U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

GENERAL COUNSEL 1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested 

Lester M. Bridgeman 

Attorney for Monarch Airlines, Ltd. 

Alford, Clausen & McDonald, LLC 

One St. Louis Center, Suite 5000 

Mobile, Alabama 36602 

Dear Mr. Bridgeman: 

Re: Conflict of Law Waiver Request 

Concerning Provisions in Subpart G of 

14 CFR Part 382 

This letter concerns Monarch Airlines Limited's (Monarch) September 10, 2008, request for a 

conflict of law waiver concerning the boarding, deplaning, and connecting assistance 

requirements contained in Subpart G of 14 CFR Part 382 (14 CFR 382.91 - 14 CFR 382.105) of 

the Department's Air Canier Access Act (ACAA) regulation. Monarch's request for a conflict 

of law waiver concerning various other provisions of 14 CFR Part 382 (Part 382) is still under 

review by the Department. 

Monarch asserts a conflict of law between section 382.101, 382.103, and 382.105 of Part 382 

and Articles 7.1, 7.5, 7 .6, and. 8.1 of EC 1107/2006, the European Union regulation on service to 

passengers with disabilities. The cited provisions of EC 1107 require the airport managing body 

(airport operator) to provide assistance to a person with reduced mobility (PRM) in boarding and 

deplaning a flight, as well as transiting the airport. Under sections 382.101, 382.103, and 

382.105, carriers, not airport operators, are responsible for providing or ensuring boarding, 

deplaning, and connecting assistance. 

We note that Part 382 does not prohibit Monarch from relying on the relevant services provided 

by an airport operator, so long as those services meet the requirements in Subpart G of Part 382. 

When those services do not meet the requirements of Subpart G, however, section 382.105 of our 

rule requires Monarch to provide supplemental services to ensure that these requirements are 

met. 1 In other words, to ensure compliance with Part 382, the service must be supplemented 

The preamble to 14 CFR Part 382 provides further clarification of the Department's intent: 

[T]he final rule should not be understood to require carriers to duplicate the accommodations 

made by airport operators at foreign airports. Where foreign airport operators provide accessibility 
Page2 

when necessary to the extent required by the rule (e.g., a carrier is bound to provide or ensure 

prompt enplaning and deplaning assistance, including to a passenger who does not provide 

advance notice and requests assistance to make a connection to another flight). Article 9.4 of 

EC 1107 explicitly permits agreements between carriers and airport operators in which the 

airport operator will provide a higher standard of service or supplemental services to the carrier's 

passengers at that airport. Moreover, we are not aware of any provision in EC 1107 that bars a 

carrier from directly supplementing services. 

In the Section-by-Section Analysis of the conflict of laws provision in the preamble to the final 

rule (73 Fed. Reg. at 27646), and in section 382.9, we stated that a foreign law that requires a 

foreign carrier to do something prohibited by this rule, or that prohibits a foreign carrier from 

doing something required by this rule, is an appropriate subject for a conflict oflaws waiver. 

This is not the case with respect to the cited provisions of EC 1107 and the requirements of 

sections 382.101,382.103, and 382.105. The relevant provisions ofboth Part 382 and EC 1107 

complement one another and allow for ample flexibility to achieve simultaneous compliance 

with the requirements of both regulations. Absent a showing of a generally applicable legal bar 

in EC 1107 to providing supplementary services as needed to meet the requirements in Subpart 

G of Part 382~ a carrier would necessarily have to make an airport-by-airport showing that it was 

precluded from providing supplementary services. Monarch does not provide any information 

demonstrating that it is precluded from providing supplementary services at any particular airport 

or airports from which it conducts operations covered by Part 382. Therefore, having found no 

conflict oflawt the Department must deny Monarch's conflict of law waiver request for sections 

382.101, 382.103, and 382.105. 

services or accessible facilities, foreign carriers may rely on the airport operators' efforts, to the 

extent that those efforts fully meet the requirements of this Part. What happens, though, if the 

foreign airport operators' efforts do not fully provide the accessibility that this rule requires (e.g., 

the airport operator is responsible for providing wheelchair assistance to passengers within the 

terminal, but does not provide coru1ecting service between gates for wheelchair users who are 

changing planes on flights covered by the rule)? In such a case, this rule requires air carriers to 

supplement the services provided by the airport operator, by providing the supplemental services 

itself or hiring a contractor to do so. If the carrier caru1ot legally do so (e.g., the airline is legally 

prohibited from supplementing the airport's services to passengers with disabilities), the carrier 

could seek a conflict oflaws waiver. U.S. Department of Transportation, Nondiscrimination on the 

Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 73 Fed. Reg. 27614, 27619 (May 13, 2008). 
Page3 

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Blane Workie, of my staff, or me at 

(202) 366-9342. You may also reach us by fax at (202) 36().. 7152. 

cc: William Barton 

Geoff Atkinson 

Sincerely, 

s;z~ Samuel Podberesky 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings