### ^^^N£PORWIO N : O'y S OPERATION S /Gi i JUi ! ! 1 i=> U : O U PRELIMINAR Y REGULATOR Y ANALYSI S NOTIC E O F PROPOSE D RULEMAKIN G NONDISCRIMINATIO N ON TH E BASI S O F DISABILIT Y I N AIRTRAVEL ; ACCESSIBILIT Y O F AIRCRAF T AN D STOWAG E O F WHEELCHAIR S (PAR T 38 2 O F TITL E 14 , COD E O F FEDERA L REGULATIONS )

U.S . Departmen t

of Transportatio n Offic e of th e Secretar y

Januar y 12,201 1TABL E O F CONTENT S

EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y .ii i CHAPTE RI . OVERVIE W 1 1. 1 Regulator y Backgroun d1 1.2 Federa l Agenc y Criteri afo r Regulator y Evaluation s 3 1. 3 U.S . an dForeig n Carrier s Subjec t t o DOT' s Propose dRul e 3 CHAPTE R2 . ASSUMPTION S AN D METHODOLOG Y 4 CHAPTE R3 . COST S T O AFFECTE D ENTITIE S 7 3. 1 Cos t t o Carrier s 7 3. 2 Cos t t o Passenger s wit h aDisabilit y 7 3. 3 Cos t t o Othe r Passenger s 8 CHAPTE R4 . BENEFIT S 9 CHAPTE R5 . COMPARISO N O F COST S AN D BENEFIT S 1 2 CHAPTE R6 . REGULATOR Y FLEXIBILIT Y ANALYSI S 1 3EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y

Introductio n Th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n (DOT ) i s issuin g anotic e o f propose drulemakin g (NPRM ) t o amen dsection s 382.6 7 an d382.123(c ) o f Titl e 14 , Cod e o f

Federa l Regulations . Sectio n 382.6 7 require s U.S . carrier s an dforeig n carrier s operatin g flight s that begi n o r en da t a U.S . airpor t

t o hav e apriorit y spac e ( aclose t o r simila r space ) fo

r stowin g a t

leas t on e folding , manua l passenge r

wheelchai r

i n th e cabi n o f

an y aircraf

t with 100 o r

mor e passenge r

seats . Sectio n 382.123(c ) prohibit s th e us e o f th e seat-strappin g metho d(strappin g afoldin g wheelchai r acros s aro w o f

aircraf t seats ) fo r stowin g awheelchai r

i n th e cabi n o f

an y aircraf

t ordere dafte r May 13 , 200 9 o r

delivere dafte r

May 13 . 2011 . Informatio n ha s sinc e bee n receive dthat man y affecte daircraf

t coul dno t

instal l suc h a priorit y spac e withou t

sacrificin g passenge r

seats . Becaus e DO T intend s t o preven t discriminatio n agains t

passenger s with disabilitie s withou t imposin g arbitrar y requirements , restrictions , o r

prohibition s o n carriers , w e no w propos e t o amen dth e regulation s t o allo w th e seat-strappin g metho da s an alternativ e fo r stowin g awheelchair . Thi s Preliminar y Regulator y Evaluatio n offer s initia l estimate s o f th e cost s an dbenefit s o f thi s amendment . Impac t o f Stowag e Proposal s Cost s Th e NPR M proposa l t o allo w carrier s t o us e th e seat-strappin g metho da s an alternativ e t o complyin g wit

h th e curren t

requiremen t

t o provid e apriorit y spac e fo r wheelchai r

stowag e wil l no t impos e an y mandator y additiona l cost s o n carriers . I f acarrie r choose s t o us e th e seat strappin g method , th e carrie r woul db e require dt o pay denie dboardin g compensation , a s se t fort h i n 1 4 CF RPart

250 , t o passenger s holdin g confirme dreservation s wh o ar e no t abl e t o trave l o n afiight

becaus e thei r

seat s ar e use dt o sto w apassenger' s wheelchair . With tha t bein g said , th e cos t

o f providin g denie dboardin g compensatio n woul db e lo w du e t o th e infrequen t occasion s whe n i

t woul db e require d(i.e. , aircraf t wit h 100 o r

mor e seats , full fiight, carrie r use s seat-strapping , an dapassenge r with adisabilit y bring s amanua l foldin g wheelchai r o n th e tri p an dwant s t o sto w it

i n th e cabin) . Furthermore , th e seat-strappin g metho dmigh t impos e cost s o f damag e o r

delaye dstowag e an dretur n o f wheelchair s o n passenger s wit h disabilitie s an di n turn th e carrier s the y fiy, bu t

base do n arevie w o f

th e Department' s consume r complain t

databas e
11 1an ddiscussion s with th e industry , th e Departmen t ha s n o evidenc e tha

t suc h consequence s ar e likel y an dseek s commen t particularl y fro

mperson s with disabilitie s an ddisabilit y organizations . Passenger s withou t

adisabilit y migh t

als o b e require dt o foreg o thei r seat s o n atlil l fiight

i n orde r t o accommodat e awheelchair , bu t th e Departmen t

ha s no t receive dan y complaint s regardin g thi s practice Benefit s DO T estimate s that

th e proposa l t o allo w th e seat-strappin g metho dfo r stowin g a wheelchai r

woul dpermi t

installatio n o f

a n additiona l ro w o f

thre e seat s o n 8 0 t o 9 0 percen t o f single-aisl e aircraf

t tha t canno t fit apriorit y stowag e spac e withi n thei r planne dcabi n designs . Availabilit y o f

thre e mor e seat s woul dprovid e carrier s a n estimate dminimu mannua l gros s revenu e gai n o f

$15,60 0 pe r

affecte daircraf

t ($12,48 0 i

n ne t revenue , assumin g tha t

margina l cos t represent s 2 0 percen t

o f revenue) . I f

th e expecte dticke t

pric e o r th e incidenc e o f

ful l ftights i s greate r than previou.sl y estimated , th e ne t benefit s woul db e substantiall y greater . Tabl e 1 summarize s thes e minimu mbenefits , whic h amoun t t o $24 3 millio n t o $27 3 millio n i n presen t valu e ove r

2 0 years . :l;pL:_:i.>::'^^^?^,y-Kr'':A^;-;'" ^ ^;;,,i,;j;TABLElVSuminairy*b f Benefits'';;' * • - ':^1^ 3 i-;^; ** ; ,;'/ • ^

;3*:T;i\|* ' Ne t Revenu e Gaine d b\ ' Usin g Seat-Strappin g Stowag e Metho d Shar e n f Aircraf t Affecte d U.S . Carrier s 8 0 % $489^^19,68 0 P V $215,729,16 3 9 0 %

$550,497,12 0 P V $242,700,25 5 

## 1 Foreig n Carrier s Tota l $61,939,20 0 $551,258,88 0 $27,307,23 9 $243,036,40 1 $69,681,60 0

$620,178,72 0 $30,720,64 4 $273,420,89 8 * Estimat e assume s th e ro w o f scat s remove dcontain s thre e seat s althoug h i n asmal l numbe r o f aircraf t onl y atwo-sea l ro w woul dliav c t o b e removed .

I VConclusion s DO T believe s tha

t th e proposa l wil l resul t

i n larg e benefit s t o both U.S . an dforeig n carriers . Base do n arevie w o f th e Department' s consume r complain t

databas e an ddiscussion s with th e industry . DO T believe s tha t th e proposa l wil l hav e n o significan t negativ e impact s o n passenger s with disabilitie s o r other s an dwil l permi t

carrier s t o accommodat e u p t o thre e additiona l passenger s o n man y fiights i f n o passenge r

wishe s t o sto w awheelchai r i n th e cabin . With that bein g said , th e Departmen t seek s comment , particularl y fromperson s with disabilitie s an ddisabilit y organizations , abou t th e propose dmle' s impact . Th e propose damendment s woul d no t appl y t o smal l entities . DO T request s fromth e publi c an y informatio n tha t th e submitte r

believe s wil l improv e th e accurac y o f

ou r estimate s o r

ai du s i n determinin g whethe r

th e seat-strappin g metho do f stowin g awheelchai r

offer s advantage s o r

disadvantage s tha t

hav e no t bee n considere di

n thi s preliminar y regulator y evaluation .CHAPTE R1 . OVERVIE W 1. 1 Regulator y Backgroun d 1 4 CF RPa n 38 2 {Par

t 382) , th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT ) regulatio n tha t prohibit s bot

h U.S . an dforeig n carrier s fromdiscriminatin g agains t passenger s o n th e basi s o f a disability , define s th e accommodation s tha t U.S . an dforeig n carrier s mus t provid e t o passenger s with disabilitie s on fiights in , t o o r fromth e Unite dStates . Par t 38 2 require s carrier s t o provid e a priorit y spac e (e.g. , acloset , simila r compartment , o r

othe r designate dspace ) i

n th e cabi n t o stor e u wheelchair . Thi s requiremen t ha s remaine di

n al l revision s o f

Par t 38 2 sinc e th e regulatio n wa s promulgate di

n 1990 . Althoug h DO T neve r anticipate droutin e adoptio n o f th e seat-strappin g metho do f

carryin g afoldin g wheelchai r acros s aro w o f

scat s t o suppl y th e designate dstowag e space , th e practic e ha s bee n allowe da s amatte r o f enforcemen t

policy , subjec t

t o Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) approval . DO T ha s remaine dconcerned , however , that thi s optio n coul db e awkward , coul dresul t i n damag e o r

untimel y stowag e an dretur n o f wheelchairs , coul ddra w unfavorabl e attentio n t o apassenge r with adisability , an dcoul ddisplac e othe r passenger s o n fijil Mights . A s aresult . Part

38 2 wa s amende do n Ma y 13 . 200 8 t o requir e aircraf t with 100 o r

mor e passenge r seat s ordere dafte r

May 13 , 200 9 o r

delivere dafte r

Ma y 13 . 201 0 t o hav e apriorit y storag e spac e i

n th e cabi n o f

sufficien t

siz e t o sto w a

t leas t on e typica l adult-size dfolding , collapsible , o r

break-dow n manua l passenge r wheelchair , th e dimension s o f whic h ar e withi n a spac e o f 1 3 inche s b y 3 6 inche s b y 4 2 inches , withou t havin g t o remov e th e wheel s o r otherwis e disassembl e th e wheelchair . Th e final rul e als o prohibite dboth U.S . an dforeig n carrier s from usin g th e scat-strappin g metho di n th e cabi n o f

an y aircraf

t ordere dafte r

Ma y 13 , 2009 . o r delivere dafte r

Ma y 13,2011. ' Withi n si x month s o f

issuanc e o f

th e Ma y 13 , 2008 , final rule , th e Departmen t receive d tw o request s t o continu e th e us e o f seat-strapping . Th e Departmen t als o receive dareques t

t o sto w apassenger' s manua l foldin g wheelchai r i n adesignate dcarg o stowag e spac e a s an alternativ e t o stowin g th e passenger' s wheelchai r i n th e cabi n o f

aircraft . Thes e request s wer e

' Se e 7 3 F

R2761 4 an dDO T Docke t Nos . 19482 ; 1119S ; 2399 9 a t . htlp://\vww.rcgulations.gov/rdmspublic/component/main . 1submitte dpursuan t t o th e "equivalen t

alternative " provisio n o f th e May 13 , 2008 , final rule , whic h allow s carrier s t o reques t adeterminatio n tha t

acarrier' s policy , practice , o r othe r accommodatio n provide s substantiall y equivalen t accessibilit y t o passenger s wit h disabilitie s compare dt o aspecifie dprovisio n o f Part 382 . (Se e 1 4 CF R382.9 ) Th e Departmen t

denie dth e tw o request s t o continu e th e us e o f seat-strappin g becausi ^ it wa s contrar y t o th e explici t languag e o f

th e rule , an dachang e i n th e substanc e o f

th e rul e mus t b e addresse dthroug h rulemaking . (Se e Respons e t o Applicatio n o f JetBlu e Airway s Corp. , for an Equivalen t

Altemafiv e Determinatio n fro m1 4 CF R382.123(c) , Docke t DOT-OST-2008-0273 - 006 3 (file dJul y 22 , 2009) ; Respons e t o Applicatio n o f U S Airways , Inc. , for

a n Equivalen t Alternativ e Determinatio n tVo m1 4 CF R382.123(c) , Docke t DOT-OST-2008-0273-006 4 (file d Jul y 22 , 2009). ) Th e Departmen t grante dth e reques t

t o sto w apassenger' s manua l foldin g wheelchai r

i n adesignate dcarg o stowag e spac e a s an alternativ e t o stowin g th e wheelchai r i n th e cabi n o n aone-yea r

tria l basi s subjec t

t o numerou s condition s t o ensur e th e sam e o r greate r accessibilit y t o person s wit h adisability . (Se e Respons e t o Applicatio n o f Aerovia s De l Contincnt e American o S.A. , to r a n Equivalen t

Alternativ e Determinatio n fro m1 4 CF R382.6 7 an d1 4 CF R382.123 , Docke t DOT-OST-2008-0273-0101. ) Th e Departmen t

believe s that

th e issue s raise db y carrier s wit h regar dt o usin g th e seat strappin g metho dshoul db e considere dfurthe r an dw e see k

publi c comment . W e therefor e publis h thi s NPR M t o determin e whethe r section s 382.6 7 an d382.123(c ) o f Par t 38 2 shoul db e amende dt o allo w th e us e o f seat-strappin g a s an optio n for transportin g apassenger' s manua l foldin g wheelchai r

i n th e cabin . Thi s Preliminar y Regulator y Evaluatio n (PRE ) offer s a n initia l estimat e o f

th e potentia l cost s an dbenefit s o f th e proposal . I

n additio n t o DOT' s purpos e o f relievin g carrier s fro munjustifie dcos t burdens , w e see k

t o ensur e saf

e an defficien t

wheelchai r stowage , t o preven t

embarrassmen t

an dstigmatizatio n o f

passenger s with disabilities , an dt o V rninimiz c inconvenienc e t o others . W e therefor e as k th e publi c for

comment s t o th e docke t

. bearin g o n th e accurac y o f estimate dpotentia l cos t avoidanc e an do n whethe r seat-strappin g ha s resulte do r

i s likel y t o resul t

i n dissatisfactio n o r

complaint s b y eithe r

wheelchai r

user s o r othe r passengers .1. 2 Federa l Agenc y Criteri afo r Regulator y Evaluation s Propose dchange s t o Federa l regulation s mus t underg o certai n economi c analyses . E.O . 1286 6 require s Federa l agencie s to : (I ) develo p PRE s t o asses s th e potentia l complianc e cost s an dbenefit s o f

eac h propose drul e for

revie w b y decisionmakers ; (2 ) propos e o r adop t a regulatio n onl y upo n areasone ddetemiinatio n tha t th e benefit s o f

th e intende dregulatio n justif y it s costs ; an d(3 ) determin e whethe r o r no t th e projecte dcost s o f

th e final rul e ar e likel y t o hav e an impac t o n th e econom y o f

$10 0 millio n o r

mor e pe r

year ; i f thi s wer e th e case , th e final rul e woul dconstitut e an economicall y significan t regulator y action , requirin g developmen t o f a detaile dregulator y impac t analysis . Th e Regulator y Flexibilit y Ac t o f 1980 " require s agencie s t o analyz e th e economi c impac t o f regulator y change s o n smal l entities . Th e purpos e i s t o ensur e tha t smal l entitie s ar e no t unnecessaril y o r

disproportionatel y burdene db y Federa l rules . 1. 3 U.S . an dForeig n Carrier s Subjec t t o DOT' s Propose dRul e I n Decembe r

2008 , ther e wer e 5 0 U.S . carrier s an d11 7 foreig n carrier s reportin g th e require ddisability-relate dcomplain t dat at o DOT. ^ A s state dpreviously , th e proposal s i n thi s rulemakin g atfec t

onl y thos e carrier s operatin g aircraf t with 100 o r

mor e passenge r

scats , a numbe r somewha t

les s tha n thes e totals .

• hltpi/Zw-ww.sba.gov/advo/laws/rcgtlex.html . ^Se e 1 4 CF R382.157 .CHAPTE R2 . ASSUMPTION S AN D METHODOLOG Y Thi s analysi s incorporate s th e followin g assumption s an dmethodology : 1 . Al l U.S . an dforeig n carrier s operatin g aircraf t with 10 0 o r

mor e passenge r

seat s that

fiy t o o r fro maU.S . airpor t

ar c subjec t

t o th e curren t

requiremen t

t o provid e apriorit y spac e i n th e cabi n fo r apassenger' s manua l foldin g wheelchai r an dar e potentia l beneficiarie s o f th e propose drule . Aircraf

t wit h 100 o r

mor e passenge r

seat s includ e narrow-bod y (single-aisle ) an dwide-bod y (twin-aisle ) aircraft . 2 . Sinc e twin-aisl e aircraf t hav e sufficien t

priorit y spac e t o compl y wit h th e curren t

rul e withou t havin g t o remov e aro w o f seats , the y hav e anegligibl e incentiv e t o tak e advantag e o f th e propose drul e an dar c exclude dfro mthi s analysis . 3 . 1 0 t o 2 0 percen t

o f larg e single-aisl e aircraf t als o hav e cabi n configuration s tha t facilitat e complianc e with th e curren t rul e an dar e exclude dfro mth e analysis . Th e remainin g 8 0 t o 9 0 percen t o f single-aisl e aircraf

t canno t provid e apriorit y spac e mth e cabi n fo r afoldin g wheelchai r

withou t removin g aro w o f

passenge r

seats . Thes e aircraf

t ar e expecte dt o tak e advantag e o f

th e propose drul e b y usin g th e seat-strappin g method , installin g a n additiona l ro w o f thre e seats . 4 . Th e benefi t

t o th e carrie r

o f an additiona l ro w o f

seat s i s realize donl y whe n deman di s sufficien t t o fill th e aircraf

t an dwhe n th e ro w i s no t bein g utilize db y apassenger' s manua l foldin g wheelchair . Th e regulator y evaluatio n fo r th e final rul e publishe dMa y 13 , 200 8 use d a n estimat e o f

$4,50 0 (200 5 dollars ) a s th e averag e annua l revenu e los s pe r sea t removed." * Thi s valu e woul db e increase dt o $5,20 0 i n 200 8 dollars , whe n adjuste db y th e ATP I index. ^ Th e potentia l incremen t

t o annua l revenu e pe r

aircraf t fro maro w o f

scat s woul dtherefor e b e 3 X $5,20 0 = $15,600 . I t ha s bee n suggeste dtha t thi s estimat e i s outdated , sinc e airline s ar e no w filling alarge r

percentag e o f

ftights, makin g it

mor e likel y that

extr ascat s wil l generat e

^ DO T Docke t

Nos . 19482 ; 22298 : 2399 9 a t http://ww\v.regu!ations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main . RegulafDi y Evaliiaiion . p . I4 . ^ hllp://\vww.bls.gov/xml/aip irevenue . Althoug h w e offer n o alternativ e estimate , th e valu e cite dher e shoul db e regarde d a s th e minimu madditiona l revenu e fro maro w o f thre e seats . 5 . Th e regulator y evaluatio n fo r th e curren t

rul e estimate da

n incrementa l cos t

for additiona l passenger s a

t 2 0 percen t

o f fare revenue . Accordingly , w e wil l continu e t o assum e tha t th e benefi t t o acarrie r

i n incrementa l ne t

revenu e wil l b e 8 0 percen t o f th e incrementa l gros s revenue . Thi s amoun t

i s equa l t o $ 15.60 0 x 0. 8 = $ 12,480 . 6 . Industr y source s repor t tha t th e cos t o f an aircraf

t orde r woul dno t

b e affecte db y th e decisio n t o instal l apriorit y spac e o r aro w o f scats . Carrier s generall y receiv e afixedallowanc e fo r th e aircraf

t interio r a t th e tim e o f

order , an dthi s include s variou s options . Generally , change s ca n b e accommodate da

t n o charge , provide dtha t th e reques t

i s mad e prio r

t o final specificatio n o f

th e aircraf

t interio r (approximatel y 1 0 month s befor e th e schedule ddeliver y date) . I f th e interio r

desig n i s alread y final, th e cos t t o remov e apriorit y spac e an dinstal l a ro w o f thre e seat s woul db e approximatel y $20,00 0 pe r aircraft , includin g certificatio n t o addres s hea dstrik e an dhi p requirement s an dothe r considerations ; 7 . Th e $20,00 0 cos t

t o remov e apriorit y spac e an dinstal l aro w o f thre e scat s wil l no t

b e incurre db y aircraf

t delivere dmor e tha n 1 0 month s afte r th e dat e o f

publicatio n o f

afinal rule , sinc e carrier s wil l hav e tim e t o modif y orders . W e assum e tha t afinal rul e coul db e publishe di

n th e fal l o f 2011 , s o aircraf

t incurrin g n o modificatio n cost s woul db e thos e delivere dafte r

th e middl e o f

2012 . Aircraf

t ordere dbefor e May 13 , 200 9 an ddelivere d befor e Ma y 13 , 201 1 woul dals o incu r n o modificatio n cost , sinc e the y woul dno t b e subjec t t o th e curren t

rule . Aircraf

t potentiall y incurrin g suc h cost s woul db e thos e ordere dafte r May 13 . 200 9 an ddelivere dbefor e mid-2012 . Sinc e order s ar e typicall y place dlon g befor e th e start o f assembly , w e estimat e tha t modificatio n cost s woul db e incurre dfor aircraf t delivere dbetwee n mid-201 0 an dmid-2012 . W e wil l deduc t thi s cos t fromth e carrie r benefit s expecte dfro maircraf t delivere di

n th e first tw o year s o f

analysis . 8 . W e estimat e that

atota l o f

23 7 larg e single-aisl e aircraf t wil l b e delivere di n eac h yea r t o U.S . carriers ; thi s figure i s derive da s th e U.S . fractio n o f Nort h America n deliveries . Th e FA A Aerospac e Forecast : Fisca l Year s 2010-203 0 report s 3,18 1 larg e single-aisl e aircraf t operate db y mainlin e U.S . carrier s i n 2008. ^ Compariso n o f thi s figure wit

h th e 200 8 Non h http://ww\v . faa.gov/data_rescarch/aviation /America n tota l o f 3,78 0 larg e single-aisl e aircraf t fromth e Boein g Curren t Marke t Outloo k 2009-202 8 yield s 8 4 percen t (3,181 - 3,78 0 = 0.84 ) a s th e shar e o f Nort h America n single aisl e aircraf

t operate db y U.S . carriers. ^ Boein g forecast s 5,63 0 North America n deliverie s ove r 2 0 years , o r

28 2 aircraf

t pe r year . Assumin g tha t

future deliverie s woul dmaintai n th e presen t fieet proportion , 23 7 larg e single-aisl e aircraf t (28 2 x 0.84 ) pe r

year ar e estimate dt o ente r U.S . service . W e assum e that thes e aircraf

t remai n i n servic e throughou t th e estimatio n period . 9 . W e estimat e that

atotal o f

3 0 larg e single-aisl e aircraf t wil l b e delivere di

n eac h year

t o foreig n carrier s for

scn'ic c t o (h e Unite dSlates . .Accordin g t o 200 5 FA A data , 4 percen t o f larg e singlc-aisi c foreign-carrie r aircraf t wer e i n U.S . service , o r 33 1 ou t o f approximatel y 8,200 . Th e Boein g forecas t o f worl ddeliverie s fo r

single-aisl e aircraf

t ove r th e nex t 2 0 year s i s 19,460 , o r

97 3 pe r year . Excludin g th e 23 7 t o b e delivere dt o U.S . carriers , 73 6 wil l b e purchase db y foreig n carriers , o f whic h 4 percent , o r

approximatel y 30 , wil l ente r U.S . service , assumin g th e geographi c distributio n o f aircraf t us e i s unchanged . W e assum e thes e aircraf t wil l remai n i

n th e sam e service . 10 . Th e analysi s i s conducte dwithi n atim e horizo n o f 2 0 years , from201 2 t o 2031 , durin g whic h perio dth e numbe r o f aircraf t delivere dan dremainin g i n servic e wil l gro w continually . At th e en do f

thi s period , th e numbe r

o f aircraf t affecte db y th e rul e wil l b e stable , yieldin g benefit s t o U.S . an dforeig n carrier s a t th e annua l leve l o f

a t leas t $5 3 t o $6 0 million , i f

othe r condition s ar e unchanged .

http://\v\vw.boeitm.cotn/conuncrcial/cmo/index.him l

### CHAPTE R3 . COST S T O AFFECTE D ENTITIE S 3. 1 Cos t t o Carrier s Th e purpos e o f

th e propose drul e i s to reliev e U.S . an dforeign carrier s o f

potentia l cost s o f complianc e wit

h the existin g regulation s tha t requir e carrier s to provid e apriorit y spac e fo r stowag e o f

awheelchair

i n the cabin o f

aircraf t wit h 10 0 o r mor e passenger

seats . The seat strappin g metho dwouldb e adopte da t the carriers ' discretion . Consequently , n o additiona l cost s woul dbe imposedo

n carrier s b

y th e propose drule . 3. 2 Cos t t o Passenger s with aDisability Passenger s wit

h disabilitie s whos e folding wheelchair s ar e stowe di n aircraf t cabin s b y th e seat-strappin g metho dmigh t incu r cost s o f damag e t o their wheelchair s or

dela y i n stowag e an dreturn . The Departmen

t ha s n o information t

o suppor t thes e concerns , bu

t seek s comment , particulari y fro

mperson s wit

h disabilitie s an

ddisabilit y organizations , about

the propose drule' s impact . W

e ar e no t awar e o f receivin g an

y complaint s of

damag e or

dela y a s aresult

o f a carrier' s us e o f

the seat-strappin g method . O n domesti c flights, moreover , if acarrier damage s apassenger' s wheelchair

b y usin g th e seat-strappin g method , 1 4 CF R382.129(b) ^ 382.131'" , an d254.4" . whe

n rea di n conjunction , wouldrequir e the carrier

to compensat

e the passenger

u p to th e origina

l purchas e pric e of

th e wheelchair . O

n mos t internationa

l flights, th e Montrea

l Conventio n wouldapply , which limit s acarrier' s liabilit y t o 1,13 1 specia

l drawin g rights.

DOT' S Aviatio n Consimie r Protectio n Divisio n (ACPD ) receive s thousand s o f writte n an dtelephon e complaint s ayear . Th e ACP D receive s complaint s b y letter , throug h it s website , airconsumer.dot.go v an db y phone .

1 4 CF R382.129(b ) require s carrier s t o retur n wheelchair s t o passenger s i n th e conditio n i

n whic h th e whecJc/iai r

was received . 1 4 CF R382.13 1 slate s that with respec t

t o transportatio n t o whic h 1 4 CF RPart 25 4 applies , th e limit s t o liabilit y for

loss , damage , o r

dela y concernin g wheelchair s o r othe r assistiv e device s provide di n Part 25 4 d o not apply . Th e basi s for

calculatin g th e compensatio n fo r alost , damaged , o r

destroye dwheelchai r

o r othe r assistiv e devic e shal l b e th e origina l purchas e pric e o f th e device . 1 4 CF R254. 4 state s iha l lo r interstat e ai r

transportatio n o n an y tligh l segmen t usin g larg e aircraft , o r

o n iin y flight

segmen t that i s include do n th e sam e ticke t a s anothe r

fligh t segmen t that use s larg e aircraft , an ai r carrie r shal l no t limi t it s liabilit y fo

r provabl e direc t

o r consequentia l damage s resultin g fro mth e disappearanc e of , damag e to , o r dela y i n deliver y of apassenger' s persona l property , includin g baggage , i n it s custod y t o an amoun t les s tha n S3,30 0 for

eac h passenger . 7 '

### 3. 3 Cos t t o Othe r Passenger s ^ I f aflight o n which apassenger' s wheelchair i s stowe db

y the seat-strappin g metho di s full , u p to thre e othe

r passenger s migh

t b e require dt

o forg o their

seats . Th e Department

ha s n o wa y to quantif

y the cost s o f

such a n even t an dha s receive dn o relevan

t complaints . I

n mos t situations , 1 4 CF

RPar t 25 0 wouldrequir

e acarrier t o pa y compensatio n to an

y passenger involuntaril y denie dboardin g fro ma n oversol dflight.'^ I

n addition , the abilit

y o f carrier s t o instal l a n additiona

l ro w of seat s woul dbenefit

passenger s fa

r mor e ofte n whe n the seat s ar

e no t pre-empte dfo

r wheelchair

stowag e tha

n i t woul dinconvenienc e the

mo n occasion s whe

n th e seat s ar e unavailable .

1 4 CF RPart

25 0 applie s t o ever y carrier , a s define di n .sectio n 250.1 , with respec t t o schedule dflight segment s usin g a

n aircraf t tha i ha s adesigne dpassenge r capacit y o f

3 0 o r mor e passenge r

seats , operatin g i

n (i ) interstat e ai r

transportatio n o r

(2 ) foreig n ai r

transportatio n with respec t t o nonsto p flight

segment s originatin g a t a poin t withi n th e Unite dStates . 

### 8

### CHAPTE R4 . BENEFIT S I f DO T adopt s the propose dnil e permittin g seat-strapping , U.S . an dforeig n carrier s will b e abl e t o orde r certai n aircraf

t type s wit h a n extraro w o f seats . Th e principa l expecte dbenefi

t o f thi s rulemakin g i s thu s the additiona l ne t revenu e accruin g t

o carrier s through installatio n of thre e mor e passenge

r seat s o n 8 0 to 9 0 percen

t of single-aisl e aircraft . The fiexibility which the rul e wouldallo w carrier s i n arrangin g aircraf

t cabin s coul dals o mak

e i t les s burdensome to accommodat

e passenger s wit

h disabilities , thereb y removin g a n obstacl e t

o rulemaking s tha

t enhanc e accessibility . W e assum e her e tha t al l twin-aisl e aircraf

t an dbetwee n 1 0 percen

t an d20 percent

o f single-aisl e aircraf

t wit h mor e tha n 10 0 seat s will b e abl e t

o instal l apriorit

y stowag e spac e without sacrificin g scat s an

dwill therefor

e hav e n o incentiv e to tak

e advantag e o f

the propose d rule . The remainin g 8 0 percen t t o 9 0 percent

o f larg e single-aisl e aircraf

t will instal l aro

w o f seat s an demplo y th e seat-strappin g method . The minimumbenefi t fro mthi s modificatio n i s the ne t revenu e fro

ma n additiona

l thre e seats , estimate da s 8 0 percen t o f th e potentia

l gros s ticket revenue . Ticket

revenu e pe

r sea t i s adjuste dfro

mth e valu e employe di

n th e regulator

y evaluatio n prepare dfo

r the current

rule . Thi s benefi

t total s $21 6 millio n t

o $24 3 millio n to r

U.S . carrier s an d$2 7 millio n t

o $3 1 millio n fo

r foreig n carrier s i

n presen t value , discounte da

t arat e o f 7 percen t ove r 20 years . The aggregate minimumbenefi t i s the n $24 3 t o $27 3 million . Th

e derivatio n o f

thes e estimate s i s shown i n detai l i n Tabl e 2 . I f the probabilit

y of filling the additiona

l seat s i s highe

r tha n assume di

n the past , the tru e benefit s wouldb e significantl y greater . I t shoul dals o be note dtha

t the benefit s gro w ove

r tim e a s olde r aircraf t ar e retire dan

dth e share o f

th e fleet subjec t to the rul e increases . Thi s proces s i s likely t o be complete db

y 2031 . Tlierefore , the annua l ne t revenu e gain of

$5 3 to $6 0 millio n predicte dfo

r U.S . an dforeign carriers , combined , i n 203 1 shoul dcontinu e i

n subsequent

year s t o represent the minimumbenefi

t of thi s rule , assumin g other

condition s ar

e unchanged .%.-i. C

^ • d

- : 5 •T- 6

•• 5 § E S

- a < 0 3 5 C

5 d,- ^ 2? ; 3

3.- I C

> ti l - J- " V } 4 / •f t • D . o n 

### a ^
b 4 J u D a j

- o . ; § •• ' J O u • < Sfronmted

, oe. SNetDot 2 o S = > - • D - • < o J 2 . -4 1
4 1 3 -• § e o W

• J i r I B < 1 - - .

- " . •

' _

• . '

1 , '

.

; •

1

1

• c
n , U 3 £ ' '" k O 1 u . ' - i 

# ¥^ ^

_
• - ^ c 

## 1 ^' ^ • 1 ' = •1

- J £ • > / > -rt " u c i a : 3 .

„ . 5 ^ d

—^ u 

## M ^ 1 |: l 3 ' 5

-- ; : =i £
' J r' > '^![ 2 : 2 !

. '^ ^ 

# i ^ 1 'i - •^. <
u = •

n ! - 3
I J •

_c Z £ Z 1 Ji' ^ < i i ;

y

o ^ P

^ J

—

- o

— '~ ' e o n , a r 

# i

- ^ o

o 

# i w » ^ 

# i
s


### ^ ill' s > --i> ' < • :i : • - 5 ='\ r u .3;< i 

## ^1;§ i 3 , • ^

i 1 - -^^Ji^ : 1

- " 1 1

_ 1 ( J

— • ^ I I '. ^ o o a •.i j Q I I c ^ u ^ u I I u ' X
'Z U f_ , 0 ^ 3 u

L J ^ ^

= 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 i p 1 ^
j ; r . — w O

i ^ " ^ 

### 1 7 M 

### t : > 3 

## ¥ s (/ ^ s 3

t n i ' "

- I 1I- .

J C

3

O

' ' r ^ 5 !. « C X

- f o ; r - ' / i
E : ^ S ^* ^ 5 •. c T ly i

— 3 , r 3 0 o

o

o ' »

'! c " T C J ( ^

_ 3 0

r s

3

- r o ^ 

### 1 b ^
5 O ' r- ' o > ' / I 

### 1 ? . s i

~" 2 -J 6 T

- ^

—
• c K C

C

iT i 5 • ^ l i to"

i :

s

'' '

o • c • ^

_ V H Z l f r , T , • j ^
5 ^ I C C n

— K K

' '

• > r ~ ;
S ^

3

- r l i « ^

V ,
r ,

-

" 1

n r T V

f • f ^ • x

_ 1. ^

r i q i. n

— ? i r- ' r v i ^— ' o r ^ ^ »

o b g T r i y ^

r ,
. c 5

o

c
- ^

o t n I f if h

c c r o f ^ u- l

r ^ • z ' ^ ^

— 

### 1 o s y ^ ~ < J o s ,

c

o T z l M

. y J O

c

o

o '* !

" • ' 3 ;

• c i/ >
5 n r i ? •

- T «

O 5 3 - ^ V )

— s s C 3 - Ir t ^ t- - C o 3

O

J C T C J b t

C ^

T

'*' '

f j C - f c r 1 ^

o X y ^ y ^
3 y q i« ^

— 5 ^ <r \

• — F i 3 t d S

3 kf l

c T !i i i f l

c^ l

- o

1 ^

o o r > ^ y . '* ^ s — • ^ • £ ton

Z S H

— 3 1/ ^ S ' CT m 7 c s

C n

o

- r u ' l/ »

2

o
s ' ^

o

r i r 5 -J C

_ • ^ 1 X

- T

- C to" 5 

### 2 r ^ s

— 3
• T 3 - ^

' ^ d o

'? i K ^

- T C J , «

r ~ 3

3 r* ^

' ' •

r i h J f j 1 ^

o n V r- - ^ ton

V I 3 5 ^

~ ^ ?

- T I T ^

— v . r- -
- T d

O ton

C o

3 0

- T c i «

• T

* : * :

' c '* ^

O

r ^ l- i C ^ b t

' £ O C 'j t r - ?

J C O C T 3

— ' 1 '* ^ CT r ^
s

- f 3

O

• 3

- T [ J ^

_ r' l

S

•— '

- r o (- J c 3 - tofl % ^ t r toO

= 1 r^. ' r- - a -^ — 3 c f V cj a ' •? , T
« •

C n

O
5 • T H J ton
« , t-. .

• c

o T

'^ '

O -^ ^ 

### i o > ton

• ^ r ^ ( - , r ^ •i n ^ ? ! 3 b' l S r- i 3 - j ; ^ ~ r ^ K m ; ^

J O T r i ton

to^ # s

c T

C r' .

i O Z > f l 7 1, ^

r - •3 - • C r - •i n s a Hjf l

f^ ' r- i 5 i ^

- r

. o o 3

T c J ton

n ' ^ T 3 r ^ ^ T

O

< • ' ^
o to"

I C r- - 1 - r ^ ton

' ^ 'f , [- - ' / I

— ^ ' s b ^

" ^ ••j c H " ^ 3 5

o tofl

J O T C i kO *

c

' ^

o "• J ^ •3 - •/ y

r - £ r ^ ton
? i S o

—

_ i ^ 1

- ^ c

l7 i

ton

3

- r l i I/ )

J :

T

' ^
^ r- i n / • J J O

_ {/ • ^ r t~ r

_ ton 3 U

— : c

- < %

• ^

— ' ? , r > d ^

J o

•J C T i j ,r t

--,

- T

3

O

3 lA i ?

'• ^ ^ ' '

. 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
r c • r » r 9 f- i M to*
O X ^ ** ^ »

— '

'

5 fl a y i 3

C 3 > o t f- l • T ^ 1 j:: ; i 

### i i I r

^ 1 ' ^ 1 = 1 " .
- r 1 r l

. t n 1 < o 3 0 • r ^

• M

3 0

' , *"' •

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 <rE o ' U

### CHAPTERS . COMPARISO N O F COST S AN D BENEFIT S The propose damendment

continue s DOT' s effort s t o ensur e acces s to th e air

transportatio n syste mfo r passenger s wit

h adisability , whil e allowin g carrier s fiexibility i n providin g such access . I t protect s the right

o f passenger s wh o travel wit h amanua l folding wheelchair

to receiv e servic e an

d accommodatio n tha

t meet s their

need s bu t avoid s unnecessar

y an dcostly restriction s o

n th e manne

r i n which tha

t servic e i s provided . A review of experienc e wit

h th e scat-strappin g metho do f wheelchair

stowag e suggest s tha

t an y cost s t o passenger s will b e slight , whil e the benefit s to carrier s of permittin g thi s metho do f stowag e will be ver

y substantial . Carrier s coul dexpec t i n man y case s to configur e aircraf t wit h a n additiona

l row o f scats , yieldin g minimumpotentia l ne t revenu e gain s wit

h present value s over

20 year s o f

between $24 3 millio n an

d$27 3 millio n an

dlarge r benefit s i f th e far e level o r expectatio n o f

aful l fiight i s greater tha n i n th e past . DO

T conclude s tha

t th e proposa

l result s i n significan

t monetar y benefit s t

o carrier s without

imposin g amonetar

y or subjectiv e cos t

o n passenger s wit

h adisabilit

y o r others . W

e invit e publi c commen

t o n thi s topic .

1 2CHAPTE R6 . REGULATOR Y FLEXIBILIT Y ANALYSI S Th e Regulator y Flexibilit y Ac t o f 198 0 (RFA) , a s amende db y th e Smal l Busines s Regulator y Enforcemen t

Fairnes s Ac t

(SBREFA ) o f

1996 , require s governmen t agencie s t o evaluat e th e impac t o f thei r regulation s o n smal l entities . Whe n considerin g smal l ai r carriers , DO T ha s adopte dth e standar dpublishe di

n 1 4 CF R399.73 , Definitio n o f smal l busines s fo r

Regiilatot y Flexibilit y Act : Fo r th e purpose s o f

th e Department' s implementatio n o f chapte r 6 o f titl e 5 , Unite d State s Cod e (Regulator y Flexibilit y Act) , adirec t ai r carrie r o r tbreig n ai r

carrie r i s a smal l busines s i f

i t provide s ai r

transportatio n onl y with smal l aircraf t a s define di n sectio n 298. 3 o f

thi s chapte r

(u p t o 6 0 seats/18.00 0 poun dpayload) . Th e propose drul e chang e permittin g U.S . an dforeig n carrier s t o adop t a n alternativ e metho d t o sto w apassenger' s manua l foldin g wheelchai r i n th e cabi n o f

a n aircraf t affect s onl y aircraf

t wit h 10 0 o r mor e passenge r

seats . Therefore , th e amendmen t woul dno t

appl y t o smal l entitie s (tha t is , U.S . an dforeig n carrier s operatin g onl y smal l aircraft) . W e conclud e that thi s rulemakin g woul dno t hav e asignifican t

impac t o n asubstantia l numbe r o f smal l entities . DO T invite s comment s o n thi s conclusion .

1 3