^^^N£PORWION 

: O'y S OPERATIONS 

/Gii JUi! ! 1 i=> U: OU 

PRELIMINARY REGULATORY ANALYSIS 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

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 

January 12,2011 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .iii 

CHAPTER I. 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 Proposed 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 7 

3.3 Cost to Other Passengers 8 

CHAPTER 4. BENEFITS 9 

CHAPTER 5. COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 12 

CHAPTER 6. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 13 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) 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 at least one 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 propose to amend the regulations to allow the 

seat-strapping method as an alternative for stowing a wheelchair. This Preliminary Regulatory 

Evaluation offers initial estimates of the costs and benefits of this amendment. 

Impact of Stowage Proposals 

Costs 

The NPRM proposal to allow carriers to use the seat-strapping method as an alternative 

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

will not impose any mandatory additional costs on carriers. If a carrier chooses to use the seatstrapping method, the carrier would 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 fiight because their seats are used to stow a passenger's wheelchair. With that being 

said, the cost of providing denied boarding compensation would be low due to the infrequent 

occasions when it would be required (i.e., aircraft with 100 or more seats, full fiight, carrier uses 

seat-strapping, and a passenger with a disability 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 in turn 

the carriers they fiy, but based on a review of the Department's consumer complaint database 

111 
and discussions with the industry, the Department has no evidence that such consequences are 

likely and seeks comment particularly from persons with disabilities and disability organizations. 

Passengers without a disability might also be required to forego their seats on a tlill fiight in 

order to accommodate a wheelchair, but the Department has not received any complaints 

regarding this practiceBenefits 

DOT estimates that the proposal to allow the seat-strapping method for stowing a 

wheelchair would permit installation of an additional row of three seats on 80 to 90 percent of 

single-aisle aircraft that cannot fit a priority stowage space within their planned cabin designs. 

Availability of three more seats would provide carriers 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 ftights 

is greater than previou.sly estimated, the net benefits would be substantially greater. Table 1 

summarizes these minimum benefits, which amount to $243 million to $273 million in present 

value over 20 years. 

:l;pL:_:i.>::'^^^?^,y-Kr'':A^;-;'"^ ^;;,,i,;j;TABLElVSuminairy*bf Benefits'';;'* •- ':^1^3 i-;^; **; 

,;'/• ^ ;3*:T;i\|*' 

Net Revenue Gained b\' Using Seat-Strapping Stowage Method 

Share nf Aircraft 

Affected 

U.S. Carriers 

8 0 % 

$489^^19,680 

PV 

$215,729,163 

9 0 % 

$550,497,120 

PV 

$242,700,255 

1 

Foreign Carriers 

Total 

$61,939,200 

$551,258,880 

$27,307,239 

$243,036,401 

$69,681,600 

$620,178,720 

$30,720,644 

$273,420,898 

* Estimate assumes the row of scats removed contains three seats although in a small number of aircraft 

only a two-seal row would liavc to be removed. 

IV 
Conclusions 

DOT believes that the proposal will result in large benefits to both U.S. and foreign 

carriers. Based on a review of the Department's consumer complaint database and discussions 

with the industry. DOT believes that the proposal 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 fiights if no passenger wishes to stow a wheelchair in the cabin. 

With that being said, the Department seeks comment, particularly from persons with disabilities 

and disability organizations, about the proposed mle's impact. The proposed amendments would 

not apply to small entities. 

DOT requests from the public any information that the submitter believes will improve 

the accuracy of our estimates or aid us in determining whether the seat-strapping method of 

stowing a wheelchair offers advantages or disadvantages that have not been considered in this 

preliminary regulatory evaluation. 
CHAPTER 1. 

OVERVIEW 

1.1 Regulatory Background 

14 CFR Pan 382 {Part 382), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulation that 

prohibits both U.S. and foreign carriers from discriminating against passengers on the basis of a 

disability, defines the accommodations that U.S. and foreign carriers must provide to passengers 

with disabilities on fiights in, to or from the United States. Part 382 requires carriers to provide a 

priority space (e.g., a closet, similar compartment, or other designated space) in the cabin to store 

u wheelchair. This requirement has remained in all revisions of Part 382 since the regulation was 

promulgated in 1990. Although DOT never anticipated routine adoption of the seat-strapping 

method of carrying a folding wheelchair across a row of scats to supply the designated stowage 

space, the practice has been allowed as a matter of enforcement policy, subject to Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) approval. DOT has remained concerned, however, that this 

option could be awkward, could result in damage or untimely stowage and return of wheelchairs, 

could draw unfavorable attention to a passenger with a disability, and could displace other 

passengers on fijil Mights. 

As a result. Part 382 was amended on May 13. 2008 to require aircraft with 100 or more 

passenger seats ordered after May 13, 2009 or delivered after May 13. 2010 to have a priority 

storage space in the cabin of sufficient size to stow at least one typical adult-sized folding, 

collapsible, or break-down manual passenger wheelchair, the dimensions of which are within a 

space of 13 inches by 36 inches by 42 inches, without having to remove the wheels or otherwise 

disassemble the wheelchair. The final rule also prohibited both U.S. and foreign carriers from 

using the scat-strapping method in the cabin of any aircraft ordered after May 13, 2009. or 

delivered after May 13,2011.' 

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 

' See 73 FR 27614 and DOT Docket Nos. 19482; 1119S; 23999 at . 

htlp://\vww.rcgulations.gov/rdmspublic/component/main. 

1 
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 

compared to a specified provision of Part 382. (See 14 CFR 382.9) 

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

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

be addressed through rulemaking. (See Response to Application of JetBlue Airways Corp., for an 

Equivalent Altemafive 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 tVom 14 CFR 382.123(c), Docket DOT-OST-2008-0273-0064 (filed 

July 22, 2009).) The Department granted the 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 

Contincnte Americano S.A., tor an Equivalent Alternative Determination from 14 CFR 382.67 

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

The Department believes that the issues raised by carriers with regard to using the seatstrapping method should be considered further and we seek public comment. We therefore 

publish this NPRM to determine whether sections 382.67 and 382.123(c) of Part 382 should be 

amended to allow the use of seat-strapping as an option for transporting a passenger's manual 

folding wheelchair in the cabin. This Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRE) offers an initial 

estimate of the potential costs and benefits of the proposal. In addition to DOT's purpose of 

relieving carriers from unjustified cost burdens, we seek to ensure safe and efficient wheelchair 

stowage, to prevent embarrassment and stigmatization of passengers with disabilities, and to 

V rninimizc inconvenience to others. We therefore ask the public for comments to the docket 

. bearing on the accuracy of estimated potential cost avoidance and on whether seat-strapping has 

resulted or is likely to result in dissatisfaction or complaints by either wheelchair users or other 

passengers. 
1.2 Federal Agency Criteria for Regulatory Evaluations 

Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo certain economic analyses. 

E.O. 12866 requires Federal agencies to: (I) develop PREs to assess the potential compliance 

costs and benefits of each proposed rule for review by decisionmakers; (2) propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned detemiination 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 this 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 1980" requires agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small entities. The purpose 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 Proposed Rule 

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

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

rulemaking atfect only those carriers operating aircraft with 100 or more passenger scats, a 

number somewhat less than these totals. 

• hltpi/Zw-ww.sba.gov/advo/laws/rcgtlex.html. 

^See 14 CFR 382.157. 
CHAPTER 2. 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

This analysis incorporates the following assumptions and methodology: 

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

from a U.S. airport arc 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 

proposed 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 comply with the current rule without 

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

proposed rule and arc excluded from this analysis. 

3. 10 to 20 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 m the cabin for a folding 

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

advantage of the proposed 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."* 

This value would be increased to $5,200 in 2008 dollars, when adjusted by the ATPI index.^ 

The potential increment to annual revenue per aircraft from a row of scats would 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 ftights, making it more likely that extra scats will generate 

^ DOT Docket Nos. 19482; 22298: 23999 at http://ww\v.regu!ations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main. 

RegulafDiy Evaliiaiion. p. I4. 

^ hllp://\vww.bls.gov/xml/aipi 
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. 

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 would not be affected by the decision 

to install a priority space or a row of scats. 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 would 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 scats 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. We assume that a final rule could be 

published in the fall of 2011, so aircraft incurring no modification costs would be those 

delivered after the middle of 2012. Aircraft ordered before May 13, 2009 and delivered 

before May 13, 2011 would also incur no modification cost, since they would not be subject 

to the current rule. Aircraft potentially incurring such costs would be those ordered after 

May 13. 2009 and delivered before mid-2012. Since orders are typically placed long before 

the start of assembly, we estimate that modification costs would be incurred for aircraft 

delivered between mid-2010 and mid-2012. We will deduct this cost from the carrier 

benefits expected from aircraft delivered in the first two years of analysis. 

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 3,181 large single-aisle aircraft 

operated by mainline U.S. carriers in 2008.^ Comparison of this figure with the 2008 Nonh 

http://ww\v. faa.gov/data_rescarch/aviation/ 
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 singleaisle aircraft operated by U.S. carriers.^ Boeing forecasts 5,630 North American deliveries 

over 20 years, or 282 aircraft per year. Assuming that future deliveries would maintain the 

present fieet 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 scn'icc to (he United Slates. .According to 2005 FAA data, 4 percent of 

large singlc-aisic 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. The analysis is conducted within a time horizon 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. 

http://\v\vw.boeitm.cotn/conuncrcial/cmo/index.himl 
CHAPTER 3. 

COSTS TO AFFECTED ENTITIES 

3.1 Cost to Carriers 

The purpose of the proposed 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 would be adopted at the carriers' discretion. Consequently, no additional costs 

would be imposed on carriers by the proposed rule. 

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. The Department has no information to support these concerns, but seeks comment, 

particulariy from persons with disabilities and disability organizations, about the proposed rule's 

impact. We are not aware of receiving any complaints of damage or delay as a result of a 

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

a passenger's wheelchair by using the seat-strapping method, 14 CFR 382.129(b)^ 382.131'", 

and 254.4". when read in conjunction, would require the carrier to compensate the passenger up 

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

Convention would apply, which limits a carrier's liability to 1,131 special drawing rights. 

DOT' S Aviation Consimier Protection Division (ACPD) receives thousands of written and telephone 

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

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

whecJc/iair was received. 

14 CFR 382.131 slates 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. 

14 CFR 254.4 states ihal lor interstate air transportation on any tlighl segment using large aircraft, or on 

iiny 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 ofa passenger's personal property, including baggage, in its custody to an amount less than 

S3,300 for each passenger. 

7 ' 
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 would require a carrier to pay compensation to any passenger 

involuntarily denied boarding from an oversold flight.'^ In addition, the ability of carriers to 

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

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

seats are unavailable. 

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

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

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

point within the United States. 

8 
CHAPTER 4. 

BENEFITS 

If DOT adopts the proposed nile 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 fiexibility which the 

rule would 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 scats and will therefore have no incentive to take advantage of the proposed 

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 tor U.S. 

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

of 7 percent over 20 years. The aggregate minimum benefit is then $243 to $273 million. The 

derivation of these estimates is shown in detail in Table 2. 

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

benefits would 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. Tlierefore, 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. 
%.-i.C 

^ • d 

-: 5 

•T-6 

••5 § 

E S 

-a 

< 

03 

5 C 

5 d,-^ 

2?; 3 

3.- I C 

> til -J 
-

" 

V} 

4/ 

•ft 

• D . 

o 

n 

a 

^ 

b 

4 J 

u D 

aj 

- o. 

; § •• ' 

JO u • 

< S fron mted 

, oe.S Net Dot 

2 o 

S => -

• D - • 

< 

o 

J2 . 

-41 

41 

3 

-•§ 

e 

o 

W 

• J ir 

IB 

< 

1 - - . 

- " .• 

_ '

• . 

' 

1 

, 

' 

. 

; • 

1 

1 

•c 

n 

, U 

3£ 

' '"O k 

1 u . 

'- i 

¥^^ 

_ 

• -

^ c 

1 ^'^ • 1 ' = • 1 

-J £ • > 

/> -rt" u 

ci a : 

3 . 

„ .5 

^ d — ^ u 

M 

^ 1 

|:l 

3 ' 5 

--; : =i£ 

'J r '> 

'^![ 2 

: 2 ! 

. '^^ 

i ^1 

'i- •^. < 

u =• 

n 

!-

3 

IJ •_ c 

Z £ Z 

1 Ji'^ 

< i 

i ; 

y 

o ^ 

P 

^J 

— 

- o 

— '~e ' 

o 

n 

, a 

ri 

-^ 

o 

o 

i w» 

^ 

i 

s 

^ ill's 

> --i>' < • :i : 

• - 5 ='\ r 

u .3;<i 

^1;§ i 

3 , • ^ i 1-

-^^Ji^: 

1 

-" 

11 

_1 

( J 

— •^ 

II 

'.^ 

o 

o 

a 

•.ij 

Q 

II 

c 

^ 

u 

^ u 

II 

u 

' 

X 

'Z 

U 

f_, 

0 

^ 

3 

u 

LJ 

^^ 

= 

u 

u 

^' 

I 

0 

< 

0 

I 

*»• ~ 

X 

-T 

; 

V^ 

1 

o 

— 

"^ 

3 

i 

"^ 

9 

5 

— 

l" 

^ 

C 

^' K 

7 

« 

-r 

i-i 

i ^ 

[~. 

T 

C 

c 

o 

o 

ip 

1 ^ 

j ; 

r. 

— 

wO 

i ^ 

"^ 

1 7 

M 

t 

:3 > 

¥ 

s 

(/^ 

s 

3 

t 

ni 

'" 

- I 

1I-. 

JC 

3 

O 

'' 

r^ 

5 

!.« 

C 

X 

- f 

o ; 

r-

' / i 

E 

:^ S 

^*^ 5 

•.c 

T 

lyi 

— 

3, 

r30 

o 

o 

o 

'» 

'!c 

"T 

CJ 

(^ 

_ 30 

rs 

3 

- r 

o 

^ 

1 

b^ 

5 

O' 

r-' 

o> ' / I 

1 

?. 

si 

~" 2 

-J6 

T 

-^ 

— 

•c 

K 

C 

C 

iTi 

5 

•^ li 

to" 

i : 

s 

''' 

o 

•c 

•^ 

V_ H 

Zl 

f 

r, 

T 

• j, ^ 

5 

^ IC 

Cn 

— 

K 

K 

' ' 

•> 

r~ 

; 

S^ 

3 

- r 

li 

«^ 

V, 

r, 

-

" 1 

n 

rT 

V 

f • 

f^ 

• x 

1._ ^ 

ri 

q 

i.n 

— ? i 

r-' 

rv i 

^—' 

o 

r^ 

^ 

» 

o 

bg 

T 

r i 

y^ 

r, 

.c 

5 

o 

c 

-^ 

o 

t n 

If 

ifh 

c 

c 

rof ^ 

u-l 

r^ 

• z 

'^ ^ 

— 1 o 

s 

y 

^~ 

< 

J 

o 

s, 

c 

o 

T 

zl 

M 

. y 

JO 

c 

o 

o 

'*! 

" • ' 

3; 

•c 

i/> 

5 

n 

r i 

?• 

-T 

« 

O 

5 

3-

^ 

V) 

— s 

sC 

3-

Irt 

^ 

t--

C 

o 

3 

O 

JC 

T 

CJ 

b t 

C 

^ 

T 

'*'' 

f j 

C 

- f 

c 

r1^ 

o 

X 

y 

^ 

y^ 

3 

y 

q 

i«^ 

— 5^ 

<r\ 

• — 

F i 

3 t 

d 

S 

3 

kfl 

c 

T 

!ii i f l 

c^l 

- o 

1 ^ 

o 

o 

r> 

^ 

y. 

'*^ 

s 

•— ^ 

•£ 

ton 

Z 

S 

H 

— 3 

1/^ 

S 

' 

CT 

m 

7 

c 

s 

Cn 

o 

- r 

u' l/» 

2 

o 

s 

'^ 

o 

r i 

r5 

-JC 

_ •^ 

1 

X 

-T 

-C 

to" 

5 

2 r^ 

s 

— 3 

•T 

3-

^ 

'^ d 

o 

'?i 

K 

^ 

-T 

CJ 

,« 

r~ 

3 

3 

r*^ 

' '• 

r i 

hJ 

f j 

1^ 

on 

V 

r--

ton ^ 

VI 

3 

5^ 

~^ ? 

-T 

IT 

^ 

— 

v . 

r--

-T 

d 

O 

ton 

Co 

30 

-T 

ci 

« 

•T 

*: 

*: 

' c 

'*^ 

O 

r^ 

l-i 

C 

^ b t 

' £ 

OC 

'jt 

r-

? 

JC 

OC 

T 

3 

—' 1 

'*CT ^ 

r^ 

s 

- f 

3 

O 

•3 

-T 

[J 

^ 

_ 

r' l 

S 

•—' 

- r 

o 

(-J 

c 

3-

tofl 

% 

^ t 

rtoO 

=1 

r^.' 

r--

a 

-^— 3c 

fV 

cja 

' 

•?, 

T 

« • 

Cn 

O 

5 

•T 

HJ 

ton 

«t-.. , 

•c 

o 

T 

'^' 

O 

-^^ 

i 

o> 

ton 

• ^ 

r^ 

(- , 

r^ 

•in 

^ 

?! 

3 

b'l 

S 

r-i 

3-

j ; 

^~ 

r^ 

K 

m 

; 

^ 

JO 

T 

r i 

ton 

to^ 

# 

s 

c 

T 

C 

r'. 

iO 

Z> 

f l 

7 

1,^ 

r-

•3-

•C 

r-

•in 

s 

aHjfl 

f^' 

r-i 

5i 

^ 

- r 

. o 

o 

3 

T 

cJ ton 

n 

'^ T 

3 

r^ 

^ 

T 

O 

< • ' 

^ 

oto" 

IC 

r--

1 -

r^ 

ton 

'^ 

'f, 

[--

' / I 

— ^ 

' s 

b^ 

"^ 

••j c 

H " ^ 

3 

5 

o 

tofl 

JO 

T 

Ci 

kO 

* 

c 

'^ 

o 

"•J 

^ 

•3-

•/y 

r-

£ 

r^ 

ton 

?i 

S 

o 

— 

_ 

i ^ 

1 

-c ^ 

l7i 

ton 

3 

- r 

li I/) 

J : 

T 

'^ 

^ 

r-i 

n 

/• J 

JO 

{/_ • 

^ 

rt~r 

_ ton 

3 

U 

— 

:c 

-< % 

• ^ 

—' 

?, 

r> 

d 

^ 

Jo 

•JC 

T 

i j 

,rt 

--, 

-T 

3 

O 

3 

lAi 

? 

'•^ 

^ 

'.C ' 

c 

ton 

; 

o ' 

K 

S 

5 

1 

to* 

' 

c 

r j 

d 

o 

ton 

w 

i c 

"T 

C:i 

to-i 

o 

3; 

§ 

o 

" 1 

r i 

T 

T 

rc 

•r 

» 

r 

9 f-i 

M 

to* 

O 

X 

^ 

**^ 

» 

—' 

' 

5 

fl 

a 

y i 

3C 

3> 

o 

t f-l 

•T 

^ 1 j::; 

i 

i i 

I r^ 

1 ' ^ 

1 = 

1 " . 

-r 

1 r l 

. t n 

1 

< o 

30 

• r^ 

• M 

30 

' , *"'• 

N 

i 

1 

1 

i 

i • 

, 

j 

\ 

• 

1 

1 J 

! 1 

i 

I • 

1 : 

i 

1 • 

1 

( 

i • 

i , 

I 

i 

i 

i 

1 ' 

J i n 

<rEo 

' U 
CHAPTERS. 

COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

The proposed amendment continues DOT's efforts to ensure access to the air transportation 

system for passengers with a disability, while allowing carriers fiexibility 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. A review of experience with the scat-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 scats, 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 fiight is greater than in the past. DOT concludes that the proposal 

results in significant monetary benefits to carriers without imposing a monetary or subjective cost on 

passengers with a disability or others. We invite public comment on this topic. 

12 
CHAPTER 6. 

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 Regiilatoty 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 tbreign 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 proposed rule change permitting U.S. and foreign carriers to adopt an alternative method 

to stow a passenger's manual folding wheelchair in the cabin of an aircraft affects only aircraft with 

100 or more passenger seats. Therefore, the amendment would not apply to small entities (that is, 

U.S. and foreign carriers operating only small aircraft). We conclude that this rulemaking would not 

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOT invites comments on this 

conclusion. 

13