FINAL REGULATORY EVALUATION

FINAL RULE

NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR TRAVEL; 

ACCESSIBILITY OF AIRCRAFT AND STOWAGE OF WHEELCHAIRS

(PART 382 OF TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary

October 2013
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................iii

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Regulatory Background..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Federal Agency Criteria for Regulatory Evaluations..................................................... 3

1.3 U.S. and Foreign Carriers Subject to DOT’s Final Rule................................................ 3

CHAPTER 2. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 4

CHAPTER 3. COSTS TO AFFECTED ENTITIES.................................................................. 7

3.1 Cost to Carriers.................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Cost to Passengers with a Disability ................................................................................. 9

3.3 Cost to Other Passengers................................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER 4. BENEFITS .......................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 5. REQUIREMENT TO LABEL PRIORITY STOWAGE........................15

CHAPTER 6. COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS............................................... 18

CHAPTER 7. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS................................................. 19
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is issuing a final rule (rule) to amend 

sections 382.67 and 382.123(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 382.67 

requires U.S. carriers and foreign carriers operating flights that begin or end at a U.S. airport to 

have a priority space (a closet or similar space) for stowing a folding, manual passenger 

wheelchair in the cabin of any aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats. Section 382.123(c) 

prohibits the use of the seat-strapping method (strapping a folding wheelchair across a row of 

aircraft seats) for stowing a wheelchair in the cabin of any aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009 or 

delivered after May 13, 2011. 

Information has since been received that many affected aircraft could not install such a 

priority space without sacrificing passenger seats. Because DOT intends to prevent 

discrimination against passengers with disabilities without imposing arbitrary requirements, 

restrictions, or prohibitions on carriers, we now amend the regulations to allow the seat-strapping 

method as an alternative for stowing at least one wheelchair. We are also amending the 

regulation to require carriers to install a sign or placard prominently on the in-cabin closet 

indicating that wheelchairs and other assistive devices are to be stowed in this area with priority 

over other items brought onto the aircraft by other passengers or crew, including crew luggage. 

This Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE), dated September 2013, offers estimates of the costs and

benefits of these amendments..

Impact of Allowing Seat-Strapping

Costs

The final rule to allow carriers to use the seat-strapping method as an alternative to 

complying with the current requirement to provide a priority space for single wheelchair stowage 

will not impose any mandatory additional costs on carriers, except in those instances when a 

carrier chooses to use the seat-strapping method that results in added costs for extra seatstrapping kits for the stowage of a second wheelchair, without displacing other passengers. As a 

result of this situation, carriers could incur added costs for the purchase of extra seat-strapping 

kits. An estimation of the most likely potential costs of extra seat-strapping kits is difficult to 

quantify monetarily because of a multitude of uncertain factors. Because of this uncertainty, a 
iv

worst-case scenario approach has been employed in this evaluation to estimate the upward bound 

(or highest) potential cost of compliance. From a worst-case standpoint, this evaluation 

estimates that an FAA accepted seat-strapping kit will cost $200 and the total cost of compliance 

of the rule for the acquisition of extra or second seat-strapping kits on both U.S. and foreign 

carriers will most likely not exceed $0.6 million present value, at a 7% discount rate, over the 

next 20 years, as summarized in Table 1.

If a carrier chooses to use the seat-strapping method, the carrier will be required to pay

denied boarding compensation, as set forth in 14 CFR Part 250, to passengers holding confirmed 

reservations who are not able to travel on a flight because their seats are used to stow a 

passenger’s wheelchair. With that being said, the cost of providing denied boarding 

compensation will be low because the occasions when it will be required are expected to be 

infrequent (requiring the coincidence of an aircraft with 100 or more seats, a full flight, a carrier 

using seat-strapping, and a passenger with a disability who brings a manual folding wheelchair 

on the trip and wants to stow it in the cabin). Furthermore, the seat-strapping method might 

impose costs of damage or delayed stowage and return of wheelchairs on passengers with 

disabilities and on the carriers on which they fly, but a review of the Department’s consumer 

complaint database and discussions with the industry produce no evidence that such 

consequences are likely to result. Passengers without a disability might also be required to forgo 

their seats on a full flight in order to accommodate a wheelchair, but the Department has not 

received any complaints regarding this practice. Nonetheless, in view of these concerns from 

persons with disabilities and disability organizations, as well as the potential impact of priority

stowage space on other passengers, the Department asked for comments on these issues in its 

previously published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The comments received in 

response to the NPRM produced no evidence to support any of these potential concerns. A more 

detailed discussion of these concerns is shown in the DOT responses to comments section of the 

rule.

Benefits

The DOT estimates that the rule will permit the installation of an additional row of 3

seats on 80 to 90 percent of single-aisle aircraft that cannot fit a priority stowage space within 
v

their planned cabin designs. Availability of 3 more seats will provide carriers with an estimated 

minimum annual gross revenue gain of $15,600 per affected aircraft ($12,480 in net revenue, 

assuming that marginal cost represents 20 percent of revenue). If the expected ticket price or the 

incidence of full flights is greater than previously estimated, the net benefits will be substantially

greater. Table 1 summarizes these minimum benefits, which amount to $243 million to $273

million present value over 20 years.

*Estimate assumes the row of seats removed contains three seats, though in a 

small number of aircraft only a two-seat row will have to be removed. 

Although not shown in Table 1, the rule will likely generate additional unquantifiable 

benefits to passengers with disabilities by requiring stowage of a second wheelchair by carriers 

that use the seat-strapping method, if stowing the second passenger wheelchair does not displace 

additional passengers. 

Impact of Labeling Stowage Compartment Requirement

The Department also asked for comments in the NPRM regarding whether carriers should 

be required to label priority stowage space in their aircraft cabin. After considering the 

comments received, the Department has decided to require carriers that use a closet to stow a 

wheelchair to install a label on the closet indicating that manual wheelchairs and other assistive 

devices have priority over other items brought onto the aircraft. Based on the expectation of a 

cost of $1.75 per placard and an installation cost between $9 and $10 dollars, the estimated cost 
vi

of this requirement ranges from $15,700 to $21,400, at a 7% discount rate, over the next 20 

years. As for the benefits from requiring carriers to label priority stowage space, we are unable 

to quantify them. Non-monetary benefits of visually identifying the priority stowage space 

derive from ensuring that other passengers and/or airline employees know that manual 

wheelchairs and other assistive devices have priority in the in-cabin closets of aircraft over other 

carry-on items or crew luggage. This will reduce arguments over which items should be placed 

in the in-cabin closet and increase the likelihood that manual wheelchairs and other assistive 

devices will be transported in such closets where they are less likely to be damaged than if they

were transported in the cargo compartment. 
vii

Conclusions

The DOT believes that the rule will result in very low costs and large benefits to both 

U.S. and foreign carriers. A review of the Department’s consumer complaint database and 

discussions with the industry lead DOT to conclude that the rule will have no significant 

negative impacts on passengers with disabilities or others and will permit carriers to 

accommodate up to three additional passengers on many flights if no passenger wishes to stow a 

wheelchair in the cabin. The final rule will not apply to small entities.

While DOT requested from the public any information that would improve the accuracy

of its estimates or aid the Department in determining whether the seat-strapping method of 

stowing at least one wheelchair offers advantages or disadvantages that have not been considered 

in this final regulatory evaluation, none were submitted by interested parties.
1

CHAPTER 1.

OVERVIEW

1.1 Regulatory Background

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) prohibits discrimination by U.S. and foreign 

carriers against passengers with disabilities. (See 49 U.S.C. 41705) Its implementing regulation, 

14 CFR Part 382 (Part 382), contains detailed standards and requirements to ensure carriers 

provide nondiscriminatory service to passengers with disabilities. A requirement that U.S. 

carriers provide in-cabin space for a folding passenger wheelchair was originally adopted in 

1990. (55 FR 8007) At that time the Department’s intention was that new aircraft would have a 

designated space (e.g., a closet or similar compartment) in which one passenger’s wheelchair 

could be stowed. The practice of seat-strapping (placing a wheelchair across a row of seats using 

a strap kit that complies with applicable Federal Aviation Administration or foreign government

regulations on the stowage of cargo in the cabin compartment) was not authorized in the 

regulatory text or even mentioned in the original rulemaking but was subsequently permitted 

under Department enforcement policy as an alternative to compliance with the regulation’s 

requirement with respect to accommodating a passenger’s manual folding wheelchair in the 

cabin on covered aircraft (aircraft with a design passenger seat capacity of 100 or more seats that 

were ordered after April 5, 1990, or delivered after April 5, 1992).

Part 382 was updated on May 13, 2008, to cover foreign air carriers, among other 

provisions. (73 FR 27614) The Department determined in the final rule issued in 2008 that it 

was best not to retain the seat-strapping policy in the new rule with respect to new aircraft (i.e., 

aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009, or delivered after May 13, 2011),

1

and required, consistently

with the intent of the original 1990 rule, that new aircraft be capable of accommodating a 

passenger’s wheelchair in a priority stowage space in the cabin. See 14 CFR 382.123(c). The 

Department made this decision because of concerns that seat-strapping: (1) is an awkward way

of transporting a wheelchair in the cabin; (2) can result in less timely stowage and return of the 

passenger’s wheelchair; (3) can be more conspicuous and bring unwanted attention to passengers 

with disabilities; (4) can more likely result in damage to the passenger’s wheelchair; and (5) can 

result in last-minute surprise denials of service to other passengers holding confirmed tickets on 

 

1

See 73 FR 27614 and DOT Docket Nos. 19482; 22298; 23999 at www.regulations.gov. 
2

full flights. Existing covered aircraft were not required to be retrofitted, however, and airlines 

could continue to use seat-strapping on those aircraft.

Within six months of issuance of the May 13, 2008, final rule, the Department received 

two requests to continue the use of seat-strapping. The Department also received a request to 

stow a passenger’s manual folding wheelchair in a designated cargo stowage space as an 

alternative to stowing the passenger’s wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft. These requests were 

submitted pursuant to the “equivalent alternative” provision of the May 13, 2008, final rule, 

which allows carriers to request a determination that a carrier’s policy, practice, or other 

accommodation provides substantially equivalent accessibility to passengers with disabilities, as 

compared with that provided under a specified provision of Part 382. (See 14 CFR 382.9) 

The Department denied the two requests to continue the use of seat-strapping because it 

was contrary to the explicit language of the rule and because a change in the substance of the rule 

must be addressed through rulemaking. (See Response to Application of JetBlue Airways Corp. 

for an Equivalent Alternative Determination from 14 CFR 382.123(c), Docket DOT-OST-2008-

0273-0063 (filed July 22, 2009); Response to Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Equivalent 

Alternative Determination from 14 CFR 382.123(c), Docket DOT-OST-2008-0273-0064 (filed 

July 22, 2009).) The Department, however, granted a request to stow a passenger’s manual 

folding wheelchair in a designated cargo stowage space, as an alternative to stowing the 

wheelchair in the cabin, on a one-year trial basis, subject to numerous conditions to ensure the 

same or greater accessibility to persons with a disability. (See Response to Application of 

Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A. for an Equivalent Alternative Determination from 14 

CFR 382.67 and 14 CFR 382.123, Docket DOT-OST-2008-0273-0101.)

On June 3, 2011, the Department published an NPRM titled “Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Accessibility of Aircraft and Stowage of Wheelchairs” in the 

Federal Register. The Department announced in the NPRM that it was considering amending the 

rule addressing the stowage of wheelchairs in aircraft cabins. 

The Department sought comment on whether it should modify the provisions in the 

May 13, 2008, rule pertaining to the stowage of one passenger’s manual folding wheelchair in 

the cabin of aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats (§382.67) in order to allow the continued 

use of the seat-strapping method. Whenever we reference passenger-seating capacity in this or 

other economic or civil rights aviation rulemakings, we are referring to the manufacturer’s 
3

designed seating capacity. The Department asked a series of questions in seven broad categories 

to assist it in determining the impact of seat-strapping on passengers with a disability or other 

members of the traveling public. The comments and DOT’s responses to the NPRM published 

on June 3, 2011, are shown in the “Comments and Responses” section of the final rule.

1.2 Federal Agency Criteria for Regulatory Evaluations

Final changes to Federal regulations must undergo certain economic analyses. Executive 

Order 12866 requires Federal agencies to: (1) develop FREs to assess the potential compliance 

costs and benefits of each final rule for review by decision makers; (2) adopt a regulation only

upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs; and 

(3) determine whether or not the projected costs of the final rule are likely to have an impact on 

the economy of $100 million or more per year. If the latter were the case, the final rule would

constitute an economically significant regulatory action, requiring development of a detailed 

regulatory impact analysis.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 19802requires agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small entities. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that small 

entities are not unnecessarily or disproportionately burdened by Federal rules.

1.3 U.S. and Foreign Carriers Subject to DOT’s Final Rule

In December 2008, there were 50 U.S. carriers and 117 foreign carriers reporting the 

required disability-related complaint data to DOT.3 As stated previously, the changes in this 

rulemaking affect only those carriers operating aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats, a 

number somewhat less than these totals.

 

2

5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/regflex.html.

3

See 14 CFR 382.157.
4

CHAPTER 2.

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY – SEAT-STRAPPING 

This evaluation incorporates the following assumptions and methodology:

1. All U.S. and foreign carriers operating aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats that fly to or 

from a U.S. airport are subject to the current requirement to provide a priority space in the 

cabin for a passenger’s manual folding wheelchair and are potential beneficiaries of the final

rule. Aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats include narrow-body (single-aisle) and widebody (twin-aisle) aircraft. 

2. Since twin-aisle aircraft have sufficient priority space to comply with the current rule without 

having to remove a row of seats, they have a negligible incentive to take advantage of the 

final rule and are excluded from this evaluation.

3. Ten to twenty percent of large single-aisle aircraft also have cabin configurations that 

facilitate compliance with the current rule and are excluded from the analysis. The remaining 

80 to 90 percent of single-aisle aircraft cannot provide a priority space in the cabin for a 

folding wheelchair without removing a row of passenger seats. These aircraft are expected to 

take advantage of the final rule by using the seat-strapping method, installing an additional 

row of three seats.

4. The benefit to the carrier of an additional row of seats is realized only when demand is 

sufficient to fill the aircraft and when the row is not being utilized by a passenger’s manual 

folding wheelchair. The regulatory evaluation for the final rule published May 13, 2008,

used an estimate of $4,500 (2005 dollars) as the average annual revenue loss per seat 

removed.4 This value will be increased to $5,200 in 2008 dollars, when adjusted by the 

ATPI index.5 The potential increment to annual revenue per aircraft from a row of seats will

therefore be 3 x $5,200 = $15,600. It has been suggested that this estimate is outdated, since 

airlines are now filling a larger percentage of flights, making it more likely that extra seats 

will generate revenue. Although we offer no alternative estimate, the value cited here should 

be regarded as the minimum additional revenue from a row of three seats.

 

4 DOT Docket Nos. 19482; 22298; 23999 at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main. 

Regulatory Evaluation, p. 14.

5

http://www.bts.gov/xml/atpi
5

5. The regulatory evaluation for the current rule estimated an incremental cost for additional 

passengers at 20 percent of fare revenue. Accordingly, we will continue to assume that the 

benefit to a carrier in incremental net revenue will be 80 percent of the incremental gross 

revenue. This amount is equal to $15,600 x 0.8 = $12,480.

6. Industry sources report that the cost of an aircraft order will not be affected by the decision to 

install a priority space or a row of seats. Carriers generally receive a fixed allowance for the 

aircraft interior at the time of order, and this includes various options. Generally, changes 

can be accommodated at no charge, provided that the request is made prior to final 

specification of the aircraft interior (approximately 10 months before the scheduled delivery 

date). If the interior design is already final, the cost to remove a priority space and install a 

row of three seats will be approximately $20,000 per aircraft, including certification to 

address head strike and hip requirements and other considerations.

7. The $20,000 cost to remove a priority space and install a row of three seats will not be 

incurred by aircraft delivered more than 10 months after the date of publication of a final 

rule, since carriers will have time to modify orders. 

8. We estimate that a total of 237 large single-aisle aircraft will be delivered in each year to 

U.S. carriers; this figure is derived as the U.S. fraction of North American deliveries. The 

FAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 2010–2030 reports that 3,181 large single-aisle

aircraft were operated by mainline U.S. carriers in 2008.6 Comparison of this figure with the 

2008 North American total of 3,780 large single-aisle aircraft from the Boeing Current 

Market Outlook 2009-2028 yields 84 percent (3,181 ÷ 3,780 = 0.84) as the share of North 

American single-aisle aircraft operated by U.S. carriers.7 Boeing forecasts 5,630 North 

American deliveries over 20 years, or 282 aircraft per year. Assuming that future deliveries 

will maintain the present fleet proportion, 237 large single-aisle aircraft (282 x 0.84) per year 

are estimated to enter U.S. service. We assume that these aircraft remain in service 

throughout the estimation period.

9. We estimate that a total of 30 large single-aisle aircraft will be delivered in each year to 

foreign carriers for service to the United States. According to 2005 FAA data, 4 percent of 

 

6

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/

7

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/index.html
6

large single-aisle foreign-carrier aircraft were in U.S. service, or 331 out of approximately

8,200. The Boeing forecast of world deliveries for single-aisle aircraft over the next 20 years 

is 19,460, or 973 per year. Excluding the 237 to be delivered to U.S. carriers, 736 will be 

purchased by foreign carriers, of which 4 percent, or approximately 30, will enter U.S. 

service, assuming the geographic distribution of aircraft use is unchanged. We assume these 

aircraft will remain in the same service.

10. From a worst-case standpoint, because of the uncertainty associated with estimating the most 

likely costs of extra or second seat-strapping kits on potentially impacted carriers, this 

evaluation assumes those carriers that adopt the seat-strapping method will acquire a second 

seat-strapping kit for each of their impacted aircraft (domestic and foreign) over the next 20 

years. Thus, any estimated costs derived from this approach should be reviewed as being 

higher than the most likely costs estimated if the uncertain information factors were 

available. In addition, this evaluation assumes no additional certification is required for the 

second seat-strapping kit because the FAA (or equivalent authority for foreign aircraft) will

have approved them previously, based on feedback from reliable industry sources. 

11. Ordinarily, the use of the seat-strapping method would not impose any costs on carriers 

because it stems from rulemaking prior to this final rule. However, since this final rule 

requires carriers to make available a second seat-strapping kit on all impacted aircraft, 

without displacing passengers, any potential added costs incurred by carriers to accommodate 

this requirement must be attributed to this rulemaking action.

12. According to reliable industry sources, an FAA accepted seat-strapping kit is estimated to 

cost $200 (in 2008, which includes seat belts and cover). This evaluation assumes $200 

represents the most typical cost for a second seat-strapping kit.

13. This evaluation is conducted within a timeframe of 20 years, from 2012 to 2031, during 

which period the number of aircraft delivered and remaining in service will grow continually. 

At the end of this period, the number of aircraft affected by the rule will be stable, yielding 

benefits to U.S. and foreign carriers at the annual level of at least $53 to $60 million, if other 

conditions are unchanged. 
7

CHAPTER 3.

COSTS TO AFFECTED ENTITIES – SEAT-STRAPPING 

3.1 Cost to Carriers

The purpose of the final rule is to relieve U.S. and foreign carriers of potential costs of 

compliance with the existing regulations that require carriers to provide a priority space for 

stowage of a wheelchair in the cabin of aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats. The seatstrapping method will be adopted at the carriers’ discretion. Consequently, no additional costs 

related to the seat-strapping method will be imposed on carriers by the final rule, except in those 

instances when the carrier chooses to use the seat-strapping method in which case stowage of a 

second wheelchair in the cabin is required if no passenger will be displaced. In anticipation of 

this situation, carriers must purchase additional seat-strapping kits. An estimation of the most 

likely potential costs of the extra seat-strapping kits for impacted carriers is difficult to quantify

monetarily because of a multitude of uncertain factors (e.g., the frequency of requests for 

wheelchairs by passengers with disabilities on airlines, the frequency of full airline flights when 

wheelchair requests are made, the number of extra seat-strapping kits needed as standbys per 

airline flight). Based on feedback received from the airline industry to the NPRM, there is not 

enough demand from passengers with disabilities to warrant the use of seat-strapping kits for two 

wheelchairs on the flights of potentially impacted carriers. Since this feedback suggests there is a 

very small likelihood of instances requiring more than one wheelchair on most airline flights of 

impacted carriers, any costs incurred by carriers over the next 20 years for extra seat-strapping 

kits are not expected to be significant. However, because of the uncertainty associated with 

estimating the most likely costs of extra or second seat-strapping kits on potentially impacted 

carriers, a worst-case scenario approach has been employed in this evaluation to estimate the 

highest potential cost of compliance. Thus, any costs derived from this approach should be 

viewed as being higher than the most likely costs estimated if the uncertain information factors 

were available.

From a worst-case standpoint, this evaluation estimates that the total one-time cost of 

compliance of the rule for the acquisition of extra or second seat-strapping kits on both U.S. and 

foreign carriers will most likely not exceed $0.6 million present value, discounted at a rate of 7 
8

percent, over the next 20 years, as shown in Table 2.8 As noted above, the final rule is cost 

relieving to impacted domestic and foreign carriers. Since the seat-strapping method is optional, 

carriers would only choose it when it is in their best financial interest. Therefore, no additional 

costs related to the seat-strapping method will be imposed by the final rule, except in those 

instances when the carrier chooses to use the seat-strapping method that requires the stowage of 

a second wheelchair in the cabin without displacing a passenger. Since there is uncertainty 

associated with estimating the most likely cost impacts on carriers using extra or second seatstrapping kits, a worst-case scenario approach has been employed. This approach estimates the 

highest costs potentially imposed on carriers by the rule. This worst-case approach assumes a 

second seat-strapping kit would be required, without displacing passengers, on all impacted 

domestic and foreign aircraft from 2012 – 2031. 

The number of domestic aircraft impacted by this rule is estimated at 237 per year (or 

4,740 over 20 years) from 2012 to 2031. According to reliable industry sources, an FAA 

approved seat-strapping kit is estimated at $200 (in 2008, which includes seat belts and cover). 

Over the next 20 years (2012-2031), this rule is estimated to impose a one-time present value 

cost of $537,000 (4,740 x $200 x PV factors) on impacted domestic carriers, from a worst-case 

standpoint. Over the same period, the number of impacted foreign aircraft is 30 per year (or 600 

over 20 years). Thus, this rule will likely impose an estimated worst-case cost of $68,000 (600 x 

$200 x PV factors) on foreign carriers. In total, this rule will most likely impose estimated 

worst-case one-time present value costs of $600,000 ($537,000+$68,000, rounded), as the result 

of a second seat-strapping kit being used on each of the impacted domestic and foreign aircraft 

over the next 20 years, as detailed in Table 2.

 

8

For each of the second seat-strapping kits employed in the cabin of impacted aircraft, based on feedback 

from reliable industry sources, this evaluation assumes no additional certification is required because the FAA (or 

equivalent authority for foreign aircraft) would have approved them previously.
9

3.2 Cost to Passengers with a Disability

Passengers with disabilities whose folding wheelchairs are stowed in aircraft cabins by

the seat-strapping method might incur costs of damage to their wheelchairs or delay in stowage 

and return. We are not aware of having received any complaints of damage or delay as a result 

of a carrier’s use of the seat-strapping method.9 On domestic flights, moreover, if a carrier 

damages a passenger’s wheelchair by using the seat-strapping method, 14 CFR 382.129(b),

10

382.131,

11 and 254.4,12 when read in conjunction, will require the carrier to compensate the 

 

9 The DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD) receives thousands of written and telephone 

complaints a year. The ACPD receives complaints by letter, through its Web site, airconsumer.dot.gov, and by 

telephone. 

10 14 CFR 382.129(b) requires carriers to return wheelchairs to passengers in the condition in which the 

wheelchair was received. 

11 14 CFR 382.131 states that with respect to transportation to which 14 CFR Part 254 applies, the limits to 

liability for loss, damage, or delay concerning wheelchairs or other assistive devices provided in Part 254 do not 

apply. The basis for calculating the compensation for a lost, damaged, or destroyed wheelchair or other assistive 

device shall be the original purchase price of the device.

12 14 CFR 254.4 states that for interstate air transportation on any flight segment using large aircraft, or on 

any flight segment that is included on the same ticket as another flight segment that uses large aircraft, an air carrier 

shall not limit its liability for provable direct or consequential damages resulting from the disappearance of, damage 

to, or delay in delivery of a passenger's personal property, including baggage, in its custody to an amount less than 

$3,300 for each passenger.
10

passenger up to the original purchase price of the wheelchair. On most international flights, the 

Montreal Convention will apply, which limits a carrier’s liability to 1,131 special drawing rights. 

3.3 Cost to Other Passengers 

If a flight on which a passenger’s wheelchair is stowed by the seat-strapping method is 

full, up to three other passengers might be required to forgo their seats. The Department has no 

way to quantify the costs of such an event and has received no relevant complaints. In most 

situations, 14 CFR Part 250 will require a carrier to pay compensation to any passenger 

involuntarily denied boarding from an oversold flight.

13

 In addition, the ability of carriers to 

install an additional row of seats will benefit passengers far more often when the seats are not 

pre-empted for wheelchair stowage than it will inconvenience them on occasions when the seats 

are unavailable. 

 

13 14 CFR Part 250 applies to every carrier, as defined in section 250.1, with respect to scheduled flight 

segments using an aircraft that has a designed passenger capacity of 30 or more passenger seats, operating in (1) 

interstate air transportation or (2) foreign air transportation with respect to nonstop flight segments originating at a 

point within the United States. 
11

CHAPTER 4.

BENEFITS– SEAT-STRAPPING 

As a result of DOT’s adoption of the final rule permitting seat-strapping, U.S. and foreign 

carriers will be able to order certain aircraft types with an extra row of seats. The principal 

expected benefit of this rulemaking is thus the additional net revenue accruing to carriers through 

installation of three more passenger seats on 80 to 90 percent of single-aisle aircraft. The 

flexibility that the rule will allow carriers in arranging aircraft cabins could also make it less 

burdensome to accommodate passengers with disabilities, thereby removing an obstacle to 

rulemakings that enhance accessibility. 

We assume here that all twin-aisle aircraft and between 10 percent and 20 percent of 

single-aisle aircraft with more than 100 seats will be able to install a priority stowage space 

without sacrificing seats and will therefore have no incentive to take advantage of the final rule. 

The remaining 80 percent to 90 percent of large single-aisle aircraft will install a row of seats 

and employ the seat-strapping method. The minimum benefit from this modification is the net 

revenue from an additional three seats, estimated as 80 percent of the potential gross ticket 

revenue. Ticket revenue per seat is adjusted from the value employed in the regulatory

evaluation prepared for the current rule. This benefit totals $216 million to $243 million for U.S. 

carriers and $27 million to $31 million for foreign carriers present value, discounted at a rate of 7 

percent over 20 years.14 The aggregate minimum benefit is then $243 to $273 million. The 

derivation of these estimates is shown in detail in Table 3. 

If the probability of filling the additional seats is higher than assumed in the past, the true 

benefits will be significantly greater. It should also be noted that the benefits grow over time as 

older aircraft are retired and the share of the fleet subject to the rule increases. This process is 

likely to be completed by 2031. Therefore, the annual net revenue gain of $53 to $60 million 

predicted for U.S. and foreign carriers, combined, in 2031 should continue in subsequent years to 

represent the minimum benefit of this rule, assuming other conditions are unchanged.

 Although not shown in Table 3, the rule will likely generate additional benefits to 

passengers with disabilities by requiring stowage of a second wheelchair by carriers that use the 

seat-strapping method, if stowing the second passenger wheelchair does not displace additional 

 

14 Some monetary totals may not add due to rounding.
12

passengers. These potential benefits from the use of stowage for a second wheelchair are 

unquantifiable monetarily for the same reasons stated earlier in the costs section for impacted 

carriers.
13
14
15

CHAPTER 5. REQUIREMENT TO LABEL PRIORITY STOWAGE

The final rule also includes a requirement for carriers to label the priority stowage area in the 

cabin of all aircraft with a priority stowage area. This requirement will serve to identify that assistive 

devices have priority for stowage in the in-cabin closet over other carry-on items and crew luggage.

5. 1 Assumptions and Methodology

 Since we assume above that 80-90% of single-aisle airplanes with over 100 seats will use the 

seat-strapping method in lieu of having additional stowage space, we assume that 10-20% of 

single-aisle airplanes with over 100 seats will need to install a placard/label that labels the priority

stowage area in their cabin. Additionally, all twin-aisle airplanes are expected to install a label in 

their cabins.

 This labeling requirement is retroactive meaning that all airplanes currently in operation are 

subject to this requirement in addition to all new aircraft.

 To calculate the number of aircraft affected by this part of the rule, we use the methodology 

specified above in Chapter 2. The number of single-aisle U.S. aircraft that must be retrofitted is 

determined by taking the 3,181 large single-aisle aircraft as reported in the FAA Aerospace 

Forecast: Fiscal Years 2010-2030 for 2008 and then taking 10% and 20% of those values. Using 

the 10% value, 351 U.S. aircraft require the retrofit. Using the 20% value, 702 U.S. aircraft 

require the retrofit.

 The Boeing Current Market Outlook 2009-2028 reports that the World Fleet (not including the 

U.S. fleet) is approximately 8,200 planes. In Chapter 2, we assume that 4% of large single-aisle 

foreign-carrier aircraft were in U.S. service, or 331 out of 8200. If 10% of foreign-carrier aircraft 

require the label, then 33 aircraft are affected. If we use 20%, then 66 aircraft are affected.

 This evaluation assumes that all twin-aisle aircraft will require the labels. The FAA Aerospace 

Forecast: Fiscal Years 2010-2030 reports that there were 523 U.S.-carrier operated twin-aisle 

aircraft in 2008. The number of foreign-carrier aircraft was determined by taking the World Fleet 

from the Boeing Current Market Outlook 2009-2028 and subtracting the U.S. fleet. Again, 4% of 

the foreign-carrier twin-aisle aircraft fleet was assumed to be in U.S. service, or 119 aircraft.

 According to a reliable industry source, the cost of the placard for the cabin will be $1.75 each. 

This evaluation assumes that each aircraft only needs to install one placard. 

 We also assume that there is a labor cost to installing the sign. We assume that installation time 

would take 15 minutes. The labor cost depends on where the placard is installed. New aircraft 
16

would have the sign installed by the manufacturer. The mean hourly wage for production 

occupations is $22.91 per hour (2012$).15 Multiplying by a factor of 1.5 creates a loaded wage of 

$34.37 per hour (2012$). Converting to 2008$ and multiplying by 0.25 leads to a labor 

installation cost of $8.14 per hour. The total cost of placing a placard in new aircraft (materials 

and labor) is $9.89.

 The mean hourly wage of Support Activities for All Occupations in Air Transportation is $20.49 

(2012$).16 Multiplying by a factor of 1.5 leads to a loaded wage of $30.74 (2012$). Converting 

to 2008$ and multiplying by 0.25 leads to a labor installation cost of $7.28 per hour. The total 

cost of retrofitting existing aircraft with a placard (materials and labor) is $9.03.

 This evaluation is conducted within a timeframe of 20 years, from 2014 to 2033. We assume that 

retrofitting existing aircraft will occur immediately and discount the cost by a 7% discount factor. 

We assume that there is an annual cost for new planes to be outfitted with the label. Since this is 

a constant annual cost, we can use the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity instead 

of showing a year-by-year calculation. For example, 10.594 is the discount factor for a constant 

benefit stream over 20 years at a discount rate of seven percent. We use an annuity factor of 

10.594 to discount these total costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_(finance_theory) 

5.2 Discounted Costs to Carriers Over 20 Year Evaluation Period

Cost for Twin-Aisle Aircraft

 Retrofit: ((523 U.S. aircraft + 119 foreign aircraft) X $9.03)/1.07 = $5,418

 New: (30 U.S. aircraft + 13 foreign aircraft) X $9.89 X 10.594 = $4,505

Cost for Single-Aisle Aircraft

 Retrofit, 10%: ((318 U.S. aircraft + 33 foreign aircraft) X $9.03)/1.07 = $2,962

 Retrofit, 20%: ((636 U.S. aircraft + 66 foreign aircraft) X $9.03)/1.07 = $5,924

 New, 10%: (24 U.S. aircraft + 3 foreign aircraft) X $9.89 X 10.594 = $2,829

 New, 20%: (47 U.S. aircraft + 6 foreign aircraft) X $9.89 X 10.594 = $5,553

Total Cost

 10% of Single-Aisle Aircraft and all Twin-Aisle aircraft: $15,714

 

15 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336400.htm#51-0000

16 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_488100.htm#49-0000
17

 20% of Single-Aisle Aircraft and all Twin-Aisle aircraft: $21,400

5.3 Benefits

It is uncertain how we might quantify benefits of labeling the priority stowage space in 

aircraft cabins. The non-quantifiable benefits are derived from ensuring that other passengers and/or 

airline employees know that assistive devices have priority in the in-cabin closets of aircraft over 

other carry-on items or crew luggage. Requiring carriers to label the priority stowage space will 

prevent or at least reduce disagreements between passengers and crew over which items should be 

placed in the closet and increase the likelihood that a passenger manual wheelchair or other assistive 

device will be carried in the cabin rather than the cargo compartment thereby reducing the risk of 

damage. 
18

CHAPTER 6.

COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

The final rule continues DOT’s efforts to ensure access to the air transportation system for 

passengers with a disability, while allowing carriers flexibility in providing such access. It protects 

the right of passengers who travel with a manual folding wheelchair to receive service and 

accommodation that meets their needs but avoids unnecessary and costly restrictions on the manner 

in which that service is provided. 

An estimation of the most likely potential costs of extra seat-strapping kits is difficult to 

quantify monetarily because of a multitude of uncertain factors. Because of this uncertainty, a worstcase scenario approach has been used in this evaluation to estimate the upward bound (or highest) 

potential cost of compliance. Using this approach, the total estimated cost of compliance of the rule 

for the acquisition of extra or second seat-strapping kits on both U.S. and foreign carriers will most 

likely not exceed the $0.6 million present value over the next 20 years. Additionally, this final rule 

would require carriers to label priority stowage space in their cabins. The total estimated cost of 

compliance with this part of the rule is expected to be minimal with the total discounted cost ranging 

from $15,700 to $21,400 between 2014 and 2033.

A review of experience with the seat-strapping method of wheelchair stowage suggests that 

any costs to passengers will be slight, while the benefits to carriers of permitting this method of 

stowage will be very substantial. Carriers could expect in many cases to configure aircraft with an 

additional row of seats, yielding minimum potential net revenue gains with present values over 20 

years of between $243 million and $273 million and larger benefits if the fare level or expectation of 

a full flight is greater than in the past. 

The DOT concludes that the rule results in very low monetary costs and significant monetary

benefits to carriers without imposing a monetary or subjective cost on passengers with a disability or 

others. This assessment takes into account the potential unquantifiable benefits and costs generated 

and difficult to quantify most likely costs imposed by requiring stowage of a second wheelchair by 

carriers that use the seat-strapping method. On balance, any costs incurred by carriers over the next 
19

20 years for extra seat-strapping kits or for labeling priority stowage areas are expected to have an 

insignificant impact on total potential benefits of the rule.

CHAPTER 7.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires government agencies to evaluate the impact 

of their regulations on small entities. When considering small air carriers, DOT has adopted the 

standard published in 14 CFR 399.73, Definition of small business for Regulatory Flexibility Act:

For the purposes of the Department’s implementation of chapter 6 of title 5, United 

States Code (Regulatory Flexibility Act), a direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is a 

small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft as defined in 

section 298.3 of this chapter (up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload).

The final rule change permitting U.S. and foreign carriers to adopt an alternative method to 

stow at least one passenger’s manual folding wheelchair in the cabin of an aircraft affects only 

aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats. Therefore, the amendment will not apply to small entities 

(that is, U.S. and foreign carriers operating only small aircraft). We conclude that this rulemaking 

will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.