**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 201**  **3**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 ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **. 1**  **0 CHAPTER 4. BENEFITS**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ..........**  **1 1**  **CHAPTER 5. REQUIREMENT TO LABEL PRIORITY STOWAGE........................1 5**  **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 s pace) 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 s towing a wheelchair in the cabin of any aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009 or delivered after May 13, 2011. In formation 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 sto wing 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 seat strapping 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 monetaril y because of a multitude of uncertain factors. Because of this uncertainty, aiv

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 summariz ed 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 us ing 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 th e industry produce no evidence that such consequences are likel y 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 complaint s regarding this practice. Nonetheless, in view of th ese concern s 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 issue s in its previously

published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM ) . The comments received in response to the NPRM produc ed no evidence to support any of these potential concerns. A more detailed discussion of these concerns is shown in the DOT response s 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 withinv

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 re pre sents 20 percent of revenue). I f the expected ticket price or the incidence of full flights is greater than pre viousl y estimated, the net benefits will be substantially greater. Table 1 summarizes these minimum benefits, which amount to $2 43 million to $2 73 million pre sent value over 2 0 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 requir e 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 pla card and an installation cost between $9 and $10 dollars, the estimated costvi

of this requirement ranges from $15,700 to $21,400, at a 7% discount rate, over the next 20 ye ars. 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 - cab in 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 su ch closets where they are less likel y 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 f inal 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 en sure carriers provide nondiscriminatory s ervice to passengers with disabilities. Arequirement that U.S. carriers provide in - cabin space for a folding passenger wheelchair was originall y adopted in 1990. (55 FR 8007) At that time the Department’s intenti on 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

t ext or even mentioned in the original rulemaking but was subsequently p ermitted under Department enforcement policy a s 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 1 3, 2008, to cover foreign air carriers , among other provisions . (73 FR 27614) The Department determined in the final rule issued in 2008 th at 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 s towage space in the cabin. S ee 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 s towage 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. E xisting 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 1 3, 2008, final rule, which allows carriers to request a determination that a carrier’s policy , practice, or other accommodation provides substantially e quivalent accessibility

t o passengers with disabilities , as compared with that provided under a specified provision of Part 382. (See 14 CFR 382.9) The Department den ied 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

2 2, 2009); Response to Application of US Airway s, In c. for an Equivalent Alternative Determination from 14 CFR 382.123(c), Docket DOT - OST - 20 08 - 0273 - 0064 (filed July 2 2, 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 , subje ct to numerous conditions to ensure the same or greater accessibility t o 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, D ocket DOT - OST - 2008 - 0273 - 0101.) On June 3, 2011, the Department published an NPRM titled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability

i n Air Travel; Accessibility o f 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 1 3, 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 ec onomic or civil rights aviation rulemakings, we are referring to the manufacturer’s3

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** Fi nal changes to Federal regulations must undergo certain economic analy ses. E xecutive Order 12866 requires Federal agencies to: (1) develop FRE s to assess the potential compliance costs and benefits of each final rule for review b y 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 likel y t o have an impact on the economy of $100 million or more p er ye ar . I f the latter were the case, the final rule would constitute an economically significant regulatory action, requiring development of a detailed regulatory

impact anal ys is. The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act of 1980 2 requires agencies to anal yz e 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 b y Federal rules. **1.3 U.S. and Foreign Carriers Subje ct 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 previousl y, the changes in this rulemaking affect onl y 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 potenti al beneficiaries of the final rule. Aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats include narrow - body (single - aisle) and wide body (twin - aisle) aircraft. 2. Since twin - aisle aircraft have sufficient priority space to compl y 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 anal ysis. 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 b y 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 bein g 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 ATPIindex. 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/atpi5

5. The regulatory

evaluation for the current rule estimated an incremental cost for additional passengers at 20 percent of fare revenue. Accordingl y, 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 a ffected by the decision to install a priority

space or a row of seats. Carriers generall y receive a fixed allowance for the aircraft interior at the time of order, and this includes various options. Generall y, 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 b y aircraft deliv ered 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 ye ar 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 b y mainline U.S. carriers in 2008. 6 Comparison of this figure with the 2008 North American to tal 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 b y U.S. carriers. 7 Boeing forecasts 5,630 North American deliv eries over 20 years, or 282 aircraft per year. Assuming that future deliveries will maintain the pre sent 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 ye ar 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.html6

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 ye ar. Excluding the 237 to be delivered to U.S. carriers, 736 will b e purchased b y 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, b ecause 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 ye ars. 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. Ordinaril y, 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 b y carriers to accommodate this requirement must be attributed to this rulemaking action. 12. According to reliable industry sources, an FAA accepted seat - strappin g kit is estimated to cost $200 (in 2008, which includes seat belts and cover). This evaluation assumes $200 represents the most ty

pical cost for a second seat - strapping kit. 13. This evaluatio n is conducted within a time frame of 20 years, from 201 2 to 203 1 , 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 b y the rule will be stable, yielding benefits to U.S. and foreign carriers at the annual leve l 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 seat strapping method will be adopted at the carriers’ discretion. Consequentl y, no addi tional costs related to the seat - strapping method will be imposed on carriers b y 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 . Inanticipation 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 b y passengers with disabilities on airlines, the frequency of full airline flights when wheelchair requests are made, the number of extra seat - strappin g kits needed as standb ys 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 b y 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 78

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 onl y 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 o f 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 seat strapping kits, a worst - case scenario approach has been employed. This approach estimates the highest costs potentiall y imposed on carriers b y 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 b y this rule is estimated at 237 per year (or 4,740 over 20 ye ars) from 2012 to 2031. According to reliable industry sources, an FAA approved seat - strapping kit is estimated at $200 (in 2008, which includes s eat 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 o f 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 o ne - 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 receiv ed 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 b y 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 W eb 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 s tates 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 b y 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 Inaddition, 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 e very 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 permitti ng seat - strapping, U.S. and foreign carriers will be able to order certain aircraft ty pes 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 m ore 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. T icket revenue per seat is adjusted from th e value employed in the regulatory evaluation prepared for the current rule. Th is benefit totals $2 16 million to $2 43 million for U.S. carriers and $ 27 million to $31 million for foreign carriers pre sent value, discounted at a rate of 7 percent over 20 years. 14 The aggregate minimum benefit is then $24 3 to $27 3 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 subje ct to the rule increases. This process is likely to be completed b y 203 1 . Therefore, the annual net revenue gain of $53 to $60 million pre dicted for U.S. and foreign carriers, combined , in 203 1 should continue in subsequent years to repre sent 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 secon d wheelchair are unquantifiable monetarily for the same reasons stated earlier in the costs section for impacted carriers.131415 **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 cu rrentl y in operation are subject to this requirement in addition to all new aircraft .  To calculate the number of aircraft affected b y 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 b y 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 r etrofit. 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 aircraf t 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 C urrent 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 w ill be $1.75 each. This evaluation assumes that each aircraft onl y 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 aircraft16

would have the sign installed by the manufacturer. The mean hourl y wage for production occupations is $22.91 per hour (2012$). 15 Multiplying by a factor of 1.5 creates a loaded wage of $34.37 per hour (2012$). Conv erting 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 hourl y wage of Support Activities for All Occupations in Air Transpo rtation 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 con s tant annual cost, we can use the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity instead of showing a year- by- ye ar calculation . For example, 10.594 is the discount factor for a constant benefit stream over 20 ye ars 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 - 00 0017

 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 i s difficult to quantify monetaril y because of a multitude of uncertain factors. Because of this uncertainty, a worst case 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, thi s 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 an d 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 i n many cases to configure aircraft with an additional row of seats, yielding minimum potential net revenue gains with pre sent values over 20 ye ars of between $2 4 3 million and $2 7 3 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 o thers. 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 b y carriers that use the seat - strapping method. On balance, any costs incurred by carriers over the next19

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 car riers, 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 car riers to adopt an alternative method to stow at least one passenger’s manual folding wheelchair in the cabin of an aircraft affects onl y aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats. Therefore, the amendment will not apply to small entities (that is, U.S. an d foreign carriers operating onl y s mall aircraft). We conclude that this rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.