommodations to
the following passengers on request, if
the passenger self-identifies to you as
having a disability specified in thissection and the type of seatingaccommodation in question exists on
the particular aircraft. Once thepassenger self-identifies to you, youmust ensure that the information isrecorded and properly transmitted topersonnel responsible for providing theaccommodation.
(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 aretrained in the location and proper useof movable aisle armrests, including
appropriate transfer techniques. You
must ensure that aisle seats withmovable 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 careattendant who will be performing afunction for the individual during theflight that airline personnel are notrequired to perform (e.g., assistancewith eating);(2) When a passenger with a vision
impairment is traveling with a reader/assistant who will be performing
functions for the individual during theflight;(3) When a passenger with a hearing
impairment is traveling with aninterpreter who will be performing
functions for the individual during theflight; or(4) When you require a passenger totravel with a safety assistant (see§ 382.29).
(c) For a passenger with a disability
traveling with a service animal, youmust provide, as the passenger requests,
either a bulkhead seat or a seat otherthan a bulkhead seat.
(d) For a passenger with a fused or
immobilized leg, you must provide abulkhead seat or other seat that provides
greater legroom than other seats, on the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27676

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

side of an aisle that betteraccommodates the individual’s
disability.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 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 topassengers before the day of the flight),
you must comply with the requirementsof § 382.81 of this Part by any of thefollowing methods:(1) You may ‘‘block’’ an adequate
number of the seats used to provide theseating accommodations required by§ 382.81.
(i) You must not assign these seats topassengers who do not meet the criteriaof § 382.81 until 24 hours before thescheduled departure of the flight.
(ii) At any time up until 24 hours
before the scheduled departure of theflight, you must assign a seat meeting
the requirements of this section to apassenger with a disability meeting one
or more of the requirements of § 382.81
who requests it, at the time thepassenger initially makes the request.
(iii) If a passenger with a disability
specified in § 382.81 does not make arequest at least 24 hours before thescheduled departure of the flight, youmust meet the passenger’s request to theextent practicable, but you are notrequired to reassign a seat assigned toanother 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’’ forpassengers with a disability.
(i) You must provide notice that all
passengers assigned these seats (otherthan passengers with a disability listedin § 382.81 of this Part) are subject tobeing reassigned to another seat if
necessary to provide a seatingaccommodation required by thissection.
(ii) You may provide this noticethrough your computer reservation
system, verbal information provided byreservation personnel, ticket notices,gate announcements, counter signs, seatcards or notices, frequent-flier literature,or other appropriate means.
(iii) You must assign a seat meeting
the requirements of this section to apassenger with a disability listed in§ 382.81 of this Part who requests theaccommodation at the time thepassenger makes the request. You may
require such a passenger to check in andrequest the seating accommodation atleast one hour before the standard
check-in time for the flight. If all
designated priority seats that would
accommodate the passenger have been

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

assigned to other passengers, you must
reassign the seats of the otherpassengers as needed to provide therequested accommodation.
(iv) If a passenger with a disability
listed in § 382.81 does not check in atleast an hour before the standard checkin time for the general public, you mustmeet the individual’s request to theextent practicable, but you are notrequired to reassign a seat assigned toanother passenger in order to do so.
(b) If you assign seats to passengers,
but not until the date of the flight, youmust use the ‘‘priority seating’’
approach of paragraph (a)(2) of thissection.
(c) If you do not provide advance seat
assignments to passengers, you mustallow passengers specified in § 382.81 toboard the aircraft before otherpassengers, including other‘‘preboarded’’ passengers, so that thepassengers needing seatingaccommodations can select seats thatbest meet their needs.
(d) As a carrier, if you wish to use a
different method of providing seating
assignment accommodations topassengers with disabilities from thosespecified in this subpart, you mustobtain 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 incircumstances not covered by § 382.81 (a)through (d)?

As a carrier, you must provide thefollowing seating accommodations to apassenger who self-identifies as having
a disability other than one in the four
categories listed in § 382.81 (a) through(d) of this Part and as needing a seat
assignment accommodation in order toreadily access and use the carrier’s airtransportation services:(a) As a carrier that assigns seats inadvance, 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 requirementsof this section as follows:(i) When a passenger with a disability
not described in § 382.81(a) through (d)of this Part makes a reservation morethan 24 hours before the scheduled
departure time of the flight, you are notrequired to offer the passenger one of
the seats blocked for the use ofpassengers with a disability listed under§ 382.81.
(ii) However, you must assign to thepassenger any seat, not already assigned
to another passenger that accommodates
the passenger’s needs, even if that seat

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

is not available for assignment to thegeneral passenger population at the timeof the request.
(2) If you use the ‘‘designated priority
seats’’ mechanism of § 382.83(a)(2) ofthis Part, you must implement therequirements of this section as follows:(i) When a passenger with a disability
not described in § 382.81 makes areservation, you must assign to thepassenger any seat, not already assigned
to another passenger, that
accommodates the passenger’s needs,
even if that seat is not available forassignment 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 theflight.
(ii) If such a passenger is assigned toa designated priority seat, he or she issubject to being reassigned to anotherseat 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 toboard the aircraft before otherpassengers, including other‘‘preboarded’’ passengers, so that theindividuals needing seatingaccommodations can select seats thatbest meet their needs.
(c) If you assign seats to passengers,
but not until the date of the flight, youmust 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 adisability 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 fromindividuals for accommodations under
this subpart, you must comply with
FAA and applicable foreign government
safety requirements, including thosepertaining to exit seating (see 14 CFR
121.585 and 135.129).
(c) If a passenger’s disability results ininvoluntary 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, youmust offer to let the passenger sit in thatlocation as an alternative to being
refused transportation.
(d) If you have already provided a seat
to a passenger with a disability tofurnish an accommodation required bythis subpart, you must not (except in the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
circumstance described in§ 382.85(a)(2)(ii)) reassign that passenger
to another seat in response to a
subsequent request from anotherpassenger with a disability, without thefirst passenger’s consent.
(e) You must never denytransportation to any passenger in orderto provide accommodations required bythis subpart.
(f) You are not required to furnish
more than one seat per ticket or toprovide a seat in a class of service otherthan the one the passenger has
purchased in order to provide anaccommodation required by this Part.
Subpart G—Boarding, Deplaning, andConnecting Assistancerwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.91 What assistance must carriers
provide to passengers with a disability inmoving within the terminal?

(a) As a carrier, you must provide or
ensure the provision of assistancerequested by or on behalf of a passenger
with a disability, or offered by carrier or
airport operator personnel and acceptedby a passenger with a disability, intransportation between gates to make aconnection to another flight. If thearriving flight and the departing
connecting flight are operated bydifferent carriers, the carrier that
operated the arriving flight (i.e., the onethat operates the first of the two flightsthat are connecting) is responsible forproviding or ensuring the provision ofthis assistance, even if the passenger
holds a separate ticket for the departing
flight. It is permissible for the two
carriers to mutually agree that thecarrier operating the departing
connecting flight (i.e., the second flightof the two) will provide this assistance,
but the carrier operating the arriving
flight remains responsible under thissection for ensuring that the assistanceis provided.
(b) You must also provide or ensure
the provision of assistance requested byor on behalf of a passenger with adisability, or offered by carrier or airport
operator personnel and accepted by apassenger with a disability, in movingfrom 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 theterminal entrance (or a vehicle pick-up
point adjacent to the entrance after anarriving 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 abrief stop upon the passenger’s request
at the entrance to a rest room (including

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

an accessible rest room whenrequested). As a carrier, you arerequired to make such a stop only if therest room is available on the route to thedestination of the enplaning, deplaning,or connecting assistance and you canmake the stop without unreasonable
delay. To receive such assistance, thepassenger must self-identify as being an
individual with a disability needing theassistance.
(c) As a carrier at a U.S. airport, youmust, on request, in cooperation withthe 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 toprovide or ensure the provision ofassistance to passengers withdisabilities in moving through theterminal (e.g., between the terminal
entrance and the gate, between gate andaircraft, from gate to a baggage claimarea), you must assist passengers who
are unable to carry their luggage becauseof a disability with transporting theirgate-checked or carry-on luggage. You
may request the credible verbal
assurance that a passenger cannot carrythe luggage in question. If a passenger
is unable to provide credible assurance,
you may require the passenger toprovide documentation as a condition ofproviding this service.
§ 382.93 Must carriers offer preboarding topassengers with a disability?

As a carrier, you must offer
preboarding to passengers with adisability who self-identify at the gate asneeding additional time or assistance toboard, stow accessibility equipment, orbe seated.
§ 382. 95 What are carriers’ generalobligations with respect to boarding anddeplaning assistance?

(a) As a carrier, you must promptly
provide or ensure the provision ofassistance requested by or on behalf ofpassengers with a disability, or offeredby carrier or airport operator personnel
and accepted by passengers with adisability, in enplaning and deplaning.
This assistance must include, as needed,
the services of personnel and the use ofground 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 asotherwise 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

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27677

deplaning by level-entry loading bridges
or accessible passenger lounges is notavailable.
§ 382.97 To which aircraft does therequirement to provide boarding anddeplaning assistance through the use oflifts apply?

The requirement of section 382.95(b)of this Part to provide boarding anddeplaning assistance through the use oflifts applies with respect to all aircraftwith 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, theJetstream 31 and 32, the Beech 1900 (Cand D models), and the Embraer EMB–
120;(c) Any other aircraft model
determined by the Department ofTransportation to be unsuitable forboarding and deplaning assistance bylift, ramp, or other suitable device.
The Department will make such a
determination if it concludes that—(1) No existing boarding anddeplaning assistance device on themarket will accommodate the aircraftwithout a significant risk of serious
damage to the aircraft or injury topassengers or employees, or(2) Internal barriers are present in theaircraft that would preclude passengers
who use a boarding or aisle chair fromreaching a non-exit row seat.
§ 382.99 What agreements must carriers
have with the airports they serve?

(a) As a carrier, you must negotiate ingood faith with the airport operator ofeach U.S. airport described in§ 382.95(b) to ensure the provision oflifts for boarding and deplaning wherelevel-entry loading bridges are notavailable.
(b) You must have a written, signed
agreement with the airport operator
allocating responsibility for meeting theboarding and deplaning assistancerequirements of this subpart between or
among the parties. For foreign carriers,
with respect to all covered aircraft, thisrequirement becomes effective May 13,
2010.
(c) For foreign carriers, the agreementwith 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 May 13,
2010.
(d) Under the agreement, you may, asa carrier, require that passengers
wishing to receive boarding anddeplaning assistance requiring the useof a lift for a flight check in for the flight
one hour before the standard check-in

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27678Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

time for the flight. If the passenger
checks in after this time, you must
nonetheless provide the boarding anddeplaning assistance by lift if you cando 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 thisagreement available, on request, torepresentatives of the Department ofTransportation.
§ 382.101 What other boarding anddeplaning assistance must carriers
provide?

When level-entry boarding anddeplaning assistance is not required to
be provided under this subpart, youmust, as a carrier, provide or ensure theprovision of boarding and deplaning
assistance by any available means towhich the passenger consents. However,
you must never use hand-carrying (i.e.,
directly picking up the passenger’s bodyin the arms of one or more carrier
personnel to effect a level change thepassenger needs to enter or leave theaircraft), even if the passenger consents,
unless this is the only way of evacuating
the individual in the event of an
emergency. The situations in whichlevel-entry boarding is not required but
in which you must provide thisboarding and deplaning assistanceinclude, but are not limited to, thefollowing:(a) The boarding or deplaning process
occurs at a U.S. airport that is not acommercial 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 toan exception from the lift boarding anddeplaning 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 yourcontrol (e.g., unusually severe weather;
unexpected mechanical problems)
prevent the use of a lift.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.103 May a carrier leave a passenger
unattended in a wheelchair or other device?

As a carrier, you must not leave apassenger who has requested assistancerequired by this subpart unattended by
the personnel responsible for enplaning,
deplaning, or connecting assistance in aground wheelchair, boarding
wheelchair, or other device, in which

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

the passenger is not independently
mobile, for more than 30 minutes. Thisrequirement applies even if anotherperson (e.g., family member, personalcare attendant) is accompanying thepassenger, unless the passenger
explicitly waives the obligation.
§ 382.105 What is the responsibility ofcarriers 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 acarrier you may rely on the services
provided by the airport operator to meetthe requirements of this subpart. If theservices provided by the airport
operator are not sufficient to meet therequirements of this subpart, you must
supplement the airport operator’s
services to ensure that theserequirements are met. If you believe you
are precluded by law fromsupplementing the airport operator’s
services, you may apply for a conflict oflaws 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 bycarrier personnel and accepted bypassengers with a disability, as follows:(a) Assistance in moving to and fromseats, as part of the enplaning anddeplaning processes;(b) Assistance in preparation foreating, such as opening packages andidentifying food;(c) If there is an on-board wheelchairon the aircraft, assistance with the useof the on-board wheelchair to enable theperson to move to and from a lavatory;(d) Assistance to a semi-ambulatory
person in moving to and from thelavatory, not involving lifting or
carrying the person; or(e) Assistance in stowing andretrieving carry-on items, including
mobility aids and other assistive devices
stowed in the cabin (see also 382.91(c)).
To receive such assistance, thepassenger must self-identify as being an
individual with a disability needing theassistance.
(f) Effective communication withpassengers 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

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

delays, connecting gates at the next
airport).
§ 382.113 What services are carriers not
required to provide to passengers with adisability on board the aircraft?

As a carrier, you are not required toprovide extensive special assistance toqualified individuals with a disability.
For purposes of this section, extensive
special assistance includes thefollowing activities:(a) Assistance in actual eating;(b) Assistance within the restroom orassistance at the passenger’s seat withelimination functions; and(c) Provision of medical services.
§ 382.115 What requirements apply to onboard safety briefings?

As a carrier, you must comply withthe following requirements with respect
to on-board safety briefings:(a) You must conduct an individual
safety briefing for any passenger whererequired 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 havesuch a briefing except as provided inparagraph (a) of this section.
(c) You must not require any
passenger with a disability todemonstrate that he or she has listened
to, read, or understood the information
presented, except to the extent thatcarrier personnel impose such arequirement on all passengers withrespect to the general safety briefing.
You must not take any action adverse toa qualified individual with a disabilityon the basis that the person has not‘‘accepted’’ the briefing.
(d) When you conduct an individual
safety briefing for a passenger with adisability, you must do so as
inconspicuously and discreetly as
possible.
(e) The accessibility requirements for
onboard video safety presentations thatcarriers 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 apassenger 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 theaircraft.
(2) On a flight segment scheduled totake 8 hours or more, you may, as acondition of permitting a service animal
to travel in the cabin, require the

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
passenger using the service animal toprovide documentation that the animal
will not need to relieve itself on theflight or that the animal can relieve
itself in a way that does not create ahealth 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 mustremain 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 isusing the animal, you must offer thepassenger the opportunity to move withthe animal to another seat location, if
present on the aircraft, where the animal
can be accommodated.
(d) As evidence that an animal is aservice animal, you must accept
identification cards, other written
documentation, presence of harnesses,
tags, or the credible verbal assurances ofa qualified individual with a disability
using the animal.
(e) If a passenger seeks to travel withan 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 thepassenger’s 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 oremotional 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 asan accommodation for air travel and/or
for activity at the passenger’s
destination;(3) The individual providing theassessment is a licensed mental healthprofessional, and the passenger is under
his or her professional care; and(4) The date and type of the mental
health professional’s license and thestate or other jurisdiction in which it
was issued.
(f) You are never required toaccommodate certain unusual service
animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles,
ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service
animals in the cabin. With respect toother unusual or exotic animals that arepresented as service animals (e.g.,
miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a
U.S. carrier you must determine
whether any factors preclude their

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 aforeign 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 carryservice 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 daysof the incident.
(h) You must promptly take all steps
necessary to comply with foreign
regulations (e.g., animal healthregulations) needed to permit the legaltransportation of a passenger’s service
animal from the U.S. into a foreign
airport.
(i) Guidance concerning the carriageof service animals generally is found in
the preamble of 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 thatpassengers with a disability who
identify themselves as needing visual or
hearing assistance have prompt accessto the same information provided toother passengers on the aircraft as
described in paragraph (b) of thissection, to the extent that it does notinterfere with crewmembers’ safety
duties as set forth in FAA andapplicable 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 aircraftchanges that affect the travel of persons
with disabilities, diversion to a different
airport, scheduled departure and arrivaltime, boarding information, weather
conditions at the flight’s destination,
beverage and menu information,connecting gate assignments, baggage
claim, individuals being paged byairlines, and emergencies (e.g., fire orbomb threat).

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27679

Subpart I—Stowage of Wheelchairs,
Other Mobility Aids, and Other
Assistive Devices§ 382.121 What mobility aids and otherassistive devices may passengers with adisability bring into the aircraft cabin?

(a) As a carrier, you must permit
passengers with a disability to bring thefollowing 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, orapplicable foreign government
requirements concerning security,
safety, and hazardous materials withrespect 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 administerthem such as syringes or auto-injectors,
vision-enhancing devices, and POCs,
ventilators and respirators that use nonspillable 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 countassistive devices (including the kinds ofitems listed in paragraph (a) of thissection) toward a limit on carry-on
baggage.
§ 382.123 What are the requirements
concerning priority cabin stowage forwheelchairs and other assistive devices?

(a) The following rules apply to thestowage of passengers’ wheelchairs orother 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, withpriority over other items brought onto
the aircraft by other passengers or crew
enplaning at the same airport, consistent
with FAA, PHMSA, TSA, or applicableforeign government requirements
concerning security, safety, andhazardous materials with respect to thestowage of carry-on items. You mustmove 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 thepassenger’s wheelchair, even if these
items were stowed in the priority
stowage area before the passenger

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27680Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

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 apassenger with a disability who takes
advantage of the opportunity to
preboard the aircraft can stow otherassistive devices in this area, withpriority over other items (except
wheelchairs) brought onto the aircraftby other passengers enplaning at thesame 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 takeadvantage 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 spaceprovided for in § 382.67 of this Part
while fully assembled but will fit if
wheels or other components can beremoved without the use of tools, youmust remove the applicable components
and stow the wheelchair in thedesignated space. In this case, you muststow the removed components in areas
provided for stowage of carry-on
luggage.
(c) You must not use the seatstrapping method of carrying awheelchair in any aircraft you order
after May 13, 2009 or which aredelivered after May 13, 2011. Any suchaircraft must have the designatedpriority stowage space required bysection 382.67, and you must permit
passengers to use the space as provided
in this section 382.123.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 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, orother assistive devices in the baggage
compartment if an approved stowage
area is not available in the cabin or theitems cannot be transported in the cabinconsistent with FAA, PHMSA, TSA, orapplicable foreign government
requirements concerning security,
safety, and hazardous materials withrespect to the stowage of carry-on items.
(b) You must give wheelchairs, othermobility aids, and other assistive
devices priority for stowage in thebaggage compartment over other cargo
and baggage. Only items that fit into thebaggage compartment and can betransported consistent with FAA,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

PHMSA, TSA, or applicable foreign
government requirements concerning
security, safety, and hazardous materials
with respect to the stowage of items inthe baggage compartment need betransported. Where this priority resultsin other passengers’ baggage being
unable to be carried on the flight, youmust make your best efforts to ensurethat the other baggage reaches thepassengers’ 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, andother assistive devices as close as
possible to the door of the aircraft, sothat passengers may use their own
equipment to the extent possible, except(1) Where this practice would beinconsistent with Federal regulations
governing transportation security or thetransportation of hazardous materials; or(2) When the passenger requests thereturn 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 ensurethat passengers’ wheelchairs, othermobility aids, and other assistive
devices are among the first items
retrieved from the baggage
compartment.
§ 382.127 What procedures apply tostowage of battery-powered mobility aids?

(a) Whenever baggage compartment
size and aircraft airworthinessconsiderations do not prohibit doing so,
you must, as a carrier, accept apassenger’s battery-powered wheelchairor other similar mobility device,including the battery, as checkedbaggage, consistent with therequirements of 49 CFR 175.10(a)(15)
and (16) and the provisions ofparagraphs (b) through (f) of thissection.
(b) You may require that passengers
with a disability wishing to havebattery-powered wheelchairs or othersimilar mobility devices transported ona flight check in one hour before thecheck-in time for the general public. If
the passenger checks in after this time,
you must nonetheless carry thewheelchair or other similar mobility
device if you can do so by making areasonable effort, without delaying theflight.
(c) If the battery on the passenger’s
wheelchair or other similar mobility
device has been labeled by the
manufacturer as non-spillable asprovided in 49 CFR 173.159(d)(2), or if
a battery-powered wheelchair with aspillable battery can be loaded, stored,
secured and unloaded in an uprightposition, you must not require the

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

battery to be removed and separately
packaged. Notwithstanding thisrequirement, you must remove andpackage separately any battery that isinadequately secured to a wheelchair or,
for a spillable battery, is contained in awheelchair 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 betransported.
(d) When it is necessary to detach thebattery from the wheelchair, you must,upon request, provide packaging for thebattery 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 otherthan those you normally use for thispurpose.
(e) You must not disconnect thebattery on wheelchairs or other mobility
devices equipped with a non-spillable
battery completely enclosed within acase or compartment integral to thedesign 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, othermobility 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 thedisassembly and reassembly of theirwheelchairs, other mobility aids, andother assistive devices. You must carryout 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, othermobility aids, and other assistive
devices to the passenger in thecondition in which you received them.
§ 382.131 Do baggage liability limits apply
to mobility aids and other assistive
devices?

With respect to transportation towhich 14 CFR Part 254 applies, thelimits to liability for loss, damage, ordelay concerning wheelchairs or otherassistive devices provided in Part 254
do not apply. The basis for calculating
the compensation for a lost, damaged, or

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
destroyed wheelchair or other assistive
device shall be the original purchaseprice of the device.

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.133 What are the requirements
concerning the evaluation and use ofpassenger-supplied electronic devices thatassist passengers with respiration in thecabin 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 thepassenger cabin during airtransportation, a ventilator, respirator,
continuous positive airway pressuremachine, or an FAA-approved portable
oxygen concentrator (POC) on all flights
operated on aircraft originally designed
to have a maximum passenger capacityof more than 19 seats, unless:(1) the device does not meet
applicable FAA requirements for
medical portable electronic devices anddoes not display a manufacturer’s labelthat indicates the device meets those
FAA requirements, or(2) the device cannot be stowed andused 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 adisability to use a ventilator, respirator,
continuous positive airway pressuremachine, 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 originallydesigned to have a maximum passenger
capacity of more than 19 seats unless:(1) The device does not meetrequirements for medical portableelectronic devices set by the foreign
carrier’s government if suchrequirements exist and/or it does not
display a manufacturer’s label thatindicates the device meets thoserequirements, or(2) The device does not meetrequirements for medical portableelectronic devices set by the FAA for
U.S. carriers and does not display a
manufacturer’s label that indicates thedevice meets those FAA requirements incircumstances 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 andused in the passenger cabin consistent

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

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 uponinquiry from an individual concerning
the use in the cabin during airtransportation of a ventilator, respirator,
continuous positive airway machine, oran FAA-approved POC. The following
information must be provided:(1) The device must be labeled by the
manufacturer to reflect that it has beentested to meet applicable FAA
requirements for medical portableelectronic devices;(2) The maximum weight anddimensions (length, width, height) of
the device to be used by an individualthat can be accommodated in theaircraft cabin consistent with FAA
safety requirements;(3) The requirement to bring anadequate number of batteries as outlined
in paragraph (f)(2) of this section and toensure that extra batteries carried
onboard to power the device are
packaged and protected from shortcircuit and physical damage inaccordance 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/herflight in order to determine the required
number of batteries for his/herparticular ventilator, respirator,
continuous positive airway pressuremachine, or POC;
(5) Any requirement, if applicable, of
the carrier operating the flight for anindividual 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 ofparagraph 382.23(b)(1)(ii) of this Part topresent to the operating carrier at the
airport a physician’s statement (medical
certificate) prepared in accordance withapplicable federal aviation regulations.
(d) As a foreign carrier operating
flights to, from or within the UnitedStates, you must provide theinformation during the reservation
process as indicated in paragraphs (d)(1)through (d)(7) of this section uponinquiry from an individual concerning
the use in the cabin during airtransportation on such a flight of aventilator, respirator, continuous
positive airway machine, or POC of akind equivalent to an FAA-approved
POC for U.S. carriers:

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27681(1) The device must be labeled by the
manufacturer to reflect that it has beentested to meet requirements for medical
portable electronic devices set by theforeign carrier’s government if suchrequirements exist;(2) The device must be labeled by the
manufacturer to reflect that it has beentested 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 anddimensions (length, width, height) of
the device to be used by an individualthat can be accommodated in theaircraft cabin consistent with the safety
regulations of the foreign carrier’s
government;(4) The requirement to bring anadequate number of batteries as outlined
in paragraph (f)(2) of this section and toensure that extra batteries carried
onboard to power the device are
packaged in accordance with applicablegovernment 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/herflight in order to determine the required
number of batteries for his/herparticular ventilator, respirator,
continuous positive airway pressuremachine, or POC;
(6) Any requirement, if applicable, of
the carrier operating the flight for anindividual 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 theoperating carrier at the airport aphysician’s statement (medical
certificate).
(e) In the case of a codeshare itinerary,
the carrier whose code is used on theflight 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 suchdevices in the cabin, or provide suchinformation on behalf of the codesharecarrier operating the flight.
(f)(1) As a U.S. or foreign carrier
subject to paragraph (a) or (b) of thissection, you must inform any individual
who has advised you that he or sheplans to operate his/her device in theaircraft cabin, within 48 hours of his/her

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27682Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

making a reservation or 24 hours before
the scheduled departure date of his/herflight, whichever date is earlier, of the
expected maximum flight duration ofeach segment of his/her flight itinerary.
(2) You may require an individual tobring an adequate number of fully
charged batteries onboard, based on thebattery manufacturer’s estimate of thehours of battery life while the device isin use and the information provided in
the physician’s statement, to power thedevice 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 denyboarding to the individual inaccordance with 14 CFR 382.19(c) andin that event you must provide a written
explanation to the individual inaccordance with 14 CFR 382.19(d).
Subpart J—Training and
Administrative Provisions

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.141 What training are carriers
required to provide for their personnel?

(a) As a carrier that operates aircraftwith 19 or more passenger seats, youmust provide training, meeting therequirements of this paragraph, for all
personnel who deal with the travelingpublic, as appropriate to the duties ofeach employee.
(1) You must ensure training to
proficiency concerning:(i) The requirements of this Part andother applicable Federal regulations
affecting the provision of air travel topassengers with a disability;(ii) Your procedures, consistent withthis Part, concerning the provision of air
travel to passengers with a disability,
including the proper and safe operationof any equipment used to accommodate
passengers with a disability; and(iii) For those personnel involved inproviding boarding and deplaning
assistance, the use of the boarding anddeplaning assistance equipment used by
the carrier and appropriate boarding anddeplaning assistance procedures thatsafeguard the safety and dignity ofpassengers.
(2) You must also train such
employees with respect to awarenessand appropriate responses to passengers
with a disability, including persons
with physical, sensory, mental, andemotional disabilities, including how to
distinguish among the differing abilities
of individuals with a disability.
(3) You must also train these
employees to recognize requests forcommunication accommodation fromindividuals whose hearing or vision is
impaired and to use the most common

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

methods for communicating with these
individuals that are readily available,
such as writing notes or taking care toenunciate clearly, for example. Training
in sign language is not required. You
must also train these employees torecognize requests for communicationaccommodation from deaf-blind
passengers and to use established meansof communicating with these passengers
when they are available, such as passingout Braille cards if you have them,reading an information sheet that apassenger provides, or communicatingwith a passenger through an interpreter,
for example.
(4) You must consult withorganizations representing persons withdisabilities in your home country whendeveloping your training program andyour policies and procedures. If suchorganizations are not available in yourhome country, you must consult withindividuals with disabilities and/orinternational 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 resultin each such employee receiving
refresher training at least once every
three years. The program must describe
how employee proficiency will bemaintained.
(6) You must provide, or ensure thatyour contractors provide, training to thecontractors’ employees concerning
travel by passengers with a disability.
This training is required only for thosecontractor employees who deal directlywith the traveling public, and it must be
tailored to the employees’ functions.
Training for contractor employees mustmeet the requirements of paragraphs(a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(7) The employees you designate asCROs, for purposes of § 382.151 of thisPart, must receive training concerning
the requirements of this Part and theduties of a CRO.
(8) Personnel subject to training
required under this Part, who are
already employed on May 13, 2009,
must be trained one time in the changes
resulting from the reissuance of thisPart.
(b) If you are a carrier that operates
only aircraft with fewer than 19
passenger seats, you must provide
training for flight crewmembers andappropriate personnel to ensure thatthey are familiar with the matters listed
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of thissection and that they comply with therequirements of this Part.

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700§ 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 therequirements 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 thisregulation. The one-time training for
CROs about the changes to Part 382
must take place by May 13, 2009. For
employees who have already received
CRO training, this training may belimited 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 aspart of the next scheduled recurrent
training after May 13, 2009 for eachsuch employee or within one year after
May 13, 2009, whichever comes first.
(3) For crewmembers subject totraining requirements under 14 CFR Part
121 or 135 whose employment in any
given position commences after May 13,
2009, before they assume their duties;
and(4) For other personnel whose
employment in any given positioncommences after May 13, 2009, 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 therequirements of paragraph (a) of thissection for all personnel who deal withthe traveling public in connection withflights that begin or end at a U.S.
airport, as appropriate to the duties ofeach 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 accordancewith paragraph (a)(1) of this section, by
May 13, 2009.
(2) For crewmembers and otherpersonnel who are employed on May
13, 2009, within one year after that date;(3) For crewmembers whose
employment commences after May 13,
2010, before they assume their duties;(4) For other personnel whose
employment in any given positioncommences after May 13, 2010, or a datewithin 60 days after the date on which
they assume their duties; and(5) For crewmembers and otherpersonnel whose employment in any
given position commences after May 13,

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
2009, but before May 13, 2010, by May
13, 2010 or a date 60 days after the dateof their employment, whichever is later.
§ 382.145 What records concerning
training must carriers retain?

(a) As a carrier that operates aircraftwith 19 or more passenger seats, youmust incorporate procedures
implementing the requirements of thisPart 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, andpassenger service office personnel. You
must retain these records for review by
the Department on the Department’s
request. If, upon such review, theDepartment determines that any portionof these materials must be changed inorder 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 andEnforcement Procedures

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2§ 382.151 What are the requirements forproviding Complaints Resolution Officials?

(a) As a carrier providing scheduled
service, or a carrier providing
nonscheduled service using aircraftwith 19 or more passenger seats, youmust designate one or more CROs.
(b) As a U.S. carrier, you must makea CRO available at each airport you
serve during all times you are operating
at that airport. As a foreign carrier, youmust make a CRO available at each
airport serving flights you operate thatbegin 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 thepassenger. 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) inwhich you make your services available
to the general public.
(c) You must make passengers with adisability aware of the availability of a
CRO and how to contact the CRO in thefollowing circumstances:(1) In any situation in which any
person complains or raises a concern
with your personnel about

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

discrimination, accommodations, orservices with respect to passengers witha disability, and your personnel do not
immediately resolve the issue to thecustomer’s satisfaction or provide arequested accommodation, yourpersonnel must immediately inform thepassenger of the right to contact a CRO
and then contact a CRO on thepassenger’s behalf or provide thepassenger a means (e.g., a phone, aphone card plus the location and/or
phone number of the CRO available atthe airport). Your personnel must
provide this information to thepassenger in a format he or she can use.
(2) Your reservation agents,
contractors, and Web sites must provide
information equivalent to that requiredby paragraph (c)(1) of this section topassengers with a disability using thoseservices who complain or raise aconcern about a disability-related issue.
(d) Each CRO must be thoroughlyfamiliar with the requirements of thisPart and the carrier’s procedures withrespect to passengers with a disability.
The CRO is intended to be the carrier’s‘‘expert’’ in compliance with therequirements of this Part.
(e) You must ensure that each of yourCROs has the authority to makedispositive resolution of complaints onbehalf of the carrier. This means that the
CRO must have the power to overrulethe decision of any other personnel,
except that the CRO is not required to
be given authority to countermand adecision of the pilot-in-command of anaircraft based on safety.
§ 382.153 What actions do CROs take oncomplaints?

When a complaint is made directly toa CRO for a carrier providing scheduled
service, or a carrier providing
nonscheduled service using aircraftwith 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 ofcarrier personnel has resulted in a
violation of a provision of this Part, theCRO must take, or direct other carrier
personnel to take, whatever action isnecessary to ensure compliance withthis Part.
(b) If an alleged violation of aprovision of this Part has alreadyoccurred, and the CRO agrees that a
violation has occurred, the CRO must
provide to the complainant a written
statement setting forth a summary of thefacts and what steps, if any, the carrier
proposes to take in response to theviolation.

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

27683(c) If the CRO determines that thecarrier’s action does not violate aprovision of this Part, the CRO must
provide to the complainant a written
statement including a summary of thefacts and the reasons, under this Part,
for the determination.
(d) The statements required to beprovided under this section must informthe complainant of his or her right topursue DOT enforcement action under
this Part. The CRO must provide thestatement in person to the complainantat the airport if possible; otherwise, it
must be forwarded to the complainant
within 30 calendar days of thecomplaint.
§ 382.155 How must carriers respond to
written complaints?

(a) As a carrier providing scheduled
service, or a carrier providing
nonscheduled service using aircraftwith 19 or more passenger seats, youmust 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 thedate of the contact, if available, andenclose any written response you
received from the CRO.
(c) As a carrier, you are not required
to respond to a complaint postmarked ortransmitted more than 45 days after thedate of the incident, except forcomplaints referred to you by the
Department of Transportation.
(d) As a carrier, you must make adispositive written response to a written
disability complaint within 30 days of
its receipt. The response mustspecifically admit or deny that a
violation of this Part has occurred.
(1) If you admit that a violation has
occurred, you must provide to thecomplainant a written statement setting
forth a summary of the facts and thesteps, if any, you will take in responseto the violation.
(2) If you deny that a violation has
occurred, your response must include asummary of the facts and your reasons,under this Part, for the determination.
(3) Your response must also informthe complainant of his or her right topursue DOT enforcement action under
this Part.
§ 382.157 What are carriers’ obligations forrecordkeeping and reporting on disabilityrelated complaints?

(a) For the purposes of this section, adisability-related complaint means a
specific written expression of
dissatisfaction received from, or

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

27684Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

submitted on behalf, of an individualwith a disability concerning a difficulty
associated with the person’s disability,
which the person experienced whenusing or attempting to use an air
carrier’s or foreign carrier’s services.
(b) If you are a carrier covered by thisPart, conducting passenger operations
with at least one aircraft having adesigned seating capacity of more than
60 passengers, this section applies toyou. As a foreign carrier, you arecovered by this section only withrespect to disability-related complaints
associated with any flight segment
originating or terminating in the UnitedStates.
(c) You must categorize disabilityrelated complaints that you receive
according to the type of disability andnature of complaint. Data concerning apassenger’s disability must be recorded
separately in the following areas: vision
impaired, hearing impaired, vision andhearing impaired, mentally impaired,communicable disease, allergies (e.g.,food allergies, chemical sensitivity),
paraplegic, quadriplegic, otherwheelchair, oxygen, stretcher, otherassistive 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 notaccessible, airport not accessible,
advance notice dispute, seatingaccommodation, failure to provide
adequate or timely assistance, damage toassistive device, storage and delay ofassistive device, service animal
problem, unsatisfactory information,and other.
(d) You must submit an annual reportsummarizing the disability-related
complaints that you received during theprior 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 forcomplaints received during the priorcalendar year. You must makesubmissions through the World Wide

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

Web except for situations where you candemonstrate that you would suffer
undue hardship if not permitted tosubmit the data via paper copies, disks,or e-mail, and DOT has approved an
exception. All fields in the form must becompleted; carriers are to enter ‘‘0’’where there were no complaints in agiven category. Each annual report must
contain the following certification
signed by your authorized
representative: ‘‘I, the undersigned, docertify that this report has been
prepared under my direction inaccordance with the regulations in 14
CFR Part 382. I affirm that, to the bestof my knowledge and belief, this is atrue, 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 orcreation 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 codesharerelationship, you must comply withparagraphs (c) through (e) of this sectionfor—(i) Disability-related complaints you
receive from or on behalf of passengers
with respect to difficulties encounteredin connection with service you provide;(ii) Disability-related complaints you
receive from or on behalf of passengers
when you are unable to reach agreementwith your codeshare partner as towhether the complaint involves service
you provide or service your codesharepartner provides; and(iii) Disability-related complaints
forwarded by another carrier orgovernmental agency with respect todifficulties encountered in connection
with service you provide.
(2) As either carrier in a codesharerelationship, you must forward to yourcodeshare partner disability-related
complaints you receive from or on
behalf of passengers with respect todifficulties encountered in connection
with service provided by your codesharing partner.

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700(g) Each carrier, except for carriers incodeshare situations, shall comply withparagraphs (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 orgovernmental agency with respect todifficulties encountered in connection
with service it provides.
(h) Carriers that do not submit theirdata via the Web shall use the disabilityrelated complaint data form specified inAppendix A to this Part when filingtheir annual report summarizing thedisability-related complaints theyreceived. 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
DOT?

How are complaints filed with(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 ofTransportation 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 ofTransportation, 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 CFRPart 302.
(c) You must file a formal complaint
under this Part within six months of theincident on which the complaint isbased in order to ensure that the
Department of Transportation will
investigate the matter.
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR227685

ER13MY08.000</GPH>

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:54 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR2

ER13MY08.001</GPH>

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2

27686

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Part 382 in finding material in the new,renumbered Part 382.

Appendix B to Part 382—CrossReference TableThe Department is providing the following
table to assist users familiar with the current

SECTION NUMBERS: OLD AND NEW RULES
Old section(382.x)New section(382.x)General provisions:
1 ...............................................
3 ...............................................
5 ...............................................
7 ...............................................
9 ...............................................
Aircraft accessibility:
21(a)(1) ....................................
21(a)(2) ....................................
21(a)(3) ....................................
21(a)(4) ....................................
21(e) and (f) .............................
Airport accessibility:
23 .............................................
(New) ........................................
Services and information:
31 .............................................
31(c) .........................................
33 .............................................
35 .............................................
37 .............................................
38 .............................................
39(a) .........................................
39(b) .........................................
40 and 40a ...............................
41 .............................................
43(a) .........................................
43(b) .........................................
43(c) .........................................
45(a) .........................................
45(b) .........................................
45(c) .........................................
45(d) .........................................
47(a) .........................................
47(b) .........................................
49 .............................................
51 .............................................
53 .............................................
55(a) .........................................
55(b) .........................................
55(c) .........................................
55 .............................................
Administrative provisions:
61 .............................................
63(c) and (d) ............................
65(a) .........................................
65(b) .........................................
65(c) and (d) ............................

Subject

1 .....................................................
7 .....................................................
3 .....................................................
11, 13 .............................................
15 ...................................................

Purpose.
Applicability.
Definitions.
Non-discrimination generally.
Contractors.

61 ...................................................
67 ...................................................
63 ...................................................
65 ...................................................
71 ...................................................

Movable armrests.
Stowage space in cabin for passenger wheelchair.
Accessible lavatories.
Carrier-supplied on-board wheelchair.
Aircraft accessibility: miscellaneous.

51 ...................................................
53 ...................................................

General.
Vision/hearing impairments.

19 ...................................................
17 ...................................................
25, 27 .............................................
29 ...................................................
87(a) ..............................................
81 through 87 ................................
91 through 105 ..............................
111 through 119 ............................
99 ...................................................
121 through 133 ............................
129(b) ............................................
131 .................................................
35 ...................................................
41 ...................................................
115 .................................................
119 .................................................
45 ...................................................
43 ...................................................
69 ...................................................
55 ...................................................
21 ...................................................
23 ...................................................
117 .................................................
33 ...................................................
33 ...................................................
31 ...................................................

Refusal of transportation.
Number limits.
Advance notice requirements.
Safety assistants (formerly ‘‘attendants’’).
Seat assignments.
Seating accommodations.
Enplaning, deplaning and connecting assistance.
Assistance in cabin.
Mechanical lifts.
Stowage of assistive devices.
Timely return of assistive devices.
Liability limits.
Liability waivers.
Access to information (general).
Individual safety briefings.
Access to information in airport and aircraft.
Availability of copy of rule.
TTY’s and reservations systems.
Accessibility of videos on aircraft.
Security screening.
Communicable diseases.
Medical certificates.
Service animals.
Sitting on blankets.
Restricting movement.
Charges for accommodations.

141, 143 .........................................
145 .................................................
151, 153 .........................................
155, 157 .........................................
159 .................................................

Training.
Manuals; directed changes.
Complaints Resolution Officials.
Written complaints to carriers.
Complaints to DOT.

[FR Doc. 08–1228 Filed 5–7–08; 9:02 am]

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES2BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:10 May 12, 2008

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\13MYR2.SGM

13MYR227687