102398 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘Carrier’’ is defined as ‘‘a U.S. citizen (‘‘U.S. 

carrier’’) or foreign citizen (‘‘foreign carrier’’) that 

undertakes, directly or indirectly, or by a lease or 

any other arrangement, to engage in air 

transportation.’’ 14 CFR 382.3. 

2See 55 FR 8008 (Mar. 6, 1990). 

3See, e.g., Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in Air Travel, 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 

2008) (revised part 382 to comply with Wendell H. 

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 

21st Century, which, among other things, amended 

the ACAA to include foreign carriers in the 

prohibition against discriminating against qualified 

individuals with disabilities). 

4See, e.g., Accessible Lavatories on Single Aisle 

Aircraft, 88 FR 50020 (Aug. 1, 2023); Traveling by 

Air with Service Animals, 85 FR 79742 (Dec. 10, 

2020); and Accessibility of websites and Automated 

Kiosks at U.S. Airports, 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 

2013). 

5See e.g., United Airlines, Inc., Order 2016–1–3 

(Jan. 15, 2016); US Airways, Inc., Order 2013–11– 

4 (Nov. 4, 2013); American Airlines, Inc, Order 

2003–3–1 (Mar. 4, 2003); and Northwest Airlines, 

Inc., Order 2002–2–11 (Feb. 11, 2002). 

6See e.g., Frontier Airlines, Inc., Order 2017–7– 

8 (July 21, 2017); United Airlines, Inc., Order 2016– 

1–3 (Jan. 15, 2016); U.S. Airways, Inc., Order 2003– 

3–19 (Mar. 26, 2003); American Airlines, Inc., Order 

2003–3–1 (Mar. 4, 2003). 

7See e.g., American Airlines, Inc., Order 2024– 

10–15 (Oct. 23, 2024); Allegiant Air, LLC, Order 

2018–4–8 (Apr. 13, 2018); American Airlines, Inc., 

Order 2013–12–4 (Dec. 6, 2013); JetBlue Airways 

Corp., Order 2010–12–17 (Dec. 13, 2010). 

8 14 CFR 399.79(b). 

9The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public 

Law 115–254, Sec. 440 (Oct. 5. 2018). 

10The Department notes that the 2018 FAA Act 

also increased the civil penalties related to harm to 

passengers with disabilities and required the 

Department to develop the Airline Passengers with 

Disabilities Bill of Rights. 

11The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public 

Law 118–63, Sec. 544 (May 16, 2024). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2022–0144] 

RIN 2105–AF14 

Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air 

Travelers With Disabilities Using 

Wheelchairs 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT or the Department) 

is issuing a final rule to strengthen its 

regulation implementing the Air Carrier 

Access Act (ACAA) and to address the 

serious problems that individuals with 

disabilities using wheelchairs and 

scooters face when traveling by air that 

impact their safety and dignity, 

including mishandled wheelchairs and 

scooters and improper transfers to and 

from aircraft seats, aisle chairs, and 

personal wheelchairs. This final rule 

also carries out certain rulemaking 

provisions required by the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 16, 

2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Miller, Vinh Nguyen, 

Robert Gorman, or Blane Workie, Office 

of Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 

20590, 202–366–9342 (phone), 202– 

366–7152 (fax), christopher.miller1@

dot.gov, vinh.nguyen@dot.gov, 

robert.gorman@dot.gov, or 

blane.workie@dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

increase access to safe and dignified air 

travel for individuals with disabilities. 

The Department is committed to 

ensuring that our air transportation 

system is safe and accessible for all. Air 

travel connects individuals to family 

and friends, jobs, and vital services, and 

it opens the door to opportunity. 

However, air travel can be especially 

difficult for individuals who use 

wheelchairs or scooters and rely on 

disability-related physical assistance 

and services provided by U.S. and 

foreign air carriers 1 (‘‘carriers’’ or 

‘‘airlines’’) and their contractors. 

Damaged and delayed personal 

wheelchairs and assistive devices and 

untimely and unsafe assistance 

provided by airlines can lead to serious 

life disruptions such as loss of mobility 

independence, personal injury, lost 

opportunities and wages, and other 

significant harms. Some wheelchair 

users even avoid flying altogether 

because of these risks. 

B. Statutory Authority 

The Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 

41705, prohibits discrimination because 

of disability in airline service by U.S. 

and foreign air carriers. When it enacted 

the ACAA, Congress directed the 

Department ‘‘to promulgate regulations 

to ensure non-discriminatory treatment 

of qualified handicapped individuals 

consistent with safe carriage of all 

passengers on air carriers.’’ Public Law 

99–435, section 3, 100 Stat. 1080, 1080 

(1986). The Department responded by 

issuing a final rule that required carriers 

to provide nondiscriminatory service to 

individuals with disabilities.2 The 

Department has continually updated 

these regulations pursuant to the ACAA, 

Congressional mandate,3 and with the 

Department’s rulemaking authority 

under 49 U.S.C. 40113, which states that 

the Department may take action that it 

considers necessary to carry out its 

statutory duties, including prescribing 

regulations.4 The Department considers 

the mishandling of wheelchairs, 

scooters, and assistive devices, and 

unsafe, undignified, and untimely 

wheelchair assistance, to constitute 

discrimination on the basis of 

disability.5 Those actions impose 

burdens on passengers with disabilities 

that they do not impose on passengers 

without disabilities. Those actions also 

deny passengers full and equal access to 

carriers’ services. 

To the extent that violations of the 

ACAA and part 382 occur in interstate 

air transportation, the incidents are also 

violations of 49 U.S.C. 41702, which 

requires air carriers to provide safe and 

adequate interstate air transportation. 

The Department has long recognized 

section 41702 may be used to ensure 

‘‘safe and adequate’’ service in a civil 

rights context.6 The Department has also 

previously found that violations of the 

ACAA and 14 CFR part 382 are unfair 

practices under 49 U.S.C. 41712.7 A 

practice is unfair if it (1) causes or is 

likely to cause substantial injury to 

consumers, (2) cannot be reasonably 

avoided by consumers, and (3) is not 

outweighed by countervailing benefits 

to consumers or to competition.8

Additionally, section 440 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2018 9 (‘‘2018 

FAA Act’’) directs the Department to 

review, and if necessary revise, 

applicable regulations to ensure that 

passengers with disabilities receive 

dignified, timely, and effective 

assistance at airports and onboard 

aircraft from trained personnel. It also 

directs the Department to ensure that 

airline personnel who provide physical 

assistance to passengers with 

disabilities receive annual training that 

includes, as appropriate, hands-on 

instructions and the appropriate use of 

relevant equipment.10

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 

2024 11 (‘‘2024 FAA Act’’) contains 

multiple accessibility measures to 

improve travel for passengers who use 

wheelchairs. Section 542 of the 2024 

FAA Act directs the Department to issue 

a rulemaking to develop requirements 

for minimum training standards for 

airline personnel or contractors who 

assist wheelchair users who board or 

deplane using an aisle chair or other 

boarding devices. Section 543 directs 

the Department to issue a rulemaking to 

develop requirements for minimum 

training standards for airline personnel 

or contractors related to stowage of 

wheelchairs and scooters used by 

passengers with disabilities on aircraft. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102399 

12The Department’s Office of Aviation Consumer 

Protection has for many years interpreted 49 U.S.C. 

41712 and 41705 as requiring carriers provide 

prompt refunds when a passenger does not take a 

flight because the flight does not accommodate the 

passenger’s assistive device such as a wheelchair. 

The 2024 FAA Act codifies the Department’s 

longstanding interpretation. 

13Paralyzed Veterans of America’s (PVA) 

informal online survey, titled The ACAA Survey, 

and its results were published in September 2022 

and can be accessed online at https://pva.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/09/2022-ACAA-SurveyResults-FINAL.pdf. 

14Many of the participants expressed concern 

about the October 2021 death of disability activist 

Engracia Figueroa, several months after an incident 

involving damage to her wheelchair. Following this 

incident, in September 2023, the Department 

entered into an agreement with United Airlines. 

Under the Agreement, United will: (1) roll out a 

flight filter on its booking engine to make it easier 

for passengers who use wheelchairs to find flights 

where their wheelchairs can fit and be safely 

transported; (2) refund the fare difference for 

passengers using the flight filter when the 

passenger’s preferred flight cannot accommodate 

their wheelchair and the flight that they travel on 

with their wheelchair is more expensive; (3) 

conduct a pilot program to explore whether 

additional equipment, such as a medical wheelchair 

or other form of moveable or non-moveable chair, 

can be utilized to safely accommodate passengers 

waiting for loaner wheelchairs; and (4) seek 

feedback from each passenger who checks a 

wheelchair for transport in the aircraft cargo 

compartment. See https://www.transportation.gov/ 

airconsumer/DOT-United-Airlines-AgreementImprove-Wheelchair-Access-PDF. 

15Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air 

Travelers With Disabilities Using Wheelchairs, 89 

FR 17766 (Mar. 12, 2024). 

16See 14 CFR 234.6 (requiring airlines to 

annually report mishandling of wheelchairs and 

scooters). 

Section 544 directs the Department to 

issue a rule directing carriers to publish 

information relating to aircraft cargo 

hold dimensions, in order to better 

inform passengers about the limitations 

of an aircraft’s ability to accommodate 

assistive devices. This section of the Act 

also requires carriers to offer a refund to 

individuals for fares, fees, and taxes 

paid for a flight that cannot 

accommodate the passenger’s assistive 

device.12

C. Background 

The Department has long been 

concerned about the safe and dignified 

treatment of passengers with 

disabilities, including passengers who 

use wheelchairs, scooters, and other 

assistive devices. Disability rights 

advocates have raised concerns to the 

Department regarding unsafe, 

inadequate, and undignified assistance 

that individuals with mobility 

disabilities receive from airlines when 

flying. These concerns have primarily 

focused on delayed and damaged 

personal wheelchairs or scooters, unsafe 

transfers to and from wheelchairs and 

aircraft seats, and lack of prompt 

wheelchair assistance at the airport. 

Advocates have also maintained that 

damage to passengers’ personal 

wheelchairs or scooters can result from 

insufficient training. 

Today, passengers who use 

wheelchair cannot travel in their own 

wheelchairs and must surrender their 

wheelchairs to an airline for stowage 

prior to travel. This means passengers 

must rely on airline staff and contractors 

to properly handle a wheelchair or 

scooter and return it in a timely manner 

in the condition it was received. The 

advocates have stressed to the 

Department that, when an individual’s 

wheelchair or scooter is delayed or 

damaged by an airline, the individual’s 

mobility, health, and freedom are 

impacted until the device can be 

returned, repaired, or replaced. 

Advocates note that wheelchairs are 

often custom fitted to meet the needs 

and shape of each user. Spending time 

in an ill-fitting chair can cause serious 

injury, such as pressure sores, and even 

death because of a subsequent infection. 

Further, loaner devices may lack the 

customized assistive technology that 

helps the individual communicate or 

breathe and have inadequate functions 

that limit mobility. A disability 

organization also asserted that, 

according to its survey, the top reason 

individuals with mobility disabilities 

avoid travel is because of concerns 

about wheelchair damage.13

On March 24, 2022, the Department 

held a Public Meeting on Air Travel by 

Persons Who Use Wheelchairs. 

Hundreds of individuals participated in 

the meeting and submitted written 

comments to the meeting’s docket. The 

Department heard firsthand stories from 

passengers whose lives and health were 

seriously impacted by unsafe assistance 

and mishandling of their wheelchairs or 

scooters.14 Commenters also discussed 

the need for enhanced training for 

personnel and contractors providing 

physical assistance to individuals with 

disabilities and handling wheelchairs. 

The Department addressed these issues 

in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) on Ensuring Safe 

Accommodations for Air Travelers with 

Disabilities Using Wheelchairs, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 12, 2024.15

More specifically, in the NPRM, the 

Department proposed various measures 

to improve the air travel environment 

for individuals with disabilities. First, 

we proposed to codify our longstanding 

interpretation of the ACAA that 

assistance to individuals with 

disabilities must be provided in a safe 

and dignified manner. Second, we 

proposed that assistance must be 

prompt, with promptness to be 

determined based on the totality of the 

circumstances except when physical 

assistance is needed to disembark the 

aircraft. Third, we proposed that any 

mishandling of passengers’ wheelchairs 

or other assistive devices is a per se 

violation of the ACAA, subjecting an 

airline to a separate penalty. Fourth, we 

proposed to define ‘‘mishandling’’ as 

‘‘lost, delayed, damaged, or pilfered,’’ 

consistent with existing DOT rules on 

baggage mishandling.16 Fifth, we 

proposed that when a wheelchair or 

scooter is mishandled, airlines must 

immediately notify a passenger of the 

right to file a claim with the airline, to 

receive a loaner wheelchair, to choose a 

preferred vendor for repairs or 

replacement, and to discuss with a 

Complaints Resolution Official (CRO). 

Sixth, we proposed to require airlines to 

timely notify passengers when 

wheelchairs or scooters are loaded and 

unloaded, and when the wheelchair 

does not fit on an aircraft. Seventh, we 

proposed to require airlines to transport 

a delayed wheelchair to a passenger’s 

final destination within 24 hours by 

whatever means possible. Eighth, we 

proposed that if a wheelchair or scooter 

is mishandled, airlines must provide the 

choice of repairing/replacing the device 

itself or allowing the passenger to 

arrange for repairs/replacements 

through the passenger’s preferred 

vendor. Ninth, we proposed that airlines 

must provide and pay for loaner 

wheelchairs after airline mishandlings, 

and that airlines must consult with the 

passenger to ensure that the loaner 

wheelchair meets the passenger’s 

functional and safety-related needs to 

the maximum extent possible. Tenth, 

we proposed that airlines provide 

annual training, including hands-on 

training, of airline employees and 

contractors who physically assist 

passengers with mobility disabilities or 

handle passengers’ wheelchairs or 

scooters. We also included a proposed 

definition of ‘‘hands-on training,’’ and 

proposed to require that airlines consult 

with disability advocacy organizations 

when developing and changing their 

training programs. Finally, we proposed 

an expanded rollout of on-board 

wheelchairs (OBWs) with improved 

safety and accessibility features. 

We also sought comment on 

additional topics, including but not 

limited to: (1) whether other types of 

status notifications about checked 

wheelchairs and scooters should be 

required of airlines (e.g., notification 

regarding stowage location of the 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter on the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102400 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

17See 89 FR 38852 (May 8, 2024). 

18The questions and the Department’s responses 

are available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/DOT-OST-2022-0144-1318. 

19This total includes approximately 1,055 form 

letters. 

flight); (2) whether airlines should be 

required to provide dimensions of their 

cargo compartments prior to travel for 

passengers with wheelchairs or scooters; 

(3) whether airlines should be required 

to provide safe and adequate seating 

accommodations at the airport while 

passengers wait for delayed wheelchairs 

or loaner wheelchairs; (4) whether 

airlines should be required to reimburse 

passengers for consequential costs from 

delayed wheelchairs; (5) whether 

airlines should be required to use 

durable medical equipment (DME) 

suppliers to carry out repairs; (6) 

whether airlines should be required to 

provide passengers a specified period to 

ensure that the repairs to wheelchairs or 

scooters carried out by the airline are 

adequate; (7) whether airlines should be 

required to offer minor/temporary 

wheelchair repairs at the airport to 

enable passengers to leave the airport 

with their personal wheelchair and seek 

a full repair at a more convenient date; 

(8) whether airlines should be required 

to reimburse passengers for 

consequential costs due to inadequate 

loaners that restrict their mobility or 

independence; (9) whether airlines 

should be required to designate 

wheelchair experts and transfer experts 

to be consulted in the event that a 

complex issue or problem arises while 

handling a passenger’s personal 

wheelchair or while physically assisting 

a passenger with a disability; (10) 

whether to require airlines to expand 

the size of lavatories on twin-aisle 

aircraft; and (11) whether airlines 

should be required to reimburse the 

difference between the fare on a flight 

a wheelchair user took, and the fare on 

a flight that the wheelchair or scooter 

user would have taken if his or her 

wheelchair or scooter had been able to 

fit in the cabin or cargo compartment of 

the aircraft. 

The comment period for the NPRM 

was originally scheduled to close on 

May 13, 2024. Airlines for America 

(A4A), the International Air Transport 

Association (IATA), the National Air 

Carriers Association (NACA), the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA), and 

the Airline Service Providers 

Association (ASPA) (collectively, the 

Associations) asked for a 90-day 

extension of time to file comments. The 

Department extended the comment 

period for 30 days, to June 12, 2024.17

The Department also responded to a 

series of questions posed by the 

Associations and placed those responses 

in the rulemaking docket.18

The Department received 1,897 

comments from individuals 19 and 73 

comments from stakeholder 

organizations. Of the stakeholder 

organization comments, 40 were from 

disability rights organizations, 14 were 

from airlines and airline associations, 

and 19 were from other organizations 

representing airports, flight attendants, 

aircraft manufacturers, labor unions, 

medical personnel, and others. 

To broadly summarize, disability 

rights organizations generally supported 

the rulemaking and welcomed DOT’s 

action in this area. On some topics, 

advocates were split on whether DOT’s 

proposals were appropriate or whether 

they should be strengthened, 

particularly on the topic of training. 

Airlines often indicated that they 

supported the underlying goals of the 

Department’s proposal but argued that 

DOT’s underlying assumptions may be 

flawed and that its economic analysis 

may not fully capture the costs of the 

rule. Airlines often suggested 

amendments stating that they were 

necessary to prevent passengers from 

having unrealistic expectations about 

the services and accommodations that 

airlines can offer and provide. 

Individual commenters overwhelmingly 

supported the rulemaking. A fuller 

analysis of the comments received is set 

forth in the discussion of each topic 

below. 

D. Summary of Major Provisions 

The compliance date for these 

provisions is January 16, 2025, unless 

otherwise stated. 

BILLING CODE P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102401 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5ER17DE24.068</GPH>

SUBJECT FINAL RULE 

Safe and Dignified Clarifies that safe and dignified assistance to individuals with disabilities 

Assistance is required when providing required accommodations. See§ 382.ll(b). 

Defines safe to mean assistance provided to individuals with disabilities 

that does not put them at heightened risk of bodily injury, which may 

include loss or damage to wheelchairs and other assistive devices that 

result in bodily injury. See § 382.3. 

Defines dignified to mean assistance provided in a manner that respects 

a passenger's independence, autonomy, and privacy, which includes but 

is not limited to: airline personnel providing transfer assistance in a 

manner that ensures the passenger's clothing is not removed; airline 

personnel not unduly delaying requests for access to a restroom such 

that the individual soils himself or herself; and, to the maximum extent 

possible, airline personnel communicating directly with the individual 

with disability ( e.g., rather than his or her companion or another 

individual) when the individual with disability is interacting with them. 

See§ 382.3. 

Prompt Enplaning, Clarifies that prompt enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance is 

Deplaning, and required, including moving within the airport terminal. See§ 382.89(a). 

Connecting Assistance 

Determines prompt based on the totality of circumstances, except when 

physical assistance is needed to disembark the aircraft, in which case 

prompt means that: 

(1) personnel and boarding wheelchair must be available to deplane the 

passenger when the last passenger who did not request deplaning 

assistance departs the aircraft; and 

(2) the passenger's personal wheelchair or scooter must be available as 

close as possible to the door of the aircraft to the maximum extent 

possible, except: (a) where this practice would be inconsistent with 

Federal regulations governing transportation security or the 

transportation of hazardous materials, (b) or when the passenger 

requests the wheelchair or scooter be returned at a location other 

than the door of the aircraft. If the passenger requests the wheelchair 

or scooter be returned at a location other than the door of the aircraft, 

an airport wheelchair must be available for the passenger's use. 

See§ 382.89(b) and (c). 

Rebuttable Presumption Defines mishandled to mean lost, delayed, damaged, or pilfered (i.e., 

of a Violation stolen). See § 382.3. 

Clarifies that airlines must return checked wheelchairs and other 

assistive devices to the passenger in the condition in which they are 

received. Specifies that whenever a passenger's checked wheelchair or 

other assistive device that was in the airline's custody is not returned to 

the passenger in the same condition it was received, there is a rebuttable 
102402 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5ER17DE24.069</GPH>

Passenger Notifications 

Publication of 

Information Related to 

Aircraft Cargo Holds 

Prompt Return of 

Delayed Wheelchairs or 

Scooters 

presumption that the airline mishandled the passenger's wheelchair or 

other assistive device in violation of the ACAA. Specifies what an 

airline must demonstrate to overcome the presumption of a violation. 

See§ 382.130(a). 

Required Information Prior to Departure 

• Requires airlines to notify passengers in writing when they are 

checking their wheelchairs or scooters that if their wheelchair or 

scooter is mishandled, they have the right to contact a CRO and a 

right to file a claim with the airline. Airlines must inform passengers 

how to contact the CRO. See§ 382.125(e). 

• Requires airlines to notify passengers whether their wheelchairs or 

scooters have been loaded onto their flights (including whether their 

device could not fit on the passenger's scheduled flight because of 

its size or weight) before the aircraft cabin door closes. See § 

382.125(f)(l). Compliance date is on or after December 17, 2025. 

Required Information Upon Arrival 

• Requires airlines to notify passengers, before the passengers deplane, 

when their wheelchairs or scooters have been unloaded from the 

cargo compartment of their flights. See§ 382.125(f)(3). Compliance 

date is on or after December 17, 2025. 

Required Information After Wheelchair or Scooter is Mishandled 

• Requires airlines to notify in writing passengers whose wheelchairs 

or scooters have been mishandled of their rights: (1) to file a claim 

with the airline, (2) to receive a loaner wheelchair from the airline 

with certain customizations, (3) to choose a preferred vendor, if 

desired, for device repairs or replacement, and (4) to have a CRO 

available and be provided information on how to contact the CRO. 

See§ 382.130(b). Compliance date is on or after March 17, 2025. 

• Requires airlines to provide status update notifications to passengers 

on their delayed wheelchairs or scooters when there is a status 

change. See§ 382.130(c)(3). 

Requires all notifications to be accessible. See§§ 382.125(e) and (f)(4) 

and 382.130. 

Requires airlines to publish in a prominent and easily accessible place 

on their public websites, information describing the relevant dimensions 

and other characteristics of the cargo holds of all aircraft types operated 

by the airline, including the dimensions of the cargo hold entry. See§ 

382.41(b). 

Requires airlines to transport a delayed wheelchair or scooter to the 

passenger's final destination within 24 hours of the passenger's arrival 

for domestic flights and short international flights (12 hours or less in 

duration) and within 30 hours of the passenger's arrival for long 

international flights (more than 12 hours in duration). Airlines must 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102403 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5ER17DE24.070</GPH>

transport the device by whatever means are available to do so safely. 

See§ 382.130(c)(l). 

Requires airlines to provide the passenger a choice between picking up 

the delayed wheelchair or scooter at his or her destination airport or 

having the wheelchair or scooter delivered to a reasonable location 

requested by the passenger, such as the passenger's home or hotel. See 

§ 382.130(c)(2). 

Specifies that the delay starts when a passenger arrives at his/her 

destination but his/her personal wheelchair or scooter does not and the 

delay ends when a passenger either picks up the delayed wheelchair or 

scooter at his or her destination airport or the delayed wheelchair or 

scooter is delivered by the airline to the passenger at a reasonable 

location such as the passenger's home or hotel. See§ 382.130(c)(2). 

Compliance date is June 16, 2025. 

Reimbursement for Requires airlines to reimburse passengers for the cost(s) of any 

Accessible Ground transportation to or from the airport that the passenger incurred as a 

Transportation direct result of the passenger's wheelchair or scooter being delayed by 

the airline. Airlines may require passengers to submit documentation 

that substantiates the cost(s), such as receipts or invoices. See § 

382.130(c)(5). 

Prompt Repair or Following a wheelchair or scooter mishandling, requires airlines to: 

Replacement of Damaged (a) Provide the passenger a reasonable timeframe to inspect the 

Wheelchairs or Scooters wheelchair or scooter and to file a claim with the carrier for the 

mishandling; 

(b) Offer the passenger options, on or after March 17, 2025, of: (a) the 

carrier handling the prompt repair or replacement of the device, with 

a device of equivalent or greater function and safety, and paying the 

associated costs; or (b) the passenger arranging for the repair or 

replacement of the device, with a device of equivalent or greater 

function and safety, through his or her preferred vendor with the 

carrier having the responsibility to transport the device to the 

passenger's preferred vendor and to pay the vendor directly for the 

repairs or replacement; and 

( c) Promptly review claims received within a reasonable time of the 

repaired wheelchair or scooter being returned to the passenger 

alleging that the provided repairs were not sufficient. 

See§ 382.130(d). 

Clarifies that the Montreal Convention will apply for wheelchair or 

scooter mishandlings on international flights. See§ 382.130(f). 

Loaner Wheelchair or Requires airlines to provide and pay for loaner wheelchairs or scooters 

Scooter Accommodations while individuals with disabilities are waiting on returns, repairs, or 

replacements for their mishandled devices. See§ 382.130(e). 
102404 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5ER17DE24.071</GPH>

Requires airlines to consult with the individual receiving the loaner 

wheelchair or scooter to ensure that the loaner wheelchair or scooter fits 

the passenger's functional needs, as much as possible, and safety-related 

needs. See§ 382.130(e). 

If the loaner wheelchair or scooter offered by the airline does not meet 

the passenger's functional and safety-related needs as well as the 

passenger's existing device, requires the airline to allow the passenger to 

find and secure an alternative loaner wheelchair or scooter that is better 

than the one offered. Airlines must reimburse the passenger for the cost 

of that loaner within 30 days of the passenger's request. Airlines may 

require the passenger to provide documentation substantiating the cost, 

such as receipts or invoices, to receive the reimbursement. See § 

382.130(e). 

Reimbursement of Fare Requires airlines to reimburse the difference between the fare on a flight 

Difference a passenger who uses a wheelchair or scooter took and the fare on a 

flight that the wheelchair or scooter user would have taken if his or her 

wheelchair or scooter had been able to fit in the cabin or cargo 

compartment of the aircraft. Fare difference requirement is limited to 

flights that occur on the same day, on the same airline, and between the 

same origin and destination. 

Requires airlines to disclose on their websites the documentation needed 

to support a reimbursement claim. See§ 382.132. 

Compliance date is March 17, 2025. 

Rebooking Requirements Requires airlines to offer to disembark passengers and rebook them on 

the next available flight of the same carrier or a partner carrier at no 

additional cost when passengers' wheelchairs or scooters are not loaded 

on their scheduled flights, for whatever reason. See§ 382.125(f)(2). 

Requires airlines to also offer free rebooking on the next available flight 

of the same carrier or a partner carrier when the airline becomes aware 

that a passenger's personal wheelchair or scooter does not fit on the 

passenger's scheduled flight. See § 382.125(f)(2). 

Seating Accommodations Requires airlines to establish and provide, after consultation with 

at the Airport disability rights organizations, safe and adequate seating 

accommodation(s) to be used by a person with a disability when waiting 

for a delayed personal wheelchair or scooter or waiting for a loaner 

wheelchair or scooter after a passenger's wheelchair or scooter is 

mishandled by the carrier and cannot be promptly returned. See § 

382.130(c)(4). 

Compliance date is December 17, 2025. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102405 

20PVA’s comment was co-signed by more than 

fifty other disability rights organizations. 

E. Costs and Benefits 

The final rule will increase access to 

safe and dignified air travel for 

individuals with disabilities, 

particularly individuals who use a 

wheelchair or scooter. Expected 

benefits, which are not quantified, 

include: reducing fatal and non-fatal 

injuries sustained by individuals with 

disabilities and reducing embarrassing 

and demeaning experiences from 

inadequate assistance. Expected costs to 

industry, which are also not quantified, 

may include increasing staffing levels 

and administrative costs, among other 

things. 

The final rule will also reduce the 

frequency and severity of mishandled 

wheelchairs and scooters and the 

harmful impacts that result from the 

mishandling of wheelchairs and 

scooters. The quantified benefits to 

individuals with disabilities are 

estimated to be approximately $11.1 

million annually (discounted at 2%). 

The quantified cost to industry of the 

provisions involving the handling of 

wheelchairs and scooters, including 

enhanced training requirements, are 

estimated to be approximately $14.7 

million annually (discounted at 2%). 

In addition, the final rule expands the 

use of OBWs with improved safety and 

accessibility features. Expected benefits, 

which are not quantified, include 

increasing the safety and comfort of 

individuals with disabilities. The 

quantified cost to carriers of the 

enhanced OBW provisions are expected 

to be approximately $900,000 annually 

(discounted at 2%). 

II. Discussion 

A. Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities 

1. Safe and Dignified Assistance 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department proposed to explicitly 

include in the rule text that any 

assistance or accommodation required 

by the Department’s disability 

regulation must be provided to 

individuals with disabilities in a safe 

and dignified manner. The Department 

also sought comment on whether the 

terms ‘‘safe’’ and ‘‘dignified’’ were 

easily understood by carriers and the 

public. The Department also asked 

whether part 382 should include 

definitions for ‘‘safe’’ and ‘‘dignified’’ 

and if so, what should the Department 

consider when drafting definitions for 

those terms. 

Comments Received: Individuals with 

disabilities and disability rights 

organizations generally supported the 

Department’s proposal. At the same 

time, many disability rights 

organizations commented that the terms 

‘‘safe’’ and ‘‘dignified’’ are not clearly 

understood by airlines and public. Most 

of the disability rights organizations that 

commented on this issue agreed that 

part 382 should include a definition for 

the term ‘‘safe.’’ Multiple disability 

rights organizations, including 

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA),20

the Christopher and Dana Reeves 

Foundation, the Amputee Coalition, and 

the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, 

stated that ‘‘safe assistance’’ be defined 

as ‘‘free from the risk of bodily injury or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5ER17DE24.072</GPH>

Enhanced Training for 

Certain Airline Personnel 

and Contractors 

New Improved Standards 

for On-Board 

Wheelchairs (OBW) 

Requires annual training, including hands-on training, of airline 

employees and contractors who physically assist passengers with 

mobility disabilities or handle passengers' wheelchairs or scooters. As 

part of the required training, employees and contractors must be able to 

successfully demonstrate their knowledge ( e.g., competency assessments 

or certification exams). See§ 382.141(a). 

Defines hands-on training to mean in-person training that is received by 

an employee or contractor where the employee or contractor can learn 

and practice real-life scenarios in a safe and controlled environment 

without the possibility ofreal-life consequences to passengers with 

disabilities and with the use of a suitable life-sized model or equipment, 

as appropriate. See § 382.3. 

Requires all airline employees and contractors who provide physical 

assistance to persons with mobility disabilities or handle the transport of 

wheelchairs or scooters to be trained as specified in this final rule by 

June 17, 2026. 

Requires new improved performance standards for OBWs on twin-aisle 

aircraft and purchases of OBWs for use on aircraft with more than 60 

seats after October 2, 2026, consistent with standards for OBWs on 

single-aisle aircraft with 125 or more seats. See § 382.65(h). 

Requires all OBWs for use on aircraft with more than 60 seats to meet 

the Department's new improved standards by October 2, 2031. 
102406 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

death and the freedom from the risk of 

loss or damage to any assistive device.’’ 

The United States Gender and Disability 

Justice Alliance and the Ability Center 

of Greater Toledo stated that the 

Department should collaborate and 

work with the disability community and 

individuals who use wheelchairs in 

developing a definition of ‘‘safe.’’ 

However, disability rights 

organizations split on whether the term 

‘‘dignified’’ should be defined in part 

382. Some disability rights 

organizations, such as PVA, the 

Christopher and Dana Reeves 

Foundation, the National Multiple 

Sclerosis Society, and the Arc, 

commented that ‘‘dignified’’ should not 

be defined in part 382. PVA asserted 

that dignity is not a singular concept, 

but includes civil rights, human rights, 

recognition, and non-discrimination, 

that any definition would fail to capture 

the breadth of what dignity 

encompasses, and that specifically 

defining dignity would only result in 

narrowing the carrier’s obligations and 

passenger protections. 

A number of other disability rights 

organizations, such as the American 

Association of People with Disabilities, 

the Rare Disease Diversity Coalition, the 

Amputee Coalition, and the United 

States Gender and Disability Justice 

Alliance, commented that the 

Department should define the term 

‘‘dignified.’’ The Amputee Coalition 

stated that failing to define dignity, or 

at the very least provide guidance on 

what it means to treat someone in a 

dignified manner, leaves it to case law 

to determine what dignity is or is not. 

Disability Rights Maryland commented 

that the definition of ‘‘dignified’’ should 

include the following: highlighting and 

respecting the personhood and privacy 

of passengers with disabilities; listening 

and following the instructions of 

passengers with disabilities; and 

treating passengers’ equipment, such as 

medical equipment, mobility aids, and 

assistive technology, with the same 

level of care as the crew would give to 

passengers. North Dakota Protection & 

Advocacy Project stated that ‘‘dignified’’ 

could be defined as ‘‘assistance that 

follows protocols and procedures to 

ensure that passengers are assisted in a 

respectful manner that meets their 

needs in the least intrusive way 

possible.’’ The Rare Disease Diversity 

Coalition commented that ‘‘dignified’’ 

means: respecting the inherent worth 

and autonomy of passengers with 

disabilities throughout their travel 

experience; providing assistance in a 

manner that preserves the individual’s 

privacy and independence; 

communicating, understanding, and 

responding to the unique needs of 

passengers with disabilities without 

condescension or undue attention; and 

creating an environment where 

passengers feel respected and valued. 

Alternatively, Disability Rights 

California commented that the phrase 

‘‘safe and dignified’’ should be a 

combination definition that includes the 

following: every human being has the 

right to be treated humanely, and 

respectfully, without the risk of harming 

physical and mental health; airlines 

must provide equitable, protected, 

physical and mental wellbeing in all 

aspects of air travel; and passengers 

with disabilities should have freedom 

from uncertainty, instability, or risk of 

harm to self or property. 

A majority of airline industry 

stakeholders generally supported the 

Department’s proposal. A4A and IATA 

commented that they agree with the 

premise that airlines should provide 

safe and dignified assistance to 

passengers with disabilities and the 

general intent and objective of the 

Department’s proposal. However, 

similar to disability advocates, there is 

a split amongst the airline industry 

stakeholders on whether the terms 

‘‘safe’’ and ‘‘dignified’’ should be 

defined in part 382. A majority of the 

airline industry stakeholders that 

commented on this issue, including 

A4A, IATA, NACA, and RAA, stated 

that it is not necessary or prudent for 

the Department to further define what 

constitutes ‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘dignified’’ in part 

382. NACA explained that given the 

variability of passengers, their 

disabilities, and the operating 

environment, a more prescriptive 

definition of ‘‘safe and dignified’’ would 

be difficult to preemptively define. A4A 

and IATA asserted that leaving the 

definitions open and flexible allows 

airlines to better accommodate each 

individual and their unique disability. 

A4A and IATA argued further that the 

Department should explicitly recognize 

that the requirement for safe and 

dignified assistance is based on the 

totality of circumstances. They also 

commented that the regulation should 

state that a carrier’s refusal to provide 

assistance because the airline believes 

such assistance cannot be performed in 

a safe and dignified manner does not 

constitute a violation of part 382. They 

explained that airlines have 

responsibility for and are the experts in 

flight safety, including the safety of 

passengers with disabilities, and 

therefore, it is an airline’s proper safety 

determination as to whether it can 

safely carry the passenger and/or their 

mobility aid. A4A and IATA asserted 

that passengers do not have the 

knowledge or expertise to override an 

airline’s safety-based decision and that 

an airline’s determination of appropriate 

flight safety requirements takes 

precedence over a passenger’s nonexpert opinion on such safety 

requirements. A4A and IATA argued 

further that an airline’s flight safety 

determination that may prevent a 

service or accommodation from being 

provided cannot be considered a failure 

to provide a service in a dignified 

manner and should be presumed to be 

dignified because the airline put the 

safety of the passenger with disabilities 

first. 

A few airline industry stakeholders, 

such as Spirit Airlines (Spirit), Allegiant 

Air (Allegiant), Transportes Ae ́reos 

Portugueses, S.A. (TAP) and Neos 

S.P.A., commented that the Department 

should define the terms ‘‘safe’’ and 

‘‘dignified.’’ TAP stated that these terms 

are currently not defined, vague, and 

could lead to unwarranted liability for 

airlines. Allegiant asserted that without 

clearly actionable standards, frontline 

representatives and customers are 

placed in an untenable position. Spirit 

stated that the Department should 

clarify the term ‘‘dignified’’ or remove 

the term altogether. Neos S.P.A. 

suggested that ‘‘safe’’ should encompass 

all actions that prevent physical harm to 

passengers, and ‘‘dignified’’ should 

ensure that interactions respect the 

individual’s autonomy and privacy. 

DOT Response: After carefully 

considering the comments, the 

Department has decided to explicitly 

include in the rule text, as proposed, 

that any assistance or accommodation 

required by the Department’s disability 

regulation must be provided to 

individuals with disabilities in a safe 

and dignified manner. Including this 

language in part 382 clarifies and 

emphasizes the importance of 

passengers with disabilities receiving 

assistance in a safe and dignified 

manner. 

In addition, the Department has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

provide definitions of ‘‘safe’’ and 

‘‘dignified’’ in part 382. We agree with 

the commenters that stated that these 

terms may not be clearly understood by 

airlines and public and that providing 

definitions in part 382 will help 

passengers with disabilities to better 

understand their rights and airlines to 

better understand their obligation to 

passengers with disabilities. This final 

rule defines ‘‘safe’’ as assistance 

provided to individuals with disabilities 

that does not put them at heightened 

risk of bodily injury, which may include 

loss or damage to wheelchairs and other 

assistive devices that result in bodily 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102407 

21See American Airlines, Inc., Order 2013–12–4 

(Dec. 6, 2024). 

22See 14 CFR 382.151(c). 23See 14 CFR 382.125(c). 

injury. In other words, disability-related 

assistance would be considered unsafe, 

and therefore a violation of part 382 and 

the ACAA, if the assistance is provided 

in a manner that increases the 

likelihood of bodily injury to the 

passenger with a disability. It would 

also be considered unsafe if a passenger 

with a disability experiences bodily 

injury due to the airline losing or 

damaging the passenger’s wheelchair or 

other assistive device. For example, an 

airline is providing unsafe assistance if 

an airline returns a damaged wheelchair 

and the wheelchair malfunctions and as 

a result the passenger is injured.21 The 

Department notes that airlines are 

already required to inform passengers 

with a disability of the right to contact 

a CRO and how to contact a CRO if they 

complain or raise a concern with airline 

personnel about disability 

accommodations or services and the 

airline personnel do not immediately 

resolve the issue to the customer’s 

satisfaction or provide a requested 

accommodation.22 This includes 

complaints or concerns raised about 

inadequate disability accommodation or 

service resulting in bodily injury due to 

improper wheelchair assistance or 

mishandled wheelchairs. Passengers 

with disabilities do not need to 

specifically request a CRO; airlines must 

provide this information to passengers 

with disabilities any time they express 

dissatisfaction with a disability-related 

service. 

This final rule defines ‘‘dignified’’ as 

assistance provided in a manner that 

respects a passenger’s independence, 

autonomy, and privacy, which includes 

but is not limited to: airline personnel 

providing transfer assistance in a 

manner that ensures the passenger’s 

clothing is not removed; airline 

personnel not unduly delaying requests 

for access to a restroom such that the 

individual soils himself or herself; and, 

to the maximum extent possible, airline 

personnel communicating with the 

individual with a disability rather than 

his or her companion when the 

individual with a disability is 

interacting with them. The Department 

recognizes that some commenters are 

concerned that defining ‘‘dignity’’ may 

result in narrowing airlines’ obligations 

and passengers’ protections. However, 

we agree with the commenters that 

asserted that leaving the term undefined 

will result in confusion and different 

interpretation by the public and airlines. 

The final rule’s definition of ‘‘dignity’’ 

highlights that airlines should respect a 

passenger’s independence, autonomy, 

and privacy, which numerous 

commenters stated are essential civil 

and human rights. The Department is 

also including in the definition of 

‘‘dignity’’ a few illustrative examples to 

further assist the public and airlines to 

understand what it means to assist in a 

manner that respects a passenger’s 

independence, autonomy, and privacy. 

The Department notes that dignified 

assistance is not limited to only these 

examples and that there are many 

different situations and scenarios that 

can qualify as dignified assistance. The 

definition of dignity is intended to 

provide a general framework of the 

meaning of dignity while still leaving 

the term broad and flexible. 

The Department has concerns with 

A4A and IATA’s suggestion that part 

382 should be amended to state that a 

carrier’s refusal to assist a person with 

a disability because the airline believes 

such assistance cannot be performed in 

a safe and dignified manner does not 

constitute a violation of part 382. The 

inclusion of this type of language in part 

382 would make it significantly easier 

for airlines to deny services and 

accommodations to any passenger with 

a disability under the pretext of 

‘‘safety.’’ It would also make it much 

harder for the Department to hold 

airlines accountable for denying 

services and accommodations to 

passengers with disabilities. We note 

further that part 382 already provides 

instances in which airlines may limit or 

deny services and accommodations due 

to safety and security concerns. These 

safety and security concerns must be 

reasonable and specific. For example, 

§ 382.19 states that carriers may refuse 

to provide transportation to any 

passenger on the basis of safety, as 

provided in 49 U.S.C. 44902 or 14 CFR 

121.533, or to any passenger whose 

carriage would violate FAA or TSA 

requirements or applicable requirements 

of a foreign government. Airlines may 

not limit or deny services and 

accommodations based on a general 

unsupported belief that the assistance 

cannot be provided in a safe and 

dignified manner. 

2. Prompt Enplaning, Deplaning, and 

Connecting Assistance 

The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to 

clarify that all boarding, deplaning, and 

connecting assistance provided, 

including moving within the airport 

terminal (e.g., moving from the terminal 

entrance through the airport to the gate 

for a departing flight, or from the gate 

to the terminal entrance, or moving 

between gates to make a connection), 

must be carried out by airlines in a 

‘‘prompt’’ manner. The Department also 

proposed to codify its longstanding 

practice of considering the totality of 

circumstances when evaluating whether 

assistance was provided in a prompt 

manner except when deplaning 

assistance by aisle chair is needed. In 

addition, the Department proposed to 

codify the Department’s longstanding 

interpretation that for deplaning 

assistance by aisle chair, ‘‘prompt’’ 

means that personnel and boarding 

chairs must be available to deplane the 

passenger no later than as soon as other 

passengers have left the aircraft except 

where this practice would be 

inconsistent with Federal regulations or 

when the passenger requests the 

wheelchair be returned at a location 

other than the door of the aircraft. In 

situations where the exceptions do 

apply, the Department’s proposed 

definition of prompt requires an airport 

wheelchair be available as close as 

possible to the door of the aircraft. The 

Department noted that airlines are 

already required to timely return the 

passenger’s personal wheelchair as close 

as possible to the door of the aircraft, to 

the maximum extent possible, so that 

passengers may use their own 

equipment except: where this practice 

would be inconsistent with Federal 

regulations governing transportation 

security or the transportation of 

hazardous materials; or when the 

passenger requests the wheelchair be 

returned at a location other than the 

door of the aircraft.23

Comments Received: Disability rights 

organizations, individuals with 

disabilities, and airline industry 

stakeholders generally support the 

concept that boarding, deplaning, and 

connecting assistance should be carried 

out by airlines in a ‘‘prompt’’ manner. 

However, stakeholders who commented 

on this proposal split on how ‘‘prompt’’ 

should be defined. 

With respect to assistance with 

enplaning, moving through the airport, 

connecting, and deplaning without an 

aisle chair, a number of disability rights 

organizations, such as PVA, the 

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, 

and the Arc, supported the Department 

codifying its longstanding practice of 

considering the totality of circumstances 

when evaluating whether assistance was 

provided in a prompt manner when 

deplaning assistance by aisle chair is 

not needed. However, they also believed 

that the Department must clarify that 

prompt assistance extends to those who 

wish to preboard and need aisle chair 

assistance to do so. PVA stated that 

passengers who wish to preboard have 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102408 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

24 ‘‘Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act 

Committee Recommendation’’ (February 4, 2022), 

available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0204-0040. 

been required to wait at the gate or on 

the jetbridge while other passengers 

boarded because the equipment or the 

proper number of trained attendants 

were not available. PVA explained 

further that these passengers were then 

boarded, transferred, and dropped in 

front of other passengers. PVA suggested 

that for enplaning assistance by aisle 

chair, ‘‘prompt’’ should mean that the 

requested enplaning equipment is in 

working order and a sufficient number 

of attendants (i.e., two or more) are 

available at the time the flight begins the 

preboarding process. 

Several disability rights organizations, 

such as the Colorado Cross-Disability 

Coalition, the Ability Center of Greater 

Toledo, and Disability Rights Maryland, 

disagreed with the Department’s 

proposal to consider ‘‘the totality of the 

circumstances’’ when evaluating 

whether assistance was provided in a 

prompt manner and asserted that the 

Department should establish specific 

timelines in which assistance should be 

provided to passengers with disabilities. 

Disability Rights Maryland commented 

that the ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ 

standard is too vague and makes it 

difficult to enforce the regulations when 

a passenger is harmed by an airline. 

Indiana Disability Rights stated that 

airlines will use the ‘‘totality of the 

circumstances’’ standard as a broad 

loophole to avoid providing prompt 

assistance. Colorado Cross-Disability 

Coalition and Disability Rights 

Maryland commented that assistance 

with moving from terminal entrance 

through airport should be available 

within 5 minutes of request, if prearranged, and within 15 minutes, if not 

pre-arranged, assistance to make a 

connection should be available within 

10 minutes of landing or more quickly 

if there is a tight connection or late 

arrival of the first plane, and assistance 

with deplaning should be available 

immediately after the last person 

without a disability has exited, meaning 

the aisle chair and staff are waiting and 

the personal wheelchair is at the door 

without damage. American Association 

of People with Disabilities (AAPD) 

stated that ‘‘prompt’’ should be defined 

as airline or third-party contractors who 

assist passengers who use wheelchairs 

must be available to assist said 

passengers within 15 minutes of checkin at the ticket counter. 

All the airline industry stakeholders 

who commented on this issue supported 

the Department codifying its 

longstanding practice of considering the 

totality of circumstances when 

evaluating whether assistance was 

provided in a prompt manner. A4A and 

IATA pointed out that the Department’s 

ACAA Advisory Committee, which 

included experts selected from the 

disability community and industry 

stakeholders, recommended that the 

Department continue to use the totality 

of the circumstances standard to 

determine if enplaning, deplaning, and 

connecting assistance is prompt.24 A4A 

and IATA strongly urged the 

Department to give significant weight to 

the Advisory Committee’s 

recommendation. In addition, the 

International Airlines Group (IAG) 

stated that there are many factors 

beyond the control of the airline which 

can impact the provision of this 

assistance including late notification of 

a change in parking stand by the airport 

operator, mass disruption events 

affecting a whole airport as well as high 

levels of un-notified requests for 

assistance by customers. A4A, IATA, 

and NACA explained further that air 

transportation occurs in a complex 

environment in which airlines face 

significant operational and technical 

challenges, that this environment can 

make it extremely difficult to meet 

specific time standards, and that it 

would be patently unfair to hold the 

airline liable for failing to meet a 

specific time standard when the cause is 

beyond the airline’s control. 

With respect to deplaning assistance 

by aisle chair, several disability rights 

organizations, such as PVA, the 

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, 

and the Arc, generally agreed with the 

Department’s proposal that ‘‘prompt’’ 

should mean that personnel and 

boarding chairs must be available to 

deplane the passenger no later than as 

soon as other passengers have left the 

aircraft. However, they suggested that 

the Department should specifically 

require airlines to have at least two 

trained employees or contractors 

available to provide transfer assistance. 

A few disability rights organizations 

disagreed with the Department’s 

proposed definition of ‘‘prompt’’ for 

deplaning assistance by aisle chair. 

Disability Rights Maryland commented 

that personal and boarding chairs 

should be available as soon as the first 

passengers are exiting the plane and that 

passengers who use aisle chairs should 

be asked whether they prefer to exit the 

plane first or last. Additionally, Fat 

Legal Advocacy, Rights, and Education 

commented that passengers with 

disabilities should be able to deplane in 

row order in the same way that ablebodied passengers deplane. 

Several airline industry stakeholders, 

such as Allegiant, IAG, TAP, Neos 

S.P.A, and Japan Airlines, supported the 

Department’s proposal that ‘‘prompt’’ 

for deplaning assistance by aisle chair 

means that personnel and boarding 

chairs must be available to deplane the 

passenger no later than as soon as other 

passengers have left the aircraft. 

However, other airline industry 

stakeholders, such as A4A, IATA, and 

NACA, asserted the proposed meaning 

of ‘‘prompt’’ for deplaning assistance by 

aisle chair should only apply to 

instances in which passengers have 

given advance notice to airlines that 

they need deplaning assistance by aisle 

chair. NACA stated that an airline 

cannot be expected to have personnel 

and equipment positioned in 

accordance with the proposed standard 

if a passenger does not inform the 

airline that they need deplaning 

assistance by aisle chair. A4A and IATA 

suggested that the regulatory text should 

be revised to state the following: 

‘‘Prompt assistance for a person who 

uses a boarding chair (i.e., aisle chair) in 

deplaning means personnel and 

boarding chair must be available to 

deplane the passenger, who has given 

advance notice of such need consistent 

with applicable regulation or no later 

than boarding the aircraft, when the last 

passenger who did not request 

deplaning assistance departs the 

aircraft.’’ A4A and IATA asserted that if 

the Department does not incorporate the 

language related to passenger advance 

notification, then airlines would be in 

the difficult and costly position of prestaging personnel and equipment at 

every flight they operate and for 

multiple passengers onboard the 

aircraft, often with no need or purpose 

and at an increased indirect cost to all 

customers, including passengers with 

disabilities who do not require such 

services. 

In addition, A4A and IATA disagreed 

with the Department’s proposal that 

‘‘prompt’’ for deplaning assistance by 

aisle chair also means that the 

passenger’s personal wheelchair must 

be ready and available as close as 

possible to the door of the aircraft, to the 

maximum extent possible. They 

asserted that this proposal improperly 

prioritizes rapid handling of personal 

mobility aids for immediate availability 

at the aircraft cabin door over ensuring 

proper handling of the mobility aid to 

prevent damage and avoid injury of 

airline employees. They further argued 

that this proposal does not consider real 

and unavoidable scenarios that prevent 

or significantly impede compliance. 

DOT Response: The Department has 

decided to codify as proposed its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102409 

25 Id. at 13. 

26See 14 CFR 382.95. 

27See 14 CFR 382.93. 

28 ‘‘Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act 

Committee Recommendation’’ at 13. 

29See 73 FR 27614, 27620 (May 13, 2008). 

30 ‘‘Per se’’ is a Latin phrase that means ‘‘by itself’’ 

or ‘‘inherently.’’ 

practice of considering the ‘‘totality of 

circumstances’’ when evaluating 

whether assistance, except for deplaning 

assistance by aisle chair, was provided 

in a prompt manner. Requiring 

assistance to be provided within a 

specific time frame, as suggested by 

some commenters, rather than having a 

more general requirement for 

promptness based on the totality of 

circumstances, is impractical given the 

wide variety of factors that could affect 

when the assistance is provided such as 

the number of assistance requests for a 

given flight, the airport layout, and 

whether advance notice was provided to 

the airline by the passenger. By using 

the ‘‘totality of circumstances’’ standard 

to determine if the assistance is prompt, 

the Department is imposing a reasonable 

performance standard on carriers 

without creating unnecessarily rigid 

timing requirements which, in some 

situations, carriers operating in the best 

of faith are unable to meet. The 

Department also notes that the 

throughout the years, the use of this 

standard has proven to be sensible and 

workable; it has supported the goals of 

ensuring timely assistance for 

passengers with disabilities while also 

providing airlines flexibility given the 

different factors and circumstances that 

may impact assistance. Additionally, as 

we noted in the NPRM, the ACAA 

Advisory Committee which included 

disability rights advocates, airlines, and 

interested parties recommended that the 

Department continue to use the totality 

of the circumstances standard to 

determine if enplaning, deplaning, and 

connecting assistance is prompt.25

The Department is not adopting a 

separate definition of ‘‘prompt’’ for 

preboarding with an aisle chair, as 

suggested by PVA and other disability 

rights organizations, because part 382 

already requires airlines to provide 

prompt enplaning assistance to 

passengers with disabilities upon 

request. This assistance must include, as 

needed, the services of personnel and 

the use of ground wheelchairs, 

accessible motorized carts, boarding 

wheelchairs (i.e., aisle chairs), and/or 

on-board wheelchairs, and ramps or 

mechanical lifts.26 Furthermore, airlines 

are already required to offer preboarding 

to passengers with a disability who selfidentify at the gate as needing 

additional time or assistance to board 

and to permit these passengers to board 

the plane before all other passengers, 

including first class passengers, elitelevel passengers, members of the 

military, passengers with small 

children, etc.27 This means that when a 

passenger who needs enplaning 

assistance requests preboarding, the 

airline must have the proper equipment 

and an adequate number of personnel 

prepared to assist the passenger onto the 

aircraft when preboarding begins, and 

the enplaning assistance must be 

provided before all other passengers 

begin boarding the flight. 

With respect to deplaning assistance 

by aisle chair, the Department is 

codifying its longstanding interpretation 

that ‘‘prompt’’ means that personnel and 

boarding chairs must be available to 

deplane the passenger no later than as 

soon as other passengers who did not 

request deplaning assistance have left 

the aircraft. To be prompt, the 

passenger’s personal wheelchair must 

also be ready and available as close as 

possible to the door of the aircraft, to the 

maximum extent possible, except where 

this practice would be inconsistent with 

Federal regulations governing 

transportation security or the 

transportation of hazardous materials or 

when the passenger requests the 

wheelchair be returned at a location 

other than the door of the aircraft. This 

is consistent with the existing 

requirement in 14 CFR 382.125(c) for 

airlines to timely return the passenger’s 

personal wheelchair as close as possible 

to the door of the aircraft, to the 

maximum extent possible, so that 

passengers may use their own 

equipment except: where this practice 

would be inconsistent with Federal 

regulations governing security or the 

transportation of hazardous materials or 

when the passenger requests the 

wheelchair be returned at a location 

other than the door of the aircraft. The 

Department believes this standard for 

determining ‘‘prompt’’ deplaning 

assistance by aisle chair balances the 

safety and dignity of passengers who 

require deplaning assistance and 

airlines’ operational considerations. We 

also note that the ACAA Advisory 

Committee recommended that the 

Department codify this timeliness 

standard,28 which was described in the 

Preamble of the 2008 final rule.29

The Department is not adopting in 

this final rule the suggestion by airline 

associations to amend the regulation to 

require prompt deplaning by aisle chair 

only for those passengers who provide 

advance notice to airlines. The 

Department disagrees with comments 

that if passengers do not inform airlines 

that they need deplaning assistance by 

aisle chair, then airlines cannot have 

necessary personnel and equipment 

positioned to provide the assistance. 

Practically speaking, in nearly all 

situations, a passenger who requires 

deplaning by aisle chair will have 

received enplaning assistance with an 

aisle chair at the origination airport. 

Therefore, the airline will have known 

well before the flight arrives at the 

destination airport that there is a 

passenger onboard the flight that 

requires deplaning assistance by aisle 

chair, and the airline should be able to 

deploy the necessary equipment and 

personnel to meet that flight when it 

arrives at its destination. 

The Department also disagrees with 

A4A’s and IATA’s comment that 

‘‘prompt’’ for deplaning assistance by 

aisle chair should not include the 

requirement that the passenger’s 

personal wheelchair be ready and 

available as close as possible to the door 

of the aircraft, to the maximum extent 

possible. As we explained in the NPRM, 

the inclusion of ‘‘to the maximum 

extent possible’’ is intended to address 

situations where it may not be possible 

to bring passengers’ wheelchairs to the 

door of the aircraft. For example, 

depending on the connection time and 

the airport layout, it may be necessary 

to transfer the wheelchair directly to the 

next flight. However, this does not mean 

that airlines can simply decide that it is 

too much work to provide passengers 

their own wheelchairs at the gate. The 

Department believes that this 

requirement, as written, maximizes 

passengers’ autonomy, safety, and 

independence while also providing 

sufficient flexibility to airlines. 

B. Handling Requirements for Assistive 

Devices 

1. Rebuttable Presumption of a Violation 

The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to 

define ‘‘mishandled’’ as it relates to 

wheelchairs or other assistive devices to 

mean lost, delayed, damaged, or pilfered 

(i.e., stolen). The NPRM also proposed 

to clarify that any mishandling of a 

passenger’s checked wheelchair or other 

assistive device is a per se 30 violation 

of the ACAA. Under the proposal, any 

checked wheelchair or other assistive 

device that is lost, delayed, damaged, or 

pilfered (i.e., stolen) while under the 

custody and control of an airline would 

be considered a violation of the ACAA 

and part 382 regardless of the 

circumstances surrounding the event. 

The Department sought comments on 

whether it is reasonable to consider any 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102410 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

31See the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS), Office of Airline Information (OAI), 

Technical Reporting Directive #30—Mishandled 

Baggage and Wheelchairs and Scooters (October 31, 

2018). 

32 ‘‘Res ipsa loquitur’’ is a Latin phrase that means 

‘‘the thing speaks for itself.’’ 

33See 14 CFR 234.2. 

34See Refunds and Other Consumer Protections, 

89 FR 32760 (Apr. 26, 2024) (Department concluded 

that ‘‘[b]ag delays due to third-party actions (e.g., 

security authority or Customs holding bags, airport 

baggage processing system failure, or recovery bag 

delays due to carriers’ compliance with the positive 

passenger-bag match requirement) are not 

mishandling of a wheelchair or other 

assistive device a per se violation of the 

ACAA. 

Comments Received: With respect to 

defining the term ‘‘mishandled’’ as it 

relates to wheelchairs or other assistive 

devices, most disability rights 

organizations who commented on this 

issue agree with the Department’s 

proposal to define ‘‘mishandled’’ to 

mean lost, delayed, damaged, or pilfered 

(i.e., stolen). Some disability rights 

organizations, such as PVA, the 

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, 

and the National Multiple Sclerosis 

Society, stated that the Department 

should also make the terms ‘‘lost,’’ 

‘‘delayed,’’ and ‘‘in the custody of the 

carrier’’ consistent with the 

Department’s 2018 technical guidance 

for reporting mishandled wheelchairs 

and scooters.31 Similarly, the airline 

industry stakeholders that commented 

on this issue generally support the 

Department’s proposed definition of 

‘‘mishandled.’’ However, A4A and 

IATA suggested that mishandled should 

mean ‘‘lost, delayed, damaged or 

pilfered by a direct act of the airline or 

its agents.’’ 

With respect to the proposal to clarify 

that any mishandling of a passenger’s 

checked wheelchair or other assistive 

device is a per se violation, all disability 

rights organizations and individuals 

with disabilities that commented on this 

issue strongly supported adopting this 

proposal as written. PVA and the 

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation 

commented that this clarification is 

consistent with airlines’ current 

practices because airlines already 

regularly acknowledge an ACAA 

violation when a mobility device was 

not returned to the passenger in the 

same condition in which it was 

surrendered. Indiana Disability Rights 

asserted that the common law principle 

res ipsa loquitur 32 suggests that any 

mishandling of passengers’ assistive 

devices, while in the airlines’ custody, 

involves negligence by airline staff; but 

for airline staff negligence, passenger 

devices would not be mishandled. 

All the airline industry stakeholders 

who commented on this issue strongly 

oppose the Department’s proposal to 

clarify that any mishandling of a 

passenger’s checked wheelchair or other 

assistive device is a per se violation of 

the ACAA. NACA commented that 

imposing strict liability on airlines 

would be inappropriate for all mobility 

aid handling circumstances, particularly 

in those circumstances that are beyond 

the control of the airline. NACA stated 

that airlines should not be held liable 

for mobility aids that were damaged or 

experiencing operational problems prior 

to the airline receiving them or for 

mobility aids that were damaged by 

‘‘acts of God.’’ NACA further asserted 

that some passengers will inevitably 

take advantage of the Department’s strict 

liability and submit claims for damage 

that occurred before the airline received 

the mobility aid for stowage. 

Avianca Carriers commented that 

finding a per se violation of part 382 

without regard to the circumstances 

surrounding the mishandling or the 

contributing factors of entities outside of 

the carrier’s control is punitive and, 

ultimately, will increase costs for 

passengers and carriers. 

Multiple airline industry 

stakeholders, such as Neos S.P.A., 

Finnair, and NACA, asserted that the 

Department should evaluate the 

mishandlings of passengers’ checked 

wheelchairs or other assistive devices 

on a case-by-case basis to allow airlines 

to defend themselves. Finnair explained 

that imposing a strict liability standard 

on airlines for the mishandling of 

wheelchairs and assistive devices seems 

inequitable as there are many reasons 

beyond the airline’s control that could 

damage a passenger’s wheelchair. 

Finnair asserted that the Department 

should consider the facts and 

circumstances surrounding each 

situation and weigh the factors that 

contributed to the mishandling that 

were within the carrier’s control against 

those that were not. 

A4A and IATA asserted that the 

Department lacks the authority to 

impose per se liability for any 

mishandling of a passenger checked 

wheelchair or other assistive devices 

because it would violate airlines’ 

constitutional due process rights. A4A 

and IATA stated that the irrebuttable 

presumption that the airline is 

responsible for all mishandling of a 

checked wheelchair or other devices 

under all circumstances is unfounded 

and violates the airlines’ rights to 

defend themselves against false 

allegations or acts that occurred due to 

events beyond their control. A4A and 

IATA explained that under both 

constitutional and Administrative 

Procedure Act principles, a Federal 

agency cannot override the fundamental 

rights of airlines to defend themselves 

from liability for events and 

circumstances that are beyond their 

control. A4A and IATA suggested that 

the liability for mishandling should be 

a rebuttable violation of the ACAA and 

limited to acts that are within the 

airline’s direct control. 

DOT Response: The Department has 

carefully considered this issue and is 

adopting the proposed definition of 

‘‘mishandled’’ as it relates to 

wheelchairs and other assistive devices. 

The Department agrees with comments 

suggesting that the definition of 

‘‘mishandled’’ should be consistent with 

how the Department defines 

‘‘mishandled’’ in another aviation 

regulation related to checked baggage.33

We believe making the definition 

consistent with aviation regulation 

related to checked luggage will reduce 

confusion since airlines are already 

applying this definition to checked 

luggage. As such, we will not include 

‘‘by a direct act of the airline or its 

agents’’ in the definition, as suggested 

by A4A and IATA. We note that further 

discussion related to custody of 

wheelchair and other assistive devices 

can be found below. Accordingly, this 

final rule defines ’’mishandled’’ as ‘‘lost, 

delayed, damaged, or pilfered (i.e., 

stolen).’’. 

With respect to the proposal that any 

mishandling of a passenger’s checked 

wheelchair or other assistive device is a 

per se violation of the ACAA, we find 

persuasive the comments from airline 

industry stakeholders that it would be 

unreasonable to impose on airlines a 

strict liability standard for wheelchairs 

or other assistive devices that are not 

timely returned in the same condition in 

which they were received. We agree 

with the comments from airline 

industry stakeholders that airlines 

should be provided an opportunity to 

defend themselves. We also share these 

commenters’ view that airlines should 

not be found liable for mishandling 

wheelchairs based on false allegations 

and in situations where the mobility 

aids were damaged or experiencing 

operational problems prior to the airline 

receiving them. Negligence of the 

person with a disability due to improper 

labeling, instructions, or other factors 

could also be a defense to a 

presumption of a mishandling violation. 

However, we do not find persuasive the 

comments from airline industry 

stakeholders stating that airlines should 

not be liable for damages to wheelchairs 

that are due to ‘‘acts of God’’ or a thirdparty.34 While ‘‘acts of God’’ or actions 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102411 

permissible grounds for exempting the carriers from 

the baggage fee refund obligation because the 

affected bags are under carriers’ custody.’’) 

35See the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS), Office of Airline Information (OAI), 

Technical Reporting Directive #30A—Mishandled 

Baggage and Wheelchairs and Scooters (December 

21, 2018). 

of a third-party are beyond the control 

of an airline, we believe that imposing 

responsibility on the airline is proper 

when the mishandling occurs when the 

device is in the airline’s custody and the 

mishandling is through no fault of the 

passenger. The airline in the best 

position to monitor the handling of 

wheelchairs and other assistive devices 

and to adjust practices and procedures 

to better protect wheelchairs and other 

assistive devices, and imposing 

responsibility on the carrier is an 

effective method to advance the goals of 

the ACAA and part 382 to reduce 

mishandlings. 

We define ‘‘custody’’ as the time 

period when a passenger has checked a 

wheelchair, scooter, or other assistive 

device with a carrier and the carrier has 

control of a passenger’s wheelchair, 

scooter, or other assistive device. An 

airline’s custody begins when the 

passenger hands the device to an 

airline’s representative or agent or 

leaves the wheelchair, scooter, or other 

assistive device at a location as 

instructed by the airline. An airline’s 

custody ends when the passenger, or 

someone acting on behalf of the 

passenger, or another airline takes 

physical possession of the wheelchair, 

scooter, or other assistive device. This is 

consistent with the Department’s policy 

for reporting mishandled baggage and 

wheelchairs and scooters.35

As suggested by A4A and IATA, the 

final rule specifies that not timely 

returning a wheelchair or other assistive 

device in the condition that it was 

received is a rebuttable violation of the 

ACAA. However, the Department is not 

adopting the suggestion by these airline 

associations to limit liability to acts that 

are within the airline’s direct control. 

Under this final rule, the presumption 

of a mishandling violation cannot be 

overcome by an airline asserting that the 

cause of the mishandling is an ‘‘act of 

God’’ or otherwise outside its control if 

the mishandling occurred while in its 

custody. The Department believes that 

this standard ensures that airlines are 

held accountable for mishandling 

assistive devices, particularly personal 

wheelchairs and scooters, which are 

essential to the user’s independence and 

mobility, while ensuring that airlines 

can defend themselves. 

2. Passenger Notifications 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department proposed notification 

requirements for airlines to ensure that 

passengers with disabilities are aware of 

their rights in the event of a 

mishandling. More specifically, the 

Department proposed adding a 

requirement that when carriers 

mishandle wheelchairs or scooters, they 

must immediately notify passengers of 

their rights to: (1) file a claim with the 

airline; (2) receive a loaner wheelchair 

from the airline with customizations; (3) 

choose a preferred vendor, if desired, for 

repairs or replacement of a damaged 

device; and (4) to have a CRO available 

and be provided information on how to 

contact the CRO. 

The Department also sought to 

mitigate the resulting harms on 

passengers with disabilities when an 

airline has failed to transport a 

wheelchair or scooter on a passenger’s 

flight. It is for this reason that the 

Department proposed requiring airlines 

to provide timely notifications to 

passengers with disabilities when their 

wheelchairs or scooters have been 

loaded on and off the cargo 

compartment of their flights and to 

immediately notify the passenger upon 

learning that his or her wheelchair or 

scooter does not fit on the aircraft. The 

Department did not propose a particular 

communication method for the 

notification(s), leaving the airlines with 

the flexibility to determine what would 

work best for them. 

In the NPRM, the Department also 

requested comment on airlines ensuring 

consumers have accurate and up-to-date 

information regarding their checked 

wheelchairs and scooters. The 

Department asked whether airlines 

should be required to provide status 

updates to passengers with disabilities 

about their checked wheelchairs and 

scooters (e.g., the stowage location of 

the passenger’s wheelchair or scooter on 

the flight) and whether the proposed 

requirements should be extended 

beyond wheelchairs and scooters to 

apply to other types of checked assistive 

devices. 

Comments Received: Disability rights 

organizations agree with the 

Department’s proposal that carriers 

notify passengers of their rights and 

options when checked wheelchairs or 

scooters are mishandled. Some 

disability rights organizations, such as 

PVA, the Amputee Coalition, and the 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society, 

suggested that the Department should 

also include requirements that the 

passenger may file a claim, and carriers 

must accept a claim, within fifteen days 

after the passenger’s arrival or return of 

the assistive device, whichever is later. 

Furthermore, a few disability rights 

organizations, such as PVA, the 

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, 

and the Amputee Coalition, commented 

that the Department should require 

airlines to provide an option for a 

passenger to file a claim in an accessible 

manner that does not require the 

passenger to return to the airport. 

Disability rights organizations also 

expressed support for the Department’s 

proposal on required notifications to 

passengers with disabilities when their 

wheelchairs or scooters are loaded onto 

and off their flights. These organizations 

stated that they believe that passengers 

with disabilities need to know if, and 

when, their mobility aids have been 

loaded and offloaded from aircraft so 

they can track these devices that are 

critical to their health and 

independence. They also stressed that 

these notifications must be timely and 

accurate and provided in an accessible 

format, otherwise the notifications 

would be useless. 

Disability rights organizations had 

mixed opinions on communication 

methods for providing the stowage 

notifications (e.g., via text message, 

mobile app notification, email, or verbal 

confirmation). PVA stated that the 

Department should not give carriers 

complete autonomy for passenger 

notifications and that all notifications 

should occur in the most prompt 

method that is accessible for the 

passenger. PVA’s comment continued 

on to state that for loading and 

offloading of the passenger’s mobility 

device, the carrier should default to a 

real-time accessible method of 

communication, such as text messages 

and updates on the carrier’s website or 

mobile app. Others, including Indiana 

Disability Rights, recommended that 

airlines update passengers about the 

status of their wheelchairs in-person 

rather than through a mobile app 

because passengers with disabilities 

may not have their phones on them or 

available during boarding and 

deplaning. Some stated that the 

notifications should only be done by 

using the passenger’s preferred method 

of communication. 

Disability rights organizations’ 

comments also urged the Department to 

go further than the requirements of the 

NPRM’s proposal. For example, the 

Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation 

recommended that airlines provide 

status updates for passengers’ 

wheelchairs and scooters throughout the 

entire air travel experience. This would 

include updates each time the status 

changes, such as during the loading and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102412 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

offloading for all flight legs and for 

availability at connections. PVA and 

Cure SMA noted that stowage 

notifications and stowage location 

information need to be provided to 

relevant airline personnel as well so that 

they also know where the passenger’s 

wheelchair is at all times. 

Airline industry stakeholders had 

mixed opinions on the NPRM’s 

notification proposals. A4A and IATA 

commented that they generally agree 

with the premise that passengers should 

be notified of a mobility aid 

mishandling and their rights when it 

happens. However, they suggested that 

the Department should clarify that the 

timing of the notification should occur 

upon the airline becoming aware of the 

mishandling. They further suggested 

that the Department should permit 

airlines to also include restrictions in 

the notification, such as limitations of 

rights when a passenger knowingly 

agrees to travel separately from their 

mobility aid because of late gate arrival; 

limitations of rights for pre-existing 

damage; and limitations of rights when 

the mishandling was not caused by an 

act of the airline. 

A4A also generally agreed that 

passengers should be informed of the 

stowage status of their wheelchairs and 

scooters but requested amendments to 

the Department’s proposed rule. A4A 

provided several scenarios where it 

believes compliance with the 

notification requirements would not be 

possible, such as if the airline is not 

provided correct contact information for 

the passenger or the passenger does not 

have access to electronic 

communications. A4A commented that 

they do not believe the Department 

should impose regulatory liability for 

these scenarios as it could result in 

unreasonable actions taken by airlines 

to avoid regulatory violations. A4A did 

support the proposal’s standard of 

‘‘timely’’ notifications because this 

flexibility will avoid imposing unfair 

liability on airlines for unrealistic 

timelines. A4A also stated that the 

Department’s proposed regulatory 

language is redundant and should be 

limited to notifications when the 

wheelchair or scooter is ‘‘loaded’’ and 

‘‘unloaded.’’ Southwest Airlines Co. 

(Southwest) agreed with A4A’s stance 

and asserted that the Department’s 

requirements must account for 

operational realities, limitations of the 

airline’s ability to communicate with its 

customers, and different airline business 

models. Southwest supported a 

‘‘prompt’’ and ‘‘to the extent possible’’ 

standard for notifications that would 

allow for flexibility in differing 

circumstances, avoid imposing unfair 

regulatory liability, and appropriately 

set the expectations of passengers with 

disabilities. 

A4A also supported flexibility for 

airlines regarding the communication 

method(s) used to provide stowage 

notifications to passengers. A4A’s 

comment suggests that some airlines 

will opt to use automated and electronic 

notifications, and in doing so will need 

to ensure that their systems, procedures, 

and training are updated appropriately. 

As such, A4A recommended that the 

Department give airlines a minimum of 

18 months to implement the notification 

requirements. Southwest called for even 

more time for implementation and 

requested a minimum of 24 months to 

comply. For passengers who need verbal 

notifications, A4A stated that such 

requests should be made in advance or 

at the airport on the day of travel. 

Southwest on the other hand stated that 

verbal notifications could be 

problematic for the carrier due to its 

open seating model. Southwest asserted 

that discreetly informing a customer of 

the status of their device once onboard 

the aircraft will be a concern and likely 

impossible without at least announcing 

the customer’s name in order to 

determine where they are on the 

aircraft. 

NACA had a slightly different 

position. NACA stated that there is no 

added benefit to passengers with 

disabilities by knowing exactly when 

their wheelchairs or scooters are loaded 

and unloaded. NACA commented that 

the absence of a notice that a device was 

not loaded should be enough for the 

passenger to know that their mobility 

aid has been loaded on their flight. 

NACA asserted that costs for technology 

purchases and implementation and 

handler time will outweigh any related 

benefits to passengers with disabilities 

and will unduly burden the ultra lowcost carriers (ULCCs). Allegiant and 

Spirit provided similar comments and 

view this as an unnecessary additional 

requirement that will disproportionately 

impact smaller carriers that do not 

utilize sophisticated baggage tracking 

systems with a customer interface. 

Allegiant stated that carriers may choose 

to use in-person verbal notifications for 

passengers to reduce costs, which could 

cause embarrassment to these 

passengers in a public setting. Spirit 

noted that these notifications may cause 

more worry and anxiety for travelers 

because wheelchairs and scooters are 

typically loaded last. 

RAA noted that its fee-for-service 

carriers do not have the means to 

directly contact their passengers and 

passengers would need to be notified by 

the mainline partners. RAA also stated 

that automated communications are 

preferred because it can be the timeliest 

form of notification and most airlines 

already utilize technology that tracks 

checked baggage where passengers can 

follow the location. 

Foreign airlines shared similar 

opposing views as NACA, Allegiant, 

and Spirit. TAP, Neos S.P.A., Japan 

Airlines Co., Ltd. (JAL), Finnair OYJ, 

and Avianca Carriers noted concerns 

with logistical challenges and high 

technology development costs 

associated with compliance with the 

NPRM’s proposed requirement. Avianca 

Carriers also stated that the Department 

needs to define what is meant by 

‘‘timely’’ notifications and that 

notifications should not be required if 

providing the notification would delay 

the aircraft. 

Other stakeholders, including Open 

Doors Organization (Open Doors), were 

generally supportive of the requirement 

for airlines to provide stowage 

notifications to passengers with 

disabilities when their wheelchairs or 

scooters are loaded onto and unloaded 

from their flights. Our Lady of Lourdes 

Hospitality North American Volunteers 

suggested that airlines go beyond text 

notifications by also providing 

passengers with pictures of their stowed 

wheelchairs and scooters to further 

reduce stress for passengers. 

As for the proposed requirement for 

airlines to immediately notify the 

passenger upon learning that the 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter does 

not fit on the aircraft, comments 

received from airlines, disability rights 

organizations, and others all generally 

support this proposal. Some disability 

rights organizations noted that ideally 

this notification should be provided to 

the passenger before boarding the 

aircraft. This way, the passenger could 

avoid any unnecessary transfers if he or 

she ultimately decides not to travel 

without their wheelchair or scooter. A 

disability organization commenter 

added that if the notification is provided 

after the passenger has boarded, then he 

or she must be given the option to exit 

the plane and have the device returned. 

A4A and airline industry stakeholders 

noted that ‘‘immediate’’ notifications 

may not be realistic or possible in all 

situations. As such, they suggested 

using ‘‘prompt’’ or other standards that 

provide more flexibility for the airlines. 

A4A stated that the notification should 

be provided no later than when the 

passenger boards the aircraft or before 

the aircraft cabin door closes, if the 

passenger has already boarded the 

aircraft when the airline attempts to 

load the wheelchair or scooter in the 

cargo compartment. Some airlines also 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102413 

stated that they may choose to give 

these notifications to passengers 

verbally, which could alleviate the need 

for significant technology development. 

In response to the question in the 

NPRM on whether airlines should be 

required to provide other status updates 

to passengers with disabilities about 

their checked wheelchairs or scooters, 

disability rights organizations had 

various suggestions. For example, PVA’s 

comment mentioned more frequent 

updates about the wheelchair’s or 

scooter’s location throughout the entire 

travel experience, status updates when 

a wheelchair or scooter is damaged, and 

status updates when a delayed 

wheelchair or scooter is returned after 

the passenger’s arrival at his or her 

destination. United Spinal suggested 

passenger alerts when policy changes 

are made that affect passenger safety. 

Liberty Resources asked for notifications 

to inform passengers with short 

connections whether their wheelchairs 

or scooters will be available to them at 

their connecting gate. North Dakota 

Protection and Advocacy Project noted 

that knowing the exact location and 

status of an assistive device would be 

beneficial for passengers and carriers as 

they could be more easily located. 

Disability rights organizations also 

generally supported the idea of 

extending any notification requirements 

to cover other types of assistive devices 

beyond wheelchairs and scooters that 

passengers check in as cargo. 

On the other hand, airline industry 

stakeholders opposed extending the 

scope of the status notification 

requirements beyond the NPRM’s 

proposal. A4A noted that the loading 

and unloading of wheelchairs and 

scooters is an appropriate scope for 

passenger notifications. They stated that 

it would be extremely difficult and 

unnecessary to provide additional 

granularity on the loading and 

unloading process, especially 

considering variability in airline and 

aircraft manufacturers’ loading and 

securement procedures, mobility aids, 

and cargo compartment configurations. 

A4A stated that this level of detail 

would also be more confusing for 

passengers than helpful without 

additional explanation by personnel 

with specialized cargo loading 

expertise. They also contended that the 

NPRM’s question was overly broad and 

did not allow for meaningful comment 

on alternative requirements. They also 

stated that they are unaware of material 

stowage issues for other assistive 

devices and noted that airlines generally 

have little to no information when 

passengers transport other assistive 

devices in their checked baggage. RAA, 

Southwest, and Spirit voiced similar 

arguments in their comments. 

DOT Response: After careful review of 

the comments on this subject area, the 

Department is adopting modified 

notification requirements that airlines 

must provide to passengers before 

departure, upon arrival, and in the event 

a passenger’s wheelchair or scooter is 

mishandled. These notifications must be 

timely, accurate, and provided in a 

readily accessible format for passengers 

with disabilities. 

(i) Required Information Prior to 

Departure 

The final rule requires airlines to 

provide certain notifications prior to 

departure to passengers who travel with 

their own wheelchair or scooter. The 

Department is declining to extend the 

scope of the pre-departure notification 

requirements to other types of checked 

assistive devices. Under this final rule, 

when passengers check their 

wheelchairs or scooters, airlines are 

required to notify passengers of their 

rights, including their right to file a 

claim with the airline and to contact a 

CRO should their wheelchair be 

mishandled. In addition, prior to the 

flight’s departure, an airline must notify 

a passenger who uses a wheelchair or 

scooter whether his or her checked 

wheelchair or scooter was loaded onto 

the flight and if the size, weight, or 

other attribute of the device prevented 

the carrier from loading the wheelchair 

or scooter onto the flight. The 

Department continues to believe that 

these passenger notifications are most 

relevant for wheelchairs and scooters, as 

these larger and heavier devices are 

more likely to encounter stowage issues 

with aircraft cargo doors and cargo 

holds than other types of assistive 

devices. The Department also 

acknowledges that there could be 

significant logistical difficulties for 

airlines in tracking and updating 

passengers on other types of assistive 

devices that are contained in 

passengers’ checked luggage. 

The Department is requiring that the 

notification provided to passengers with 

disabilities when they check their 

wheelchair or scooter be in writing. 

However, we are providing flexibility to 

airlines on how to notify passengers 

whether their wheelchairs or scooters 

have been loaded onto aircraft prior to 

departure and if it has not been loaded, 

whether the wheelchair or scooter did 

not fit in the cargo compartment. The 

Department received mixed feedback 

from commenters on preferred 

communication methods (e.g., text, 

email, mobile app notification, or verbal 

confirmation) for stowage notifications. 

Airline comments suggested that some 

major airlines will invest time and 

money into implementing automated 

tracking and messaging systems. 

However, airlines with smaller budgets 

and blueprints may choose to go a 

different route. By not specifying how 

the notification is provided to 

passengers, the Department is enabling 

airlines to develop practices and 

procedures that are appropriate for their 

business models. If an airline offers 

multiple methods for providing such 

notifications, then the airline should 

allow for the passenger to choose his or 

her preferred method and should honor 

that choice. 

The Department acknowledges the 

comments from airline industry 

stakeholders asserting that there are 

scenarios where airlines should not be 

held responsible for passengers not 

being notified as to whether their 

wheelchairs or scooters have been 

loaded on and off the cargo 

compartment of their flights. The 

Department agrees that, in certain 

limited circumstances, the lack of 

passenger notification is not a failure of 

the airline and is not a violation. For 

example, the Department would not 

find a violation if a timely notification 

was sent but not received because the 

passenger’s cell phone was powered off 

or the passenger did not provide the 

airline with accurate contact 

information. The Department may also 

not find a violation if the airline 

provides in-person notifications but was 

unable locate a passenger in the airport 

terminal or on the aircraft to provide the 

notification despite making a good faith 

effort. The Department’s Office of 

Aviation Consumer Protection will 

consider these situations on a case-bycase basis considering the totality of the 

circumstances, like how the Department 

generally analyzes other disabilityrelated matters to determine if the law 

was violated. 

The Department also agrees with 

airline industry commenters in that it is 

not always possible to provide 

immediate notifications when a 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter 

cannot be transported on a flight. 

Ideally, as noted by some of the 

comments from disability rights 

organizations, passengers would be 

informed that a wheelchair cannot fit in 

the aircraft cargo due to its size or 

weight prior to boarding the flight so 

passengers who use wheelchairs can 

avoid any unnecessary aisle chair and 

transfer assistance in enplaning and 

deplaning the aircraft. However, 

passengers who use wheelchairs often 

board a flight before other passengers, 

and wheelchairs and scooters are often 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102414 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

36Federal law prohibits passengers from 

interfering with crewmembers in the performance 

of their duties onboard aircraft and failing to obey 

crewmembers’ directions. See 14 CFR 121.580. 

loaded into the cargo compartment 

towards the end of the loading process. 

Loading the wheelchairs at the end 

makes it easier for airlines to comply 

with the requirement of 14 CFR 

382.125(d), which states that airlines 

must ensure that passengers’ 

wheelchairs, other mobility aids, and 

other assistive devices are among the 

first items retrieved from the baggage 

compartment. In A4A’s comment, the 

association recommended using the 

following regulatory language: ‘‘. . . 

you must promptly notify the impacted 

passenger no later than when the 

passenger boards the aircraft or before 

the aircraft cabin door closes, if the 

passenger has already boarded the 

aircraft when the airline attempts to 

load the wheelchair or scooter in the 

cargo compartment.’’ The Department 

believes that the standard recommended 

by A4A strikes an appropriate balance 

for when individuals with disabilities 

should be notified because it still 

provides passengers sufficient time to 

decide whether to deplane or continue 

with their original flight without their 

wheelchair or scooter. 

However, the Department is not 

convinced that implementing the 

notification requirements regarding the 

stowage of wheelchair or scooters will 

take airlines 18 months up to two years 

as suggested by airline industry 

commenters. As stated earlier, the final 

rule provides airlines flexibility 

regarding the method used to provide 

notification to passengers. This means 

that airlines are not required to invest in 

technology such as a baggage tracking 

system with a customer interface to 

comply with the notification 

requirement though they may choose to 

do so. Nevertheless, in recognition of 

the fact that airlines will need some 

time to develop procedures and 

technology and train appropriate staff, 

the Department is providing airlines one 

year from the date of the final rule’s 

publication in the Federal Register to 

implement the notification requirement 

relating to stowage of wheelchairs and 

scooters. 

(ii) Required Information Upon Arrival 

The final rule requires airlines to 

notify passengers upon arrival when 

their wheelchairs or scooters have been 

unloaded from the aircraft’s cargo 

compartment. The Department is not 

extending the scope of this notification 

requirements to other types of checked 

assistive devices as some commenters 

have suggested as the Department is not 

aware of material stowage issues for 

other assistive devices. Also, the 

Department is providing flexibility to 

airlines on how to notify passengers 

when their wheelchairs or scooters have 

been unloaded from the aircraft’s cargo 

compartment. This is consistent with 

the approach that the Department is 

taking for pre-departure notification 

requirements. 

Under this final rule, the notification 

provided to passengers regarding the 

unloading of a wheelchair or scooter 

from the cargo compartment of the 

aircraft must be prompt. In this 

situation, prompt means the notification 

is provided to the passenger before he 

or she deplanes the aircraft. The 

Department made this determination for 

several reasons. First, in another part of 

this final rule, the Department is 

codifying its longstanding interpretation 

that prompt deplaning assistance for 

individuals who use wheelchairs 

includes the passenger’s personal 

wheelchair being ready and available as 

close as possible to the door of the 

aircraft except where this practice 

would be inconsistent with Federal 

regulations or when the passenger 

requests the wheelchair be returned at a 

location other than the door of the 

aircraft. Often, passengers who use 

wheelchairs do not want to deplane the 

aircraft until their personal wheelchair 

has been unloaded and they can be 

assured that it is waiting for them at the 

door of the aircraft. Second, as 

mentioned by Liberty Resources, PVA, 

and others, spending extended periods 

of time waiting in aisle chairs, airport 

wheelchairs, or airport seats may be 

uncomfortable or even harmful to many 

individuals with customized 

wheelchairs. Third, the Department 

already requires airlines to ensure that 

passengers’ wheelchairs, other mobility 

aids, and other assistive devices are 

among the first items retrieved from the 

baggage compartment and wheelchairs 

and scooters are often the last items 

loaded onto the cargo compartment so 

they can quickly be retrieved. We note 

that, while this rule requires notification 

of the unloading of wheelchairs or 

scooters to be provided to passengers 

while they are still on the aircraft and 

the failure to provide such notification 

would subject airlines to administrative 

penalties, other Federal law regarding 

passenger behavior still requires 

passengers with disabilities to follow 

crew member instructions, including 

instructions to disembark an aircraft, 

even if an airline has failed to provide 

a required notification.36 As for the 

compliance period, the Department is 

providing airlines one year to 

implement notification of the unloading 

of wheelchairs or scooters similar to the 

implementation period for notification 

on whether a passenger’s wheelchair or 

scooter has or has not been loaded onto 

the aircraft. The Department believes 

that one year strikes a balance between 

giving airlines time to develop 

procedures and technology and train 

appropriate staff and ensuring these 

vital notifications are provided to 

passengers with disabilities as soon as 

possible. 

(iii) Required Information After 

Wheelchairs or Scooters Are 

Mishandled 

The Department is adopting, as 

proposed, the requirement for airlines, 

when wheelchair or scooters are 

mishandled, to notify passengers in 

writing of their right to: (1) file a claim 

with the airline, (2) receive a loaner 

wheelchair from the airline with certain 

customizations, (3) choose a preferred 

vendor, if desired, for device repairs or 

replacement, and (4) have a CRO 

available and be provided information 

on how to contact the CRO. The final 

rule also requires airlines to provide 

updates to passengers who have filed 

claims for a delayed wheelchair or 

scooter when there are changes to the 

status of the delayed wheelch air or 

scooter. The Department has decided 

not to extend these notification 

requirements to other types of checked 

assistive devices considering these 

notifications are generally not relevant 

or beneficial to those traveling with 

checked assistive devices that are not 

wheelchairs or scooters. 

Regarding the timing of the 

notification to passengers of their rights 

when a wheelchair or scooter is 

mishandled, the Department agrees with 

A4A’s suggestion that the notification 

should occur upon the airline becoming 

aware of the mishandling, which can 

happen when an airline employee or 

contractor notices that the wheelchair or 

assistive device has been mishandled or 

when the passenger notifies airline 

personnel that his or her wheelchair or 

scooter has been mishandled, whichever 

occurs first. The Department is of the 

view that an extended implementation 

period to notify passengers of their 

rights when a wheelchair or scooter is 

mishandled is not warranted. However, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102415 

the Department sees benefit in aligning 

the time allotted for airlines to comply 

with the requirement to allow 

passengers to choose a preferred vendor 

for wheelchair repairs and replacements 

(discussed below in section II.B(6)) to 

this notification requirement given 

airlines would be notifying passengers 

of this right. For this reason, the 

Department has decided to provide 

airlines until March 17, 2025, to comply 

with this requirement. 

As for the status updates to 

passengers who have filed mishandled 

wheelchair or scooter claims for delays, 

the Department is persuaded that status 

updates are necessary because 

passengers need transparency and 

accurate information on their 

wheelchairs and scooters when they are 

separated from them. As Cure SMA 

stated in its comment on the NPRM, 

‘‘Given the importance of wheelchairs 

in maximizing independence and health 

for people living with [a neuromuscular 

disease], passengers must receive 

prompt, frequent notifications on the 

transport or availability of their devices, 

if returned after arrival. Having an 

estimated time of arrival (whether at the 

airport or another requested location) 

would provide peace of mind to people 

living with [a neuromuscular disease] 

who are separated from their 

wheelchairs and allow for advance 

planning.’’ The importance of these 

updates was echoed by several others, 

including the National Multiple 

Sclerosis Society, the American 

Association of People with Disabilities, 

and the North Dakota Protection and 

Advocacy Project. Given the importance 

of these status update notifications for 

individuals with disabilities, airlines 

must provide updates whenever there 

are changes for delayed wheelchairs and 

scooters, including changes to the 

estimated time of delivery. 

3. Publication of Information Related to 

Aircraft Cargo Holds 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department solicited comment on 

whether airlines should be required to 

provide the dimensions of aircraft cargo 

compartments prior to travel to any 

passenger who shares that he or she will 

be traveling with a personal wheelchair 

or scooter. The Department noted that 

airlines are already required to notify 

passengers, on request, of any 

limitations on the availability of storage 

facilities, in the cabin or in the cargo 

bay, for mobility aids or other assistive 

devices commonly used by passengers 

with a disability. 

Comments Received: Many disability 

rights organizations who commented on 

this issue, including AARP, Cure SMA, 

and Muscular Dystrophy Association 

(MDA), stated that airlines should be 

required to disclose cargo dimensions 

(including the door) upfront for flights 

so that passengers can determine 

whether their wheelchairs will fit and 

can plan accordingly before travel. 

AARP asserted that airlines should be 

required to publish in a prominent and 

easily accessible place on their public 

website any size restrictions that could 

cause a wheelchair not to fit on the 

plane. North Dakota Protection and 

Advocacy Project suggested that a 

possible solution would be for 

passengers to provide information about 

their assistive devices when booking 

flights, so the carrier can independently 

determine if adequate space is available 

to transport devices. Disability Rights 

Maryland stated that airlines should be 

required to provide cargo dimensions on 

any web page where passengers can 

book tickets, or when a passenger books 

a flight over the telephone. 

While A4A did not object to the intent 

of providing information about aircraft 

cargo dimensions, it argued that the 

Department must follow a notice-andcomment rulemaking process to fully 

examine scope, costs, benefits, and 

limitations of such notifications. 

Southwest stated that the company 

already provides information to 

passengers regarding the dimensions of 

aircraft cargo bins and openings on its 

website, giving them the opportunity to 

make an informed decision prior to 

arriving at the airport. Allegiant 

endorsed ensuring passengers are made 

aware of cargo limitations prior to the 

loading stage. 

Other stakeholder commenters, 

including Open Doors, mostly 

supported a requirement for airlines to 

provide dimensions of their cargo bins 

and cargo hold doors to passengers 

traveling with larger wheelchairs or 

scooters that could be subject to stowage 

issues. 

DOT Response: Section 544(a) of the 

2024 FAA Act directs the Department to 

require air carriers to publish in a 

prominent and easily accessible place 

on the carrier’s public website 

information describing the dimensions 

and characteristics of the cargo holds of 

all aircraft types operated by the carrier. 

Section 544(a) further states that this 

information must include the 

dimensions of the cargo hold entry and 

allowable type of cargo and that air 

carriers are allowed to protect the 

confidentiality of any trade secret or 

proprietary information, as appropriate. 

In this final rule, the Department is 

codifying section 544(a) of the 2024 

FAA Act. Airlines are required to 

publish in a prominent and easily 

accessible place on the public website of 

the carrier information describing the 

relevant dimensions and other 

characteristics of the cargo holds of all 

aircraft types operated by the air carrier, 

including the dimensions of the cargo 

hold entry, that would limit the size, 

weight, and allowable type of cargo. 

Commenters have largely supported 

airlines disclosing cargo dimensions to 

enable passengers to determine whether 

their wheelchairs will fit on aircraft. 

The Department does not believe that 

compliance with this aspect of the final 

rule will require much time or effort by 

the airlines. The requirement simply 

calls for airlines to publish data and 

information on their websites regarding 

the cargo compartments of the aircraft 

that they operate, and some airlines 

indicated that they already post this 

information on their public-facing 

websites. This important information 

will allow for passengers with 

disabilities to better assess whether their 

wheelchairs or scooters can be 

accommodated when searching for and 

booking flights, which in turn will 

prevent passengers with disabilities 

from being turned away at the airport on 

their day of travel and experiencing 

significant life disruptions. 

4. Return of Delayed Wheelchairs and 

Scooters 

The NPRM: The Department proposed 

that when an airline delays the return of 

a passenger’s wheelchair or scooter, the 

airline would be required to transport 

the delayed device to the passenger’s 

final destination within twenty-four (24) 

hours of the passenger’s arrival at that 

destination by whatever means possible 

and to pay the associated cost. The 

Department explained that the 24-hour 

requirement was meant to strike a 

balance between the time required for 

logistical coordination by airlines and 

the need for passengers with disabilities 

to have their wheelchairs and scooters 

returned to them as promptly as 

possible. The Department also 

explained that ‘‘by whatever means 

possible’’ could include the carrier 

seeking out other commercial passenger 

flights or freight flights that could 

accommodate the device and other 

ground shipping options that would 

result in prompt delivery to the 

passenger. In addition, under the 

NPRM’s proposal, the carrier would 

have to provide the passenger the choice 

of either (1) picking up the wheelchair 

or scooter at their final destination 

airport or (2) having the wheelchair or 

scooter delivered by the airline to 

another location, such as the passenger’s 

home or hotel, based on a reasonable 

request. We stated that we would 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102416 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

consider the wheelchair or scooter to be 

provided to the passenger (1) when the 

wheelchair or scooter has arrived at the 

destination airport, is available for 

pickup, and the carrier has provided 

notice to the passenger of the location 

and availability of the wheelchair or 

scooter for pickup; or (2) when the 

wheelchair or scooter is transported to 

the location requested by the passenger, 

regardless of whether the passenger is 

present to take possession of the 

wheelchair or scooter. 

Comments Received: The Department 

received many comments on its 

proposed requirement for the prompt 

return of delayed wheelchairs and 

scooters by airlines. Feedback was 

generally mixed, with some comments 

supporting the NPRM’s proposal, some 

opposing the proposal, and others 

urging the Department to enhance or 

expand the proposal. 

Disability rights organizations either 

supported the 24-hour timeline for 

returning wheelchairs and scooters or 

asked for even stricter standards. AARP 

asserted that personal wheelchairs are 

essential to safe mobility for those who 

use them, and no one should have to 

wait longer than necessary for their 

return. Some organizations, such as the 

United States Gender and Disability 

Justice Alliance, and some individuals 

with disabilities believe that 24 hours is 

still too long to go without their 

personal wheelchair or scooter. As such, 

these commenters recommended stricter 

timelines and modified standards for 

airlines to follow. For example, Cure 

SMA suggested implementing a 

standard that airlines be required to 

return a misplaced wheelchair on the 

next available flight, and no later than 

24 hours, even if it requires the use of 

a different carrier. 

Disability rights organizations also 

generally supported giving options to 

passengers to either pick up their 

delayed wheelchairs or scooters at their 

destination airports or have them 

delivered by the airline to a different 

location based on a reasonable request 

made by the passenger. Many reiterated 

that passengers with disabilities should 

never be required to travel back to the 

airport to pick up their delayed 

wheelchairs or scooters for several 

reasons, including limited accessible 

transportation options. There was also 

one common concern raised regarding 

when the Department would consider 

‘‘delivery’’ to be completed by the 

airline. Specifically, several 

organizations including PVA and the 

Amputee Coalition asserted that 

‘‘delivery’’ of the device should only be 

considered complete when the 

passenger, or an authorized party, takes 

physical possession of the device from 

the airline. They believed that the 

airline’s regulatory obligations should 

not terminate until this point because 

wheelchairs and scooters should not be 

left at a designated location without 

acceptance by an authorized individual. 

Airline industry stakeholders believed 

it will be difficult to meet the 24-hour 

timeline proposed in the NPRM, 

especially for smaller airlines, remote 

locations, and global destinations. A4A 

and domestic airlines argued that even 

if they have a daily-service schedule to 

a given location with one daily flight, 

that flight will likely land 24 hours 

apart from when the passenger landed, 

meaning that the airline is automatically 

non-compliant with the proposed 

regulation. They added that the 

proposed 24-hour period doesn’t 

consider the fact that the airline may 

have to deliver the wheelchair or 

scooter to another location off the 

airport requested by the passenger, and 

in certain markets, airlines may operate 

less than daily service and alternative 

transportation by air may be 

unavailable. As such, they asserted that 

the regulation would be unfair and 

unreasonable. 

In lieu of the NPRM’s proposal, these 

airline industry stakeholders 

recommended several different 

standards that they claim will allow 

airlines necessary flexibility in 

returning delayed devices to impacted 

passengers. Recommended standards 

greatly varied. A4A suggests 48 hours 

for delivery to the passenger’s 

destination airport and 72 hours for 

delivery to a separate final location as 

requested by the passenger. NACA 

urged the Department to consider a sixday delivery standard for ULCCs since 

these carriers will be disproportionately 

impacted by the requirement because of 

their flight schedules. Spirit suggested 

that the 24-hour timeline of the NPRM’s 

proposal should be satisfied if the 

airline starts the delivery process before 

the 24-hour period elapses and is 

completed in a reasonable amount of 

time. 

Foreign airlines called for a separate 

standard for delayed devices on 

international flights. IAG requested a 

minimum of 48 hours. Multiple foreign 

airlines suggested a more lenient 96- 

hour standard that aligns with the 

regulatory approach taken by Canada. 

On the other hand, IATA indicated that 

it does not want any sort of set time 

standard and instead suggested that 

foreign airlines should be required to 

demonstrate that they made best efforts 

to deliver the delayed wheelchair or 

scooter in a timely manner. 

Airline industry stakeholders also 

argued that they should not be held 

liable for delays and extended delays 

caused by circumstances outside of the 

airlines’ control. Examples provided by 

A4A and IATA included: late arrival at 

the passenger’s gate that does not give 

airlines adequate time to load the 

mobility aid safely; weather or delays 

caused by the Department’s own air 

traffic control decision; and when a 

passenger knowingly elects to have a 

short connection time and has been 

notified that such time is inadequate for 

the unloading, transfer, and loading of 

the mobility aid. Some also took issue 

with the NPRM’s requirement that 

airlines deliver delayed wheelchairs and 

scooters to passengers ‘‘by whatever 

means possible.’’ A4A claimed that the 

requirement lacks consideration of 

safety and dignity, putting airlines in an 

unfair situation, conflicts with the idea 

of passengers making ‘‘reasonable 

requests’’ for delivery, and fails to 

consider the lead-time that it will take 

airlines to arrange for safe transport. 

A4A also claimed that if there are no 

safe transportation options available or 

even possible, then the airline cannot be 

held liable for the delivery to the 

passenger’s requested location. RAA 

shared the same concerns as A4A. A4A 

asserted that this could include 

situations when the only available 

transport is by off-road vehicle where 

navigating rough terrain may result in 

damage to the device or where 

passengers on intercontinental sea 

voyages cannot be reached by any other 

mode of transport. 

Lastly, airline industry stakeholders 

raised some concerns with the details of 

the two delivery options for impacted 

passengers. Specifically, some 

commenters called for clarity and 

limitations on what may constitute a 

‘‘reasonable request by the passenger.’’ 

A4A and IATA also stated that for 

delivery to the passenger’s destination 

airport, the airline’s obligation should 

be considered complete after making a 

reasonable attempt to notify the 

passenger that his or her wheelchair or 

scooter is available for pick up. They 

stated that airlines should not be kept 

on the hook longer if the passenger is 

unavailable to receive notification 

because of the passenger’s own actions 

or circumstances (e.g., a passenger does 

not have cell service or has not 

configured a voicemail box). 

DOT Response: After carefully 

reviewing and considering the 

comments received, the Department is 

requiring carriers to transport delayed 

wheelchairs and scooters to impacted 

passengers within 24 hours of the 

passenger’s arrival for domestic flights 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102417 

and short haul international flights (12 

hours or less) and within 30 hours of the 

passenger’s arrival for long haul 

international flights (more than 12 

hours). Under both standards, the 

delivery time period starts when the 

passenger is given the opportunity to 

deplane from a flight at the passenger’s 

final destination and the passenger’s 

personal wheelchair does not arrive 

with the passenger. The delay ends 

when the passenger either picks up the 

delayed wheelchair or scooter at his or 

her destination airport or the delayed 

wheelchair or scooter is delivered by the 

carrier to a reasonable location such as 

the passenger’s home or hotel. Under 

this rule, the passenger chooses whether 

to pick up the wheelchair or scooter 

from the airport or to have wheelchair 

or scooter delivered to a reasonable 

location like his or her home or hotel. 

By reasonable location, the Department 

means a location that is near the 

passenger’s origination or destination 

airport. Also, to ensure that an airline is 

aware that a wheelchair has been 

delayed and knows where to return the 

wheelchair, an individual with a 

disability should file a mishandled bag 

report (MBR) when their wheelchair or 

scooter is delayed. Through the filing of 

an MBR, the airline can obtain 

information such as the passenger’s 

contact information and where the 

passenger wishes to have the wheelchair 

or scooter returned. 

The final rule requires carriers to 

carry out their obligation to promptly 

return delayed wheelchairs or scooters 

to individuals with disabilities by using 

whatever means are available to the 

carriers to transport the delayed 

wheelchairs or scooters safely. Ideally, 

the delayed wheelchair or scooter 

would be transported on the carrier’s 

next available flight if the wheelchair or 

scooter can safely fit and it would 

satisfy the timing requirements of the 

rule. However, if that is not an option 

carriers must ensure the prompt 

transport of the delayed wheelchairs or 

scooters through other ways, including 

other commercial passenger flights or 

freight flights that could accommodate 

the device and/or ground shipping 

options. 

The Department appreciates the 

disability rights organizations’ 

comments that urge the Department to 

take a stricter approach than the 24-hour 

standard proposed in the NPRM for the 

return of delayed wheelchairs or 

scooters. We understand that it is 

incredibly important for these delayed 

devices to be returned by the airlines as 

quickly as possible to restore the 

passenger’s health, independence, and 

mobility. We also recognize the industry 

comments that note potential 

difficulties in meeting the proposed 

standard for smaller airlines, remote 

locations, and global destinations. 

However, while it is true that certain 

carriers may not have a daily flight to 

a passenger’s final destination, the 

proposed regulation intentionally 

provided flexibility for airlines to 

consider alternative options that could 

be used to transport the wheelchair or 

scooter to the passenger in a timely 

manner (e.g., commercial flights on 

partner and subsidiary airlines and 

freight flights). For example, airlines 

could utilize overnight couriers to meet 

the deadline rather than waiting for 

their next available flight. For this same 

reason, the Department does not believe 

that a separate standard is needed for 

ULCCs even if they have lesser flight 

frequencies and smaller flight networks 

compared to the legacy carriers. 

We note that under the Department’s 

Final Rule on Refunds and Other 

Consumer Protections, regardless of 

size, airlines are required to return a 

checked delayed bag within 12 hours to 

passengers who were on domestic 

flights and within 15 hours to 

passengers who were on short haul 

international flights (12 hours or less). 

For several reasons, in this rule, the 

Department is instead requiring airlines 

deliver delayed wheelchairs and 

scooters within 24 hours to passengers 

traveling on domestic and short haul 

international flights. As mentioned in 

comments, wheelchairs and scooters 

can be more difficult to ship than 

regular checked bags and can require 

careful packing and loading. 

Wheelchairs and scooters can also be 

large, weigh several hundred pounds, 

and contain fragile parts. Additionally, 

as discussed in the NPRM, a given 

wheelchair or scooter (unlike a regular 

checked bag) may not fit on any flight 

offered by a carrier if that carrier 

operates a limited fleet of aircraft types. 

In cases where an airline has 

transported a passenger without his or 

her wheelchair or scooter, the airline 

must reunite that passenger with his 

wheelchair or scooter through any safe 

means including reaching outside of its 

own network to secure a transportation 

option for the wheelchair or scooter. 

Finally, in this rule, airlines are 

required to offer delivery of the 

wheelchair or scooter to a reasonable 

location requested by the passenger 

such as the passenger’s home or hotel. 

This additional requirement could add 

time and effort for airlines when 

returning these delayed devices. 

With respect to returning wheelchairs 

or scooters for passengers on long haul 

international flights (more than 12 hours 

in duration), the Department is 

requiring carriers to return them to 

passengers within 30 hours, similar to 

the timeframe required of carriers 

returning delayed checked bag. The 

Department is allowing airlines more 

time than the proposed 24-hours to 

return wheelchairs or scooter for 

passengers on long-haul flights because 

choices to transport wheelchairs or 

scooters by other means such as on 

another carrier’s flight or via courier 

services may be more limited. 

The Department is not persuaded by 

arguments from airline industry 

stakeholders that they should not have 

responsibility for delays that are outside 

their control. As explained in section 

II(B)(1), we believe that imposing 

responsibility on airlines is proper 

when the mishandling occurs when the 

device is in the carrier’s custody and the 

mishandling is through no fault of the 

passenger. As we discussed above, 

airlines are best positioned to monitor 

and change processes used to transport 

wheelchairs and scooters while under 

the airline’s custody. Assigning 

responsibility to the carriers in these 

circumstances incentivizes them to 

reduce instances of all types of 

mishandlings. Even in situations where 

the passenger’s actions contributed to 

the delay such as when a passenger 

arrives at a gate late and thus not giving 

airlines adequate time to load the 

wheelchair or scooter, while the delay 

itself may not be deemed a violation, the 

airline still has a responsibility to return 

the wheelchair or scooter promptly to 

the passenger. 

Separately, the Department does not 

agree with airlines’ concerns over 

requiring airlines to use ‘‘whatever 

means possible’’ to deliver the delayed 

wheelchair or scooter to the passenger. 

As mentioned in the NPRM, the 

Department expected for ‘‘whatever 

means possible’’ to include 

transportation options such as other 

commercial passenger flights or freight 

flights that could accommodate the 

device and other ground shipping 

options that would result in prompt 

delivery to the passenger. It was never 

the Department’s intention to require an 

airline to undertake extreme measures, 

such as the examples of using an allterrain vehicle (ATV) to transport a 

wheelchair to a remote forest in Alaska 

or flying a scooter via helicopter to a 

passenger that has left land on an 

international sea cruise, as suggested by 

some industry commenters. The 

Department agrees with A4A’s comment 

in that safety is key for whatever 

transportation option is ultimately 

utilized by the airline to deliver the 

delayed wheelchair or scooter to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102418 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

passenger. As such, in the final rule, 

airlines are required to use ‘‘whatever 

means are available to safely transport 

the delayed wheelchair or scooter.’’ 

After considering the comments from 

disability rights organizations and other 

stakeholders, the Department has 

determined that the delay in delivering 

a wheelchair or scooter to the passenger 

ends when either (1) when the 

wheelchair or scooter is picked up by 

the passenger or another person 

authorized to act on behalf of the 

passenger at the destination airport, if 

the passenger elected for pick up; or (2) 

when the wheelchair or scooter has 

been delivered to the passenger or 

another person authorized to act on 

behalf of the passenger at a reasonable 

location requested by the passenger, if 

the passenger elected for delivery. The 

Department was persuaded by the many 

comments that urged DOT to extend 

airlines’ delivery obligations until the 

point when the passenger takes back 

physical possession of the wheelchair or 

scooter from the airline. As PVA noted, 

these devices are essential to the 

passenger’s health, mobility, safety, and 

freedom. They can also be very 

expensive. As such, they should not be 

left at a designated location without 

acceptance by an authorized individual. 

This notion applies regardless of 

whether the passenger has chosen to 

pick up the wheelchair or scooter at the 

airport or to have the device delivered 

to a separate location. The Department 

did not find persuasive airlines’ 

comments that a delay should be 

considered to have ended if an airline 

makes reasonable attempts to notify 

passengers of pick-up availability for the 

delayed wheelchair or scooter. 

Given that airlines will need time to 

establish policies, procedures, and 

processes and to train staff to carry out 

the requirement to return delayed 

wheelchairs and scooters within a 

specified time, including how to best 

deliver wheelchairs or scooters to 

passengers’ requested locations, the 

Department is providing an 

implementation period of 180 days after 

the final rule’s publication in the 

Federal Register. This 180-day 

timeframe also aligns with the amount 

of time that was provided to airlines in 

the Refund Rule to comply with the 

requirement to refund fees to passengers 

for significantly delayed bags. 

5. Reimbursement Requirements for 

Accessible Ground Transportation 

The NPRM: The Department sought 

comments and data in the NPRM 

regarding costs that an individual with 

a disability incurs because a wheelchair 

or scooter is delayed and whether 

airlines should be responsible for 

reimbursing individuals for those costs. 

The Department also asked what 

documentation individuals should 

provide to airlines to substantiate these 

costs and whether there should be a 

limit to the airlines’ liability. 

Comments Received: Disability rights 

organizations urged the Department to 

adopt a requirement for airlines to 

reimburse passengers with disabilities 

for costs associated with delayed 

wheelchairs. They stated that costs can 

include transportation to and from the 

airport, overnight accommodations 

while waiting for their delayed device, 

payment of a caregiver, lost wages, cost 

of a cancelled trip, rental wheelchairs or 

scooters, and other medical and 

healthcare expenses. Some of these 

commenters were fine with limiting 

passenger reimbursement to a 

‘‘reasonable’’ amount while others 

explicitly called for no limitations on 

the recoverable amount. However, many 

mentioned that it was important that 

reimbursement be promptly provided by 

the airlines. PVA stated that the carrier 

must provide payment to the passenger 

within seven business days, similar to 

the period associated with the 

Department’s recent final rule on air 

travel consumer refunds. 

Airline industry stakeholders mostly 

oppose any sort of regulatory 

requirement in this area. However, some 

airline industry stakeholders, such as 

Allegiant and Spirit, stated that in 

practice they already review claims for 

reimbursement for costs incurred due to 

the delay of equipment on a case-bycase basis. Airline commenters stated 

that if a requirement were to move 

forward, it is important to airlines that 

any reimbursement be limited and 

directly connected to a delay caused by 

the airline. In addition, airlines want 

passengers to submit receipts to them 

for such costs and an explanation of 

why those costs were incurred as a 

direct result of the delay. A4A and 

IATA also argued that the Department’s 

NPRM was unclear on what types of 

costs were being considered as 

potentially reimbursable and lacked 

cost-benefit analysis. 

DOT Response: After reviewing the 

comments related to associated costs 

incurred by passengers with disabilities 

impacted by wheelchair or scooter 

delays, the Department is requiring 

carriers to reimburse passengers with 

disabilities for the cost(s) of any 

transportation to or from the airport that 

the individual incurred as a direct result 

of the passenger’s wheelchair or scooter 

being delayed by the airline. The 

comments made clear that these 

transportation costs are foreseeable 

consequences that passengers incur 

almost immediately when their 

wheelchairs or scooters are delayed. It is 

the Department’s understanding that 

often passengers with disabilities 

prearrange for accessible transportation 

to their homes and hotels upon arrival 

at the airport, which may then have to 

be cancelled if their wheelchair is 

significantly delayed. Passengers with 

disabilities may have also driven to the 

airport but may now need to seek out 

accessible transportation that can safely 

transport them to their final destinations 

given their personal wheelchair is not 

available. Under these circumstances, 

the passengers will also likely need to 

return to the airport to pick up their car. 

The Department views the requirement 

to reimburse these transportation costs 

to or from the airport incurred as a 

direct result of the passenger’s 

wheelchair or scooter being delayed by 

the airline as a reasonable 

accommodation that airlines must 

provide to individuals with disabilities 

when they have delayed the return of 

their wheelchairs or scooters. 

Under the final rule, airlines are 

permitted to require passengers to 

submit documentation that substantiates 

the cost(s), such as receipts or invoices, 

to receive the reimbursement from the 

airline. Reimbursement for these cost(s) 

must be provided to passengers within 

30 days of airlines receiving a request 

with documentation to support the 

claim if documentation is required by 

the airline. The Department believes 

that granting airlines 30 days to provide 

reimbursements for transportation costs 

gives airlines a sufficient amount of 

time to review and verify passengers’ 

claims and to issue the reimbursements, 

particularly since some airlines who 

already provide such reimbursements 

indicated that that their current process 

is handled on a case-by-case basis. The 

Department is not requiring direct 

payment to vendors to avoid delay in 

the arrangement of any alternative 

transportation. Also, the Department 

expects the cost of ground 

transportation to be relatively low. 

The Department acknowledges that 

disability advocates and others strongly 

believe that airlines need to be held 

liable for all consequential costs that 

passengers with disabilities incur as a 

result of delayed wheelchairs or 

scooters by airlines. The commenters 

had differing views on whether there 

needs to be a limit on reimbursement 

requirements. At the present time, 

however, the Department is concerned 

that it does not have sufficient 

information in this area beyond ground 

transportation to or from the airport. 

Consequently, at this time, we are not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102419 

imposing a requirement for airlines to 

reimburse passengers with disabilities 

for all consequential costs associated 

with delayed wheelchair or scooters. We 

will continue to review this issue to 

determine if future rulemaking 

proposals may be warranted. 

6. Repair or Replacement of Lost or 

Damaged Wheelchairs or Scooters 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department proposed to require airlines 

to provide two separate options to 

passengers who file claims with airlines 

after their personal wheelchairs or 

scooters have been lost, damaged, or 

destroyed: (1) passengers can elect for 

carriers to handle the repair or 

replacement of the devices; or (2) 

passengers can elect to use passengers’ 

preferred vendors to repair or replace 

the device. If passengers select the first 

option, the Department proposed to 

require carriers to: repair or replace the 

devices, depending on the severity of 

the damage; return the devices to 

passengers within a reasonable 

timeframe; and pay the cost of the 

repairs or replacement directly to the 

vendor(s). The Department did not 

define a specific ‘‘reasonable’’ 

timeframe in the NPRM. If passengers 

select the second option, the 

Department proposed to require carriers 

to promptly transport the wheelchairs or 

scooters to the passengers’ preferred 

vendor, unless the passengers have 

indicated that they will arrange for the 

transport themselves. The carrier would 

be required to cover the cost of this 

transport and pay the wheelchair 

vendor directly for the cost of repairs or 

replacement. The Department sought 

comments on this point and whether 

direct billing to the airline may cause 

any unforeseen issues. 

Under both proposed options, if a 

replacement is necessary due to the 

severity of the damages or because the 

device was lost, the replacement device 

must have equivalent or greater function 

and safety as the individual’s original 

device. 

In addition, in the NPRM, the 

Department sought comments and data 

on the following: 

• Whether to use detailed timelines 

rather than a reasonableness standard 

when airlines handle wheelchair and 

scooter repairs and replacements; 

• Whether the Department should 

require repairs made only by DME 

suppliers in the rulemaking; 

• Who should be responsible for 

ultimately determining whether a 

wheelchair or scooter is ‘‘fixable’’; 

• Whether an airline’s cost for repairs 

and replacements should be limited to 

whatever is not paid by the passenger’s 

travel insurance; 

• Whether passengers need a ‘‘testing 

period’’ to confirm whether wheelchair 

or scooter repairs made by the airline 

are adequate; and 

• How ‘‘temporary wheelchair 

repairs’’ offered by airlines at the airport 

would work in practice. 

Comments Received: Disability rights 

organizations’ comments generally 

supported greater flexibility and options 

for passengers with disabilities in the 

repair and replacement process. MDA 

stated that passengers with disabilities 

need options, including the ability to 

choose their own preferred vendor for 

repairs, when their wheelchair or device 

is damaged to reduce any safety risks to 

the passenger and unnecessary delays. 

The ITEM Coalition commented that 

while delays may sometimes be due to 

circumstances beyond the carriers’ 

control, some delays and the associated 

risks to passengers could be mitigated if 

passengers have options when their 

mobility device is damaged or 

destroyed. AARP supported the 

proposal’s repair and replacement 

options because many individuals with 

disabilities have existing relationships 

with trusted providers and leveraging 

these existing relationships should lead 

to more efficient and timely repairs. 

However, several disability rights 

organizations also want additional 

protections built into the final rule to 

improve and streamline the current 

repair and replacement process. For 

example, MDA asserted that due to a 

lack of standardization, the repair and 

replacement process can be timeconsuming and frustrating, leading to a 

loss of independence, medical 

complications, and additional incurred 

costs for passengers living with a 

neuromuscular disorder. Cure SMA 

stated that the burden is placed solely 

on the passenger, who must journey to 

the baggage claim office, wait in line, 

and report the damage. Cure SMA 

explained that passengers who do not 

see damage at the airport because they 

cannot examine the chair they are 

sitting in are required to return to the 

airport to make a claim for repair. 

Disability rights organizations offered 

a variety of suggestions to address some 

of these noted issues. The most common 

suggestions included extended filing 

periods for damage claims (e.g., 14 or 15 

days after the device is returned to the 

passenger), frequent and accurate 

updates provided to passengers 

throughout the repair or replacement 

process, increased airline policy 

transparency for repairs and 

replacements, and accessible claim 

filing options. Cure SMA recommended 

that passengers be given up to 14 days 

to file damage claims after their flights 

land because, for example, electrical 

damage caused by a pinched wire or 

water damage that occurred while 

inflight may not set in for days. 

Airline industry stakeholders’ 

comments voiced concerns over the 

options proposed in the NPRM. A4A 

stated that as an initial matter, the 

Department should recognize that when 

airlines cause a mishandling, they 

already repair or replace the wheelchair 

or scooter and work diligently and 

closely with the passenger to ensure a 

timely remedy. 

Second, A4A claimed that airlines’ 

regulatory liability for repairs and 

replacements must be limited to 

circumstances under the airlines’ 

control. They argued that circumstances 

beyond the airlines’ control, such as 

extreme turbulence that damages a 

properly secured wheelchair in the 

cargo compartment, are not an act of 

discrimination for which the 

Department can impose strict liability. 

A4A stated that imposing a requirement 

to provide repairs and replacements in 

all circumstances would exceed the 

Department’s authority. 

Lastly, A4A noted that even if a 

passenger has a preferred vendor, 

airlines may have an equally qualified 

(or more qualified) vendor that can 

repair or replace the device in a faster 

time and in an equal manner, 

minimizing the costs to the airline. They 

also asserted that airlines would not be 

able to vet the passenger’s chosen 

vendor and its work, potentially 

resulting in replacement of devices 

whenever they could actually be 

repaired by the airline’s qualified 

vendor instead. A4A claimed it is 

unreasonable to require replacement of 

a device because the passenger’s 

preferred vendor is unqualified to make 

a repair that others could make. They 

claimed that airlines’ qualified vendors 

are also best situated to make 

determinations as to whether damage to 

a device was caused by handling during 

air transport or whether it was preexisting. For these reasons, A4A 

strongly recommended that the 

Department allow airlines to select a 

qualified vendor, and if the airline is 

unable to contract with one, then the 

passenger may select the vendor for the 

repairs or replacement. NACA and RAA 

shared views similar to A4A. 

Foreign airlines and IATA noted that 

the Montreal Convention already sets 

relevant limits on their liability for 

damages resulting from the destruction, 

loss, damage, or delay of baggage, which 

includes passengers’ checked 

wheelchairs or scooters. They asserted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102420 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

that the proposed rule would conflict 

with these limitations and should not 

override them. As such, foreign airlines 

request that the Department include a 

clear statement in any final rule to 

clarify that the Montreal Convention 

applies to international travel. 

Other stakeholder comments were 

minimal on these points. Of note, Open 

Doors was generally fine with the repair 

and replacement options for passengers 

so long as their chosen vendor was 

within the airline’s network or within 

Global Repair Group’s system; however, 

the passenger should not be able to use 

a ‘‘friend or buddy’’ that does repairs as 

this could result in fraudulent billing to 

airlines. 

Disability rights organizations also 

unanimously agreed that wheelchair 

and scooter repairs and replacements 

need to be carried out as quickly as 

possible to reduce any negative impacts 

on individuals with disabilities, such as 

reduced independence, safety risks, 

medical complications, and additional 

expenses. As such, several organizations 

objected to the ‘‘reasonable timeframe’’ 

standard set forth in the NPRM when 

the airline handles the device repair or 

replacement. These organizations were 

concerned that the proposed standard is 

not strong enough to ensure that repairs 

and replacements are completed 

promptly and provides airlines with too 

much deference. 

PVA recommended that the 

Department consider a ‘‘prompt’’ 

standard for airline repairs and 

replacements, which means that the 

carrier must ensure that its contractors 

have a sufficient number of vendors 

available when needed by the 

passenger. PVA conceded that a strict 

and detailed timeline requirement 

would not be feasible based on the 

many factors that impact the timeline 

for a given repair or replacement. On the 

other hand, some disability rights 

organizations called for clear and set 

time frames. The Ability Center of 

Greater Toledo said that repairs and 

replacements should be considered 

‘‘prompt’’ if completed within ten days. 

United Spinal went even further by 

offering standards for detailed steps that 

must be taken by the airline within the 

first 72 hours following a wheelchair or 

scooter mishandling. 

From the airlines’ perspective, A4A 

and IATA wanted the Department to 

retain the ‘‘reasonable timeframe’’ 

standard for repairs and replacements. 

A4A stated that timely and proper 

repairs and replacements is a shared 

interest of both passengers and airlines. 

A4A and IATA stated that the 

‘‘reasonable timeframe’’ standard is 

needed because of ‘‘the high variability 

and complexity of many mobility aids.’’ 

They commented that proper repair or 

replacement should be prioritized over 

speed and that the more complex or 

unique the mobility aid, the longer it 

legitimately takes to get repaired or 

replaced properly. A4A and IATA 

asserted that these timeliness factors are 

exacerbated by innumerable additional 

factors, many of which are beyond the 

control of the airline and despite the 

significant efforts of the airline to 

properly handle the mobility aid and 

remedy the mishandling. A4A and 

IATA concluded that, depending on the 

circumstances, it will be impossible and 

unfair to hold airlines to strict 

deadlines. All other airline commenters 

echoed A4A and IATA’s comments. 

Other stakeholders had mixed 

opinions on the timing requirements for 

airline repairs and replacements. Open 

Doors said that it does not believe 

stricter, detailed timelines should be 

used in the regulation given the current 

conditions of the industry. The 

American Association for Homecare 

(AAHomecare) recommended that DOT 

adopt the proposed ‘‘reasonableness’’ 

standard because of the many potential 

issues that could impact how quickly a 

repair or replacement can be carried out 

but suggested that detailed timelines 

could be implemented around the 

initiation process by the airline. On the 

other hand, the American Occupational 

Therapy Association (AOTA) called for 

the Department to establish a timeline 

for carriers to adhere to when repairing, 

replacing, or compensating passengers 

for damaged devices. Also, the National 

Coalition for Assistive and Rehab 

Technology (NCART) stated that airlines 

need to take full responsibility during 

the process until the damaged 

equipment is fully repaired and 

functional for the consumer and to 

provide full transparency for consumers 

on tracking the progress of repairs. 

Under the second passenger option of 

the NPRM’s proposal, where the 

passenger uses his or her preferred 

vendor to carry out the repairs or 

replacement, the proposal stated that 

the carrier would be required to pay the 

wheelchair vendor directly for the cost 

of repairs or replacement within a 

reasonable timeframe. Disability rights 

organizations voiced support for such a 

requirement. These commenters 

specifically appreciated that this would 

ease the burden on individuals with 

disabilities impacted by mishandlings, 

would not force them to pay the costs 

upfront out of their own pockets, and 

would expedite the repair and 

replacement process. In the event of a 

dispute, PVA recommended that 

disputes must be resolved between the 

carriers and the vendors directly and 

individuals should not be required to 

submit additional documents to the 

carrier. 

Airline industry stakeholders 

generally opposed the direct billing 

requirement. A4A stated that direct 

billing should only be required when 

the vendor is under contract with the 

airline. A4A asserted that if the vendor 

is not under contract with the airline, 

the airline may have inadequate 

information from the vendor for the 

airline to ‘‘properly ascribe the billing to 

a particular claim or satisfy the 

requirements of the airline’s insurance 

underwriter for sizable claims,’’ which 

could delay the payment and the repair 

or replacement. A4A also argued that it 

is reasonable for vendors to bill 

customers for repairs and replacements, 

who then can pass the bill on to the 

airlines, similar to how customers are 

already reimbursed for hotels, meals, 

and ground transportation following 

controllable flight delays. Lastly, A4A 

argued that the Department should not 

prescribe the contractual relationship 

between the involved parties, giving 

them the flexibility to operate in a way 

that best suits everyone’s needs and 

preferences. 

As for the other questions posed in 

the NPRM, most commenters agreed 

that the Department should not address 

DME supplier requirements in a final 

rule. Most agreed that wheelchair and 

scooter repairs and replacements should 

be handled by qualified and certified 

technicians. However, they also noted 

issues with a contracting requirement 

because ‘‘right-to-repair’’ laws fall 

outside the scope of the rulemaking, 

DME suppliers may not always be 

readily available in all parts of the 

country, and individuals may prefer to 

work with other local repair shops or 

mechanics. Open Doors also noted that 

airlines are already utilizing DME 

suppliers to handle all repair needs. 

The Department also asked about 

disputes between passengers and 

airlines over whether a repair or a full 

wheelchair or scooter replacement is 

necessary based on the level of damage 

to the wheelchair or scooter. Disability 

rights organization showed a strong 

preference to leave the final 

determination up to the passenger or the 

passenger’s chosen vendor. They said 

that if the decision was to be left to the 

airline, then the passenger must be 

given an opportunity to appeal the 

airline’s decision if they believe it is 

incorrect. PVA stated that a passenger 

should be able to obtain a second 

opinion and have the opportunity to 

submit any supporting documentation if 

he or she believes that repairs would not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102421 

return the wheelchair to the same safe 

condition as before the mishandling. On 

the other hand, airline industry 

stakeholders stated that the airlines’ 

vendors are in the best position to make 

this determination and can also 

properly assess whether damage to the 

mobility aid would have been caused by 

handling during air transport or whether 

the damage was more likely than not to 

be pre-existing (e.g., defective part or 

poor battery life). Spirit asserted that the 

carrier should be in control of the 

process because it has the motivation to 

accurately determine whether a 

wheelchair or scooter is fixable as it will 

ultimately impact the cost that the 

airline pays. Spirit also stated that it 

would be in a better position to arrange 

for a prompt assessment of any damage. 

As for travel insurance coverage 

related to lost and damaged wheelchairs 

and scooters, disability rights 

organizations opposed any prerequisite 

or additional burden on individuals 

with disabilities. PVA stated that most 

domestic travelers do not purchase 

travel insurance, and even if they do, 

the policies may consider mobility aids 

to be baggage and only subject to limited 

reimbursement. PVA commented that 

insurance providers can also require 

extensive documentation, including 

local authority reports to substantiate 

the loss. PVA also stated that some 

policies totally exclude lost, delayed, 

and stolen wheelchairs from coverage. 

Several disability rights organizations 

echoed similar concerns over requiring 

individuals with disabilities to purchase 

and use travel insurance. Airline 

industry stakeholders, such as A4A and 

RAA, said that airlines’ liability for 

mishandlings should be reduced by any 

amount covered by a third-party, such 

as insurance. They stated that if an 

airline assumes the full cost in the first 

instance, it must be able to collect any 

insurance funds to offset the payment 

amount by the airline to the passenger. 

The Department also asked questions 

in the NPRM on a ‘‘testing period’’ to 

give individuals with disabilities an 

opportunity to test their wheelchairs 

and confirm whether repairs are indeed 

adequate once the airline has returned 

the device to them. Disability rights 

organizations unanimously supported 

the idea of a testing period. PVA stated 

that the vendor should require a 

reasonable timeframe for the passenger 

to ensure that their mobility device is in 

the same condition it was prior to being 

damaged, that any further damage 

caused by the carrier but discovered 

later can be covered by the carrier, and 

that the repair was properly and safely 

completed. Colorado Cross-Disability 

Coalition explained that sometimes 

individuals do not know if a repair is 

truly completed when delivered and 

that a repaired wheelchair or scooter 

may appear working at first but then 

parts may come loose quickly. 

Commenters suggested a variety of 

lengths for the testing period, including 

48 hours, 15 days, 28 days, and 30 days 

from the date the device was returned 

to the individual. Disability rights 

organizations believe that if the repair is 

not adequate, the individual should be 

able to request prompt service to fix any 

outstanding defect(s). North Dakota 

Protection and Advocacy Project 

explained that problems may not be 

immediately noticeable to the 

passenger, problems could arise within 

a few weeks or at a later date, or repairs 

may be adequate for only a short period 

of time. They asserted that the passenger 

should be able to report problems as 

they arise and require the carrier to pay 

for the repair if it is connected to the 

damage caused by the carrier. 

Airline industry stakeholders 

commented that they generally believe 

that individuals should have a 

reasonable opportunity to inspect a 

repaired wheelchair or scooter upon 

delivery but also voiced concerns over 

the idea of a lengthy ‘‘testing period.’’ 

A4A and RAA said that their primary 

concern is that airlines’ liability and 

responsibility should end once the 

device has been returned to the 

passenger because at that point the 

airline no longer has custody or control 

over the device. Both claim that airlines 

would then have no means to prevent 

further damage or to validate whether 

the new issues with the device are 

attributable to the airline’s custody. IAG 

stated that they have seen no trend of 

customers returning wheelchairs to 

airlines for additional repairs and thus 

there is no need for a regulation on a 

testing period. As for timing, Spirit 

suggested that a 72-hour testing period 

would be enough to determine if a 

repair was properly completed. 

Allegiant on the other hand requested 

that the Department not enact a set time 

frame for a testing period as this could 

limit the timeliness of resolution for the 

passenger and create a standard where 

carriers may be forced to address 

damage that is incurred after delivery of 

successfully repaired equipment. 

Finally, the NPRM asked about minor 

‘‘temporary wheelchair repairs’’ that 

would be sufficient to get the passenger 

out the door of the airport with their 

personal wheelchair so that they can 

continue on with their journey as 

planned to the maximum extent 

possible and seek out a ‘‘full repair’’ at 

a later time and date. Disability rights 

organizations generally think that it 

would be reasonable for airlines to offer 

these temporary repairs, either on-site at 

the airport or through a local vendor. 

Cure SMA commented that this could 

be accomplished by airport personnel 

equipped with basic supplies (e.g., 

standard tools, zip ties, etc.) or by oncall DME vendors for emergency repairs. 

Others mentioned that minor repairs 

could include replacing lost screws, 

inflating tires, tightening loose bolts, 

and straightening out a bent component. 

Airline industry stakeholders do not 

think that ‘‘temporary repairs’’ should 

be required under the Department’s 

regulations. Similar to ‘‘testing periods’’ 

following repairs, some airline industry 

stakeholders expressed concern that 

wheelchairs or scooters could become 

further damaged after the airline has 

provided a minor temporary repair and 

returned custody to the individual, 

placing unfair liability on the airlines. 

Some commenters also mentioned that 

it is unreasonable and very costly to 

require airlines to have qualified 

vendors at every airport they serve that 

can carry out these temporary repairs at 

any time. A4A and IATA stated it would 

be an unreasonable imposition of costs 

for airlines to hire and have vendors 

staffed at every airport that they serve in 

their networks and at all hours, despite 

the relatively low numbers of damaged 

mobility aids and low likelihood that 

temporary repairs would be possible 

given the high complexity and 

variability of most mobility aids. A4A 

also argued that the NPRM did not 

provide meaningful opportunity for 

comment because it was too vague and 

lacked any impact analysis. Spirit did 

not find the proposal to be 

unreasonable. 

Other stakeholders, including Open 

Doors, Gillette Children’s Specialty 

Healthcare, and Able Americans of the 

National Center for Public Policy 

Research shared similar conflicting 

views on this topic. Open Doors 

asserted that it is not reasonable to ask 

airlines to do any temporary repairs 

because airlines are not in the business 

of fixing mobility devices and could 

never feasibly provide this service and 

requiring them to provide repairs would 

open them up to more liability. Open 

Doors added that requiring airlines to 

have an onsite vendor do repairs would 

not be viable economically given the 

low incidence of damage, even at a large 

hub airport. However, Gillette 

Children’s Specialty Healthcare and 

Able Americans of the National Center 

for Public Policy Research stated that 

requiring airlines to provide temporary 

repairs is reasonable. 

DOT Response: The Department has 

decided to adopt the proposed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102422 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

37The SDR was created by the International 

Monetary Fund (IMF) and is defined as ‘‘equivalent 

to the value of a basket of world currencies. The 

SDR itself is not a currency but an asset that holders 

can exchange for currency when needed. The SDR 

serves as the unit of account of the IMF and other 

international organizations.’’ See https://

www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/ 

special-drawing-rights-sdr. As of September 30, 

2024, one SDR was roughly equivalent to $1.36 

USD in value. 

requirement for airlines to provide 

repair and replacement options to 

passengers after passengers’ personal 

wheelchairs or scooters are damaged, 

destroyed, or lost. In other words, 

passengers can elect for carriers to 

handle the repair or replacement of the 

devices, or passenger can elect to use 

passengers’ preferred vendors to repair 

or replace the device. Many comments 

from disability rights organizations and 

others expressed support for providing 

passengers these options. The 

Department was not persuaded by 

airlines’ comments asserting that they 

already have their own expert vendors 

that are best suited to meet passengers’ 

needs. Airline commenters and others 

also did not provide any evidence to 

support their stated belief that 

passengers may choose illegitimate or 

unqualified vendors or that passengers’ 

vendors may significantly increase costs 

for airlines. The Department also did 

not receive any evidence demonstrating 

that passengers and vendors are likely to 

fraudulently overbill airlines for repairs 

or replacements, as suggested by Open 

Doors. Rather, given the importance of 

having their devices returned to them 

quickly and in proper condition, we 

expect that passengers will carefully 

select vendors that they trust and 

believe capable of providing quality 

services to them. The Department 

continues to be of the view that 

passengers with disabilities need 

options and flexibility following 

wheelchair or scooter mishandlings to 

ensure that they do not endure 

unnecessary delays, undesirable repair 

and replacement processes, and 

additional resulting costs. 

Under this final rule, when 

passengers elect to use their preferred 

vendors to repair or replace their 

wheelchairs or scooters, airlines must 

promptly transport them to the 

passengers’ preferred vendor, unless the 

passenger has indicated that he or she 

will arrange for the transport 

themselves, and pay the wheelchair 

vendor directly for the cost of repairs or 

replacement. If the carrier needs specific 

information to properly ascribe the 

billing to a particular claim or satisfy 

the requirements of the airline’s 

insurance underwriter for sizable 

claims, the carrier should work with the 

vendor and the passenger, as needed, to 

obtain this information. The Department 

does not expect this requirement to 

result in significant processing issues 

based on the feedback received from 

both airlines and disability rights 

organizations. 

When passengers elect for carriers to 

handle the repair or replacement of the 

wheelchairs or scooters, this rule 

requires airlines to ensure prompt 

repairs and replacements of the devices. 

The Department recognizes that for 

passengers with disabilities, it is crucial 

that repairs and replacements, when 

needed, be completed as quickly as 

possible to prevent serious life 

disruptions and at times even healthrelated risks that occur when 

individuals with disabilities are 

separated from their personal 

wheelchairs or scooters for extended 

periods of time. The Department also 

recognizes that strict timelines for 

airlines to repair or replace wheelchairs 

or scooters are not workable given the 

many different factors that can impact 

the time needed for repairs and 

replacements. Accordingly, the 

Department is adopting a ‘‘prompt’’ 

standard for repairs and replacements 

when the passenger elects for the carrier 

to handle the repair or replacement of 

the wheelchair or scooter. Airlines 

should work directly with the passenger 

to initiate the repair/replacement 

process as soon as possible once a 

passenger has filed a claim. Airlines 

should also remain active and 

responsive, to the maximum extent 

possible, once the process has been 

initiated. The Department intends to 

look at the totality of the circumstance 

in determining whether an airline’s 

actions are prompt. 

The Department also clarifies that in 

the event a dispute arises over whether 

a damaged wheelchair or scooter can be 

repaired or needs to be fully replaced, 

a qualified vendor or technician needs 

to be the one making the final 

determination. If the passenger has 

elected for the carrier to handle the 

repair or replacement process, then the 

airline’s contracted vendor makes the 

determination. If the passenger has 

instead elected to use his or her 

preferred vendor for the repair or 

replacement process, then that vendor 

makes this decision. 

Regarding filing damage claims with 

airlines, commenters have persuaded 

the Department to require airlines to 

provide passengers a reasonable period 

to file claims. Comments from disability 

rights organizations assert that the 

process for filing damage claims for 

wheelchairs or scooters with airlines is 

burdensome, sometimes requiring the 

individual to journey to the baggage 

claim office, wait in lengthy lines, and 

report the damage while still at the 

airport. In addition, these organizations 

state that airlines often do not alert 

passengers when damage has occurred 

and/or the passenger may not realize 

that the wheelchair or scooter was 

damaged until after leaving the airport. 

Under the final rule, airlines are 

required to allow passengers a 

reasonable timeframe to examine their 

wheelchairs or scooters for damage 

following flights and to file a claim with 

the airline (if necessary). Depending on 

the circumstances, a reasonable 

timeframe to file a claim could be at 

least 72 hours after the flight’s arrival. 

Airlines will have the flexibility to 

develop their own specific policies and 

practices on this issue. 

As for liability limits for mishandlings 

on international flights, the Department 

agrees with the foreign airlines who 

commented that the Department’s 

proposed requirement would be subject 

to liability limitations for international 

flights based on the Montreal 

Convention. The Montreal Convention 

sets limits on the liability of carriers 

arising from the destruction, loss, 

damage, or delay of baggage, including 

wheelchairs or scooters, during 

international carriage. Under the 

Montreal Convention, airlines must pay 

up to a limit of 1,288 Special Drawing 

Rights (SDR) 37 for an assistive device 

that is lost, damaged, or destroyed. The 

Department has clarified this point in 

the final rule text to prevent any 

confusion for industry and for travelers. 

The final rule also addresses 

passenger claims for insufficient repairs 

or replacement of wheelchairs and 

scooters by requiring carriers review 

promptly claims received within a 

reasonable time of the wheelchair or 

scooter being returned to the passenger. 

Most commenters agree that individuals 

with disabilities should have a 

reasonable time to inspect and test their 

repaired wheelchairs or scooters once 

they’ve been delivered by the airline. 

However, there is disagreement on how 

long this testing period should last. 

Disability rights organizations want up 

to a month, while airlines want to limit 

their liability once they have 

relinquished custody of the device and 

fully turned it over to the individual. 

The Department understands disability 

rights organizations’ concern that an 

insufficient repair may only be noticed 

after testing the wheelchair or scooter in 

a variety of different settings or 

environments. As FLARE mentioned, 

repairs may need to be tested both at 

home and off-road to ensure all 

functionality has been restored. The 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102423 

Department also appreciates the 

airlines’ concerns over the possibility 

that damage, unrelated to the initial 

mishandling, could occur during this 

testing period and that they would have 

no way to control or verify this. The 

Department believes that this rule 

strikes the right balance by requiring 

carriers to promptly review claims 

received within a reasonable time of the 

wheelchair/scooter being returned to the 

passenger and if the repairs are found to 

be insufficient then promptly repair or 

replace the device. Airlines have the 

flexibility to set the reasonable 

timeframe for accepting claims alleging 

insufficient repairs but cannot set a 

timeframe that is less than 72 hours of 

the passenger’s wheelchair or scooter 

being returned. 

The Department is not imposing 

requirements in this rule in three areas 

where comments were sought. First, on 

the issue of whether the Department 

should require repairs made only by 

DME suppliers in the rulemaking, this 

appears to not be a problem. Based on 

comments received, it seems as if all 

repairs and replacements by airlines are 

already being carried out by qualified 

DME suppliers. Second, on whether an 

airline’s cost for repairs and 

replacements should be limited to 

whatever is not paid by the passenger’s 

travel insurance, the Department does 

not believe there is an issue that needs 

to be addressed at this time based on the 

limited comments received and will not 

take further action on this in the final 

rule. Finally, regarding temporary 

wheelchair repairs at airports, while the 

Department continues to believe that 

passengers with disabilities could 

benefit from temporary wheelchair 

repairs offered by airlines at the airport, 

we are declining to take any action on 

this in the final rule at this time. The 

Department believes that additional data 

and research on vendor costs, logistical 

issues, and scope are needed to 

accurately gauge the potential costs and 

benefits of such a requirement. 

As for A4A and airlines’ argument 

that repair and replacement liability 

should be limited to mishandlings due 

to circumstances under the control of 

the airline, the Department disagrees. As 

noted in section II (B)(1) and (4), the 

Department is of the view that imposing 

responsibility on airlines is proper 

when the mishandling occurs when the 

device is in the carrier’s custody and the 

mishandling is through no fault of the 

passenger. The airline in the best 

position to monitor the handling of 

wheelchairs and other assistive device 

and to adjust practices and procedures 

to better protect wheelchairs and other 

assistive devices, and imposing 

responsibility on carriers is an effective 

method to advance the goals of the 

ACAA and part 382 to reduce 

mishandlings. 

The Department notes that it is 

providing airlines a compliance period 

of 90 days after the final rule’s 

publication in the Federal Register to 

offer passengers the two repair and 

replacement options, discussed above. 

This period should give airlines enough 

time to determine how to best offer and 

carry out these options in practice (e.g., 

how to transport wheelchairs to 

passengers’ vendors and how to 

coordinate direct payments to vendors). 

We understand that airlines are already 

providing repairs and replacements 

through the airlines’ contracted vendors 

today. All other regulatory requirements 

set forth in this section become effective 

30 days after the rule’s publication. 

7. Loaner Wheelchair or Scooter 

Accommodations 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department proposed to require airlines 

to secure and pay for loaner wheelchairs 

and scooters for passengers with 

disabilities impacted by airline 

mishandlings. In doing so, airlines 

would also be required to consult with 

the passenger to ensure that the loaner 

wheelchair or scooter best meets the 

passenger’s physical and functional 

needs. This would include providing, 

upon request, functional and safetyrelated customizations (e.g., changing 

cushions; adding lumbar support seat 

attachment; adjusting the headrest, 

armrest, or footrest) on loaner 

wheelchairs and scooters, to the 

maximum extent possible. 

The Department then asked a series of 

related questions on the costs and 

logistics of such a requirement. The 

Department also asked whether airlines 

should be responsible for reimbursing 

an individual with a disability if he or 

she incurs additional costs because the 

loaner wheelchair or scooter provided 

by the airline restricted his or her 

mobility or independence. 

Comments Received: Disability rights 

organizations mostly expressed support 

for a requirement for airlines to provide 

loaner wheelchairs and reiterated the 

importance of safety, mobility, and 

independence for individuals with 

disabilities. MDA stated that to 

eliminate health and safety risks to 

people living with a neuromuscular 

disorder, loaner wheelchairs must be 

provided while carriers promptly and 

expeditiously repair or replace the 

individual’s personal wheelchair or 

mobility device. The Amputee Coalition 

asserted that carriers should be required 

to provide loaner wheelchairs that meet 

the functional needs of the passenger to 

the greatest extent possible and work 

with passengers to determine what 

customizations work best for them. 

Regarding customizations for loaner 

wheelchairs, some disability rights 

organizations opined on what they 

believe to be necessary customization 

options. For example, Colorado CrossDisability Coalition suggested that at a 

minimum an airline should be able to 

provide a power wheelchair that has 

sides, a back, charged batteries, and the 

ability to be programmed to meet the 

needs of the individual. The loaner 

company should also be willing to 

adjust footrests and program and move 

the joystick as needed. Cure SMA had 

similar recommendations, calling for 

Group 3 power wheelchairs with all 

four functionalities (seat elevator, tilt, 

recline, foot elevator) and adjustments 

such as seat pan, back rest, seat cushion, 

and arm and leg rests. However, PVA 

commented that it would be impossible 

to estimate a complete list of 

customizations because it will vary 

depending on the individual’s disability 

and their prescriptive mobility device. 

Some organizations also noted that it 

may be difficult for airlines and their 

vendors to locate and fully customize 

loaner wheelchairs for individuals with 

disabilities. 

Several disability rights organizations 

also stated that even with certain 

customizations, loaner wheelchairs will 

still not be adequate for all individuals 

with disabilities. PVA asserted that for 

power wheelchair users, loaner 

wheelchairs will likely not be able to 

fully provide all the same functional 

and safety needs as the passenger’s 

customized wheelchair prescribed to 

treat their health condition. As such, 

these organizations called for a 

requirement to offer alternative 

accommodation options in lieu of 

airline-provided loaner wheelchairs. 

PVA stated that carriers should also 

have the option for the passenger to 

elect another accommodation that better 

suits their functional mobility needs 

and guarantees their safety, with the 

cost covered by the carrier, if the loaner 

wheelchair offered is insufficient. MDA 

stated that carriers should allow for 

passengers to rent temporary 

wheelchairs or elect another 

accommodation that better suits the 

person’s needs. PIDS asserted that if an 

appropriate loaner mobility aid is not 

available, then personal assistance 

services must be readily available and 

provided by the airlines. 

Airline industry stakeholders also 

voiced support for the NPRM’s 

proposed loaner wheelchair 

requirement and generally agreed with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102424 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the premise. A4A, NACA, and others 

asserted that airlines already make 

efforts to work with passengers 

following airline mishandlings to find 

and provide loaner wheelchairs that 

best meet the passengers’ personal 

needs. However, these commenters also 

strongly noted a need to limit the 

customization requirements given the 

complexity and variability of the types 

of customizations that may be requested 

by passengers. They asserted that 

because of this, airlines may not always 

be able to find an available loaner 

wheelchair that meets all the 

passenger’s functional and safety-related 

needs. A4A strongly agreed with the 

Department’s approach of limiting the 

customization requirement to ‘‘the 

maximum extent possible’’ and asked 

the Department to not prescribe the 

types of customizations that are 

required or the time in which such 

customizations be completed. Some 

carriers, including Spirit and Allegiant, 

suggested addressing this same issue by 

limiting the requirement to 

‘‘reasonable’’ customization requests. 

Foreign carriers, such as Neos S.P.A. 

and Finnair, also asserted that it will be 

especially difficult for them to meet the 

customization requirements given their 

small presence in the United States. In 

addition, airline industry stakeholders 

argued that complying with the 

proposed requirement could be costly. 

NACA estimated that the compliance 

costs for one of its member airlines 

could be approximately $1 million per 

year. 

Other stakeholder commenters offered 

mixed feedback on the NPRM’s 

proposal. Open Doors believes that the 

NPRM’s proposals are feasible for 

airlines and necessary for passenger 

health and safety. On the other hand, 

the NCART and AAHomecare 

mentioned concerns over logistical 

difficulties. NCART stated that complex 

rehab technology (CRT) wheelchairs 

should be offered as loaners but 

customization levels may not be feasible 

in terms of cost and timing. NCART 

noted that it may require more time for 

temporary replacement equipment to be 

configured than the actual repair would 

take. NCART also noted that loaner 

equipment appropriate to meet the 

individual user’s medical needs will be 

extremely limited and that CRT 

suppliers cannot be expected to always 

have many options on-hand and 

available for passengers. AAHomecare 

voiced similar concerns over associated 

costs, delays in getting the loaner 

wheelchair to the passenger, and issues 

with supplier inventory expectations. 

AAHomecare concluded that while 

customization for available loaners (if 

they are available with a local provider) 

is feasible for more standard 

wheelchairs, for medically complex 

consumers the level of customization 

required may not be possible or feasible 

from a cost/timing perspective and may 

take longer than repairing the original 

equipment. 

As for the Department’s question on 

reimbursing passengers for associated 

costs incurred due to inadequate loaner 

wheelchairs provided by airlines, 

disability rights organizations were in 

favor of adding a requirement on this. 

PVA stated that airlines must 

compensate passengers for ‘‘provable 

direct and consequential costs’’ when 

the provided loaner wheelchair restricts 

their independence or results in 

additional medical issues. Disability 

rights organizations stated that these 

costs could include medical services 

and supplies needed to supplement the 

loaner wheelchair, lost wages due to 

functional limitations, personal 

caregiving services (e.g., assistant to 

help with activities of daily living), 

meal delivery services, accessible 

transportation expenses if the 

individual is not able to use their 

standard mode(s) of transportation, and 

other financial burdens while waiting 

for their wheelchairs to be repaired or 

replaced. Most disability rights 

organizations were fine with airlines 

requiring individuals to submit 

documentation to them substantiating 

such costs, such as receipts and 

invoices. Some were also fine with 

capping these recoverable costs. PVA 

and MDA suggested a ‘‘reasonable’’ 

standard for recoverable costs. However, 

others such as the United States Gender 

and Disability Justice Alliance and IDR 

recommended no limit on airlines’ 

liability for reimbursement in these 

situations. 

Airline industry stakeholders strongly 

oppose the Department adopting a 

requirement on recoverable costs for 

various reasons. A4A argues that the 

Department did not explain in the 

NPRM what would constitute 

‘‘additional’’ or ‘‘associated’’ costs, that 

the public was not given a meaningful 

opportunity to comment on a potential 

proposal, and that the costs and benefits 

of such a proposal were not considered. 

Neos S.P.A. argued that the Department 

should not regulate this area so airlines 

have flexibility in determining 

appropriate reimbursement on a caseby-case basis based on the diverse needs 

of passengers. Spirit expressed concern 

that this could open the door for fraud 

and abuse as individuals could overstate 

the harms caused by ill-fitting loaner 

wheelchairs and claims that the 

Department and airlines would not have 

a way to determine if the requested 

costs were appropriate and not 

excessive. 

A4A argued if a requirement were to 

go forward, any reimbursement of costs 

must be directly attributable to the 

difference between the passenger’s 

personal chair and the loaner chair. 

A4A asserted that ‘‘associated’’ costs are 

vague and will present challenges for 

airlines regarding validation, potentially 

leading to issues of unjustified claims or 

unwarranted liability. Airline 

commenters also stated that airlines 

should be able to require documentation 

from passengers that clearly sets forth 

these costs. 

Other stakeholder commenters 

generally supported a requirement for 

airlines to reimburse passengers for 

costs incurred due to inadequate loaner 

wheelchairs provided by airlines. These 

commenters differed on liability 

limitations though. Open Doors stated 

that there should be no limit to the 

airlines’ liability, but Gillette Children’s 

Specialty Healthcare supported a limit 

to ‘‘reasonable’’ costs. 

DOT Response: The Department has 

considered the comments received and 

has decided to adopt a rule requiring 

carriers to consult with affected 

passengers on a loaner wheelchair or 

scooter that best meets the passenger’s 

physical and functional needs, and to 

pay for that loaner wheelchair or 

scooter, so passengers are able to safely 

use the loaner wheelchair or scooter 

while waiting for their mishandled 

personal devices to be returned, 

repaired, or replaced by the carrier. As 

proposed, carriers are required to 

provide, upon request, functional and 

safety-related customizations (e.g., 

changing cushions; adding lumbar 

support seat attachment; adjusting the 

headrest, armrest, or footrest) on loaner 

wheelchairs and scooters, to the 

maximum extent possible. Under this 

final rule, if the loaner wheelchair or 

scooter offered by the carrier does not 

meet the specific needs of the passenger, 

then the carrier must alternatively 

reimburse the passenger for a different 

loaner wheelchair or scooter that has 

been found and secured by the 

passenger and is necessary for the 

passenger’s safety and functionality in 

lieu of the loaner wheelchair or scooter 

offered by the airline. Airlines are 

permitted to require passengers to 

substantiate the cost to be reimbursed 

(e.g., by providing a receipt copy). 

Generally, the comments received all 

recognize that loaner wheelchairs and 

scooters are vital for passengers whose 

wheelchairs or scooters are delayed, 

damaged, or lost by airlines and provide 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102425 

them the ability to continue their 

normal daily lives, to the maximum 

extent possible. Airline commenters 

supported the NPRM’s loaner 

wheelchair proposal and noted that 

several airlines already take this step in 

accommodating individuals after 

wheelchair and scooter mishandlings. 

The Department agrees and is requiring 

that loaner wheelchairs or scooters be 

provided when wheelchairs or scooters 

are mishandled. 

The Department also recognizes the 

concerns of airlines and representatives 

of medical equipment suppliers and 

manufacturers over loaner 

customizations. The Department 

believes that finding and securing 

appropriate loaner wheelchairs and 

scooters with full customizations may 

be challenging for passengers that 

utilize highly complex and personalized 

powered devices. The Department 

acknowledged this potential issue in the 

NPRM and addressed it in the proposed 

regulatory text by stating that the 

passenger’s functional and safety-related 

needs must be met ‘‘to the maximum 

extent possible.’’ The Department 

continues to believe that this standard is 

appropriate because it emphasizes the 

importance of loaner device safety and 

functionality while affording airlines 

leniency in circumstances that may be 

impossible or outside of their control. 

The Department is also declining to 

define a set list of required 

customizations as we understand that 

this may vary greatly from passenger to 

passenger. 

We recognize that airlines cannot 

control the availability or actions of 

wheelchair repair vendors and suppliers 

for loaners; however, following 

mishandlings, airlines must make best 

efforts to find and secure an appropriate 

loaner wheelchair or scooter, even if 

this involves reaching out to several 

vendors. This should also be a 

collaborative process that involves the 

passenger so the parties can find a 

mutually-agreeable solution that works 

best for the passenger’s specific needs 

and circumstances. For example, it 

could be that a passenger chooses to 

forgo certain loaner wheelchair 

customizations offered by the airline if 

it results in getting the loaner 

wheelchair to the passenger faster. The 

passenger’s preferences are crucial. 

The Department is also persuaded by 

the comments from disability rights 

organizations who explained that loaner 

wheelchairs and scooters offered by 

airlines are not a uniform solution for 

all individuals with varying types of 

disabilities. If a loaner wheelchair or 

scooter offered by the airline is not 

going to be as safe and/or functional for 

an individual with a disability as the 

passenger’s existing wheelchair or 

scooter, then he or she must be able to 

seek out reasonable alternative options 

that work best for them without bearing 

the cost. Under this rule, the carrier is 

responsible for the cost of a loaner 

wheelchair or scooter that a passenger 

finds that better meets the passenger’s 

safety and functionality needs than the 

one offered by the carrier. The 

Department believes this requirement is 

necessary for passenger safety, dignity, 

and independence, and has built this 

into the final rule. However, the 

Department is declining to extend this 

requirement to other types of 

accommodations besides loaner 

wheelchairs or scooters. Based on the 

comments received, it is not clear what 

other accommodations would be sought 

out by individuals with disabilities in 

lieu of a loaner wheelchair or scooter. 

Nor was any information on associated 

costs provided. As such, the Department 

is focusing on loaner wheelchairs or 

scooters. To be reimbursed for the costs 

of these alternative loaners, airlines are 

permitted to require passengers to 

submit receipts, invoices, or similar 

documentation that proves the 

passengers’ paid costs. 

The Department is not requiring 

direct payment here by the airline to the 

passenger’s chosen loaner vendor for a 

few reasons. First, we expect that the 

cost of loaner wheelchairs, on average, 

to be much less than the cost of repairs 

or replacements for complex devices. 

This means that the upfront costs 

incurred by individuals with disabilities 

is likely not as substantial. In addition, 

it is vital that passengers receive their 

loaners as quickly as possible. The 

Department does not want to delay this 

process by having individuals with 

disabilities wait for airlines to review 

and complete payment requests. The 

Department is requiring airlines to 

reimburse the passengers for the cost of 

the loaner wheelchair or scooter within 

30 days of providing documentation to 

support claim. 

The Department is declining to move 

forward with a requirement for 

reimbursement of costs to individuals 

with disabilities related to inadequate 

loaner wheelchairs and scooters 

provided by airlines that restrict 

mobility or independence. Commenters 

raised potential consequential costs 

ranging from meal delivery services up 

to weeks-worth of lost wages. The 

Department is unable to accurately 

analyze the costs and benefits of such a 

solution at this time without additional 

data. Instead, the Department has 

decided to address the root cause of the 

issue in this final rule: inadequate 

loaner wheelchairs and scooters. As 

mentioned above, this rule provides 

passengers with disabilities with greater 

flexibility when seeking out appropriate 

accommodations while waiting for their 

wheelchairs or scooters to be returned, 

repaired, or replaced and will not have 

to bear the cost. We believe that these 

final rule requirements will 

substantially mitigate the types of 

associated costs discussed in disability 

rights organizations’ comments. 

C. Reimbursement of Fare Difference 

and Rebooking 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department solicited comment on 

whether it should require U.S. and 

foreign air carriers to refund the 

difference between the fare on a flight 

taken by a passenger who uses a 

wheelchair and the fare on a flight that 

the passenger would have taken if his or 

her wheelchair had been able to fit in 

the cabin or cargo compartment of the 

aircraft. The Department also asked 

whether airlines should be required to 

refund the fare difference only if the 

passenger’s preferred flight itinerary 

that cannot accommodate the 

wheelchair and the more expensive 

flight itinerary that can accommodate 

the wheelchair are on the same airline, 

have the same origin and destination, 

are on the same day, and have the same 

number of legs, stops, and connection 

points (if applicable). There were also 

questions in the NPRM on whether 

airlines should be permitted to require 

passengers to take certain steps to obtain 

a refund of the fare difference and what 

types of proof or documentation 

passengers who use wheelchairs should 

be required to submit to airlines when 

requesting a lower fare or seeking a 

reimbursement of the fare difference. 

Additionally, when examining 

whether the Department should require 

carriers to refund the fare difference 

under these circumstances, the 

Department solicited comment on 

airlines’ rebooking practices. 

Specifically, the Department asked 

whether airlines currently offer 

individuals with disabilities rebooking 

on another flight on the same airline at 

no additional cost when their 

wheelchairs or scooters cannot be 

carried on their originally booked flights 

and whether the Department should 

impose such a requirement. The 

Department also referenced a regulation 

by the Canadian Transportation Agency 

requiring carriers to advise passengers 

of alternative trips provided by the same 

carrier to the same destination and offer 

booking for no additional cost if a 

carrier is unable to transport a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102426 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

passenger’s mobility aid device on a 

flight. 

Comments Received: All disability 

rights organizations and individuals 

with disabilities that commented on this 

issue strongly supported requiring U.S. 

and foreign air carriers to refund the 

difference between the fare on a flight 

taken by a passenger who uses a 

wheelchair and the fare on a flight that 

the passenger would have taken if his or 

her wheelchair had been able to fit in 

the cabin or cargo compartment of the 

aircraft. Cure SMA stated that 

passengers with disabilities frequently 

pay for more expensive flights on larger 

aircrafts that can accommodate their 

large power wheelchairs, which makes 

it very costly for individuals with 

disabilities to fly. PVA asserted that 

forcing a passenger to book a more 

expensive flight imposes an additional 

charge on the passenger for a service 

required by the ACAA. The Arc 

commented that airlines should refund 

the fare difference when the carrier is 

unable to transport a passenger with a 

disability’s mobility device to avoid any 

additional charges to the passenger and 

to ensure the passenger has the same 

benefits as passengers without 

disabilities, i.e., the option to choose a 

cheaper flight. PVA also recommended 

that the Department require airlines to 

prominently display on their websites 

all policies related to obtaining a refund 

of the difference between the fare on a 

flight taken by a passenger who uses a 

wheelchair and the fare on a flight that 

the passenger would have taken if his or 

her wheelchair had been able to fit in 

the cabin or cargo compartment of the 

aircraft. PVA stated further that 

transparency of all policies is essential 

for travelers with mobility disabilities to 

be notified of their rights. 

Airline industry stakeholders who 

commented on this issue oppose 

requiring airlines to refund the 

difference between the fare on a flight 

taken by a passenger who uses a 

wheelchair and the fare on a flight that 

the passenger would have taken if his or 

her wheelchair had been able to fit in 

the cabin or cargo compartment of the 

aircraft. A4A and IATA commented that 

while some flights may not be able to 

accommodate some passengers with 

disabilities, an airline’s operation of 

those flights does not constitute 

discrimination on the basis of disability. 

A4A and IATA explained that airlines 

provide those flights, including 

selection of fares and the aircraft being 

used, based on a myriad of other factors, 

including demand, frequency, capacity, 

and other limitations and costs (e.g., 

fuel, crew, length of route, origin and 

destination airport costs, etc.), but never 

based on a passenger’s disability. A4A 

and IATA asserted that regulation of 

flights and applicable fares falls outside 

of the Department’s limited authority 

under the ACAA and that the 

Department’s regulation of fares would 

violate the Congressional deregulation 

of the airline industry and would also 

likely violate bilateral air transport 

agreements that prohibit the regulation 

of fares and require an open 

marketplace for air travel. 

With respect to the question of 

whether airlines should be required to 

refund the fare difference only if the 

passenger’s preferred flight that cannot 

accommodate the wheelchair and the 

more expensive flight itinerary that can 

accommodate the wheelchair are on the 

same airline, have the same origin and 

destination, are on the same day, and 

have the same number of legs, stops, 

and connection points (if applicable), 

PVA, the Amputee Coalition, and the 

Arc stated further that refunds cannot be 

limited to only when the new flight has 

the same origin and destination, are on 

the same day, and have the same 

number of legs, stops, and connection 

points. They asserted that the 

Department must implement broad 

requirements for refunds of fare 

differences, such as extending flight 

options to nearby airports. Disability 

Rights Maryland commented that a 

refunds of fare differences should be 

applied to flights with the same origin 

and destination region, regardless of 

additional connecting flights but that 

when there is no other itinerary that 

meets the passenger’s needs, airlines 

should be required to provide a refund 

for the fare difference even when the 

preferred flight itinerary and more 

expensive flight itinerary have different 

dates, number of stops, or connecting 

points. 

A4A and IATA commented further 

that the airline should be allowed to 

require documentation of the fare 

difference and proof of a booking if the 

Department imposes a requirement to 

reimburse passengers the fare 

difference. These airline associations 

added that unlike full refunds, a 

requirement to reimburse fare difference 

the provision of a partial refund requires 

material efforts by airlines to confirm 

the prices and difference because it is 

not a system that can be easily 

automated, especially with the 

continued adoption of dynamic fares. 

Azores Airlines SATA stated that if the 

Department were to implement such a 

requirement, the passenger must 

provide an invoice detailing the 

transportation of the chairs and routes 

taken. 

PVA, the Amputee Coalition, and the 

Arc asserted that to avoid fraud, airlines 

can request reasonable documentation 

but must not impose unreasonable 

barriers to obtaining a refund of the fare 

difference. They suggested that airlines 

could request the passenger to provide 

the dimensions of their mobility device 

and documentation of the fare of the 

preferred flight they would have booked 

if their mobility device could be 

accommodated on that flight. PVA 

commented further that the type of 

documentation cannot be limited, for 

example, by only accepting a screen 

shot of the fare price. PVA explained 

that not all passengers book their tickets 

online or solely on the carrier’s website, 

and the ability to take a screenshot of 

the fare may not be accessible for the 

passenger due to their disability or lack 

of electronic devices with that 

technology. PVA recommended that 

passengers should be able to submit any 

type of documentation to prove the fare 

rate, e.g., providing the fare rate and the 

date of their search or call; printed 

copies of the fare rates; photos of the 

rates, that are not necessarily 

screenshots; correspondence with 

reservation personnel with the fare rate; 

or any other type of documented 

evidence showing the rate. PVA also 

recommended that the Department 

require airlines to prominently display 

on their websites all policies related to 

obtaining a refund of the fare difference. 

PVA explained that transparency of all 

policies is essential for travelers with 

mobility disabilities to be notified of 

their rights. 

In response to the Department’s 

request for comments on airlines’ 

rebooking practices when passengers’ 

wheelchairs or scooters cannot be 

carried on their originally booked 

flights, various commenters raised 

concerns about the lack of travel options 

for passengers with disabilities in these 

circumstances. Disability rights 

organizations urged the Department to 

strengthen its proposal by requiring 

airlines to offer alternative travel 

options to impacted passengers in these 

situations. Disability Rights New York 

stated that DOT must create guidelines 

for airlines to follow when wheelchairs 

do not fit on the traveler’s aircraft. PVA 

asserted that until aircraft can readily 

accommodate power wheelchairs and 

scooters, carriers should be required to 

provide additional options to 

passengers. AAPD stated that these 

options can include deplaning and 

rebooking on another flight that will 

accommodate their wheelchair or 

scooter free of charge or staying on their 

scheduled flight with the provision of a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102427 

38See 14 CFR 382.11(a)(1) and (3). 

loaner wheelchair or scooter at the 

destination gate. AAPD added that the 

airline should also transport the 

passenger’s mobility device to his or her 

destination on the next available flight 

that can accommodate their device. 

Organizations stated that at a bare 

minimum though, passengers need to be 

given the opportunity to deplane and 

cancel their flight if their wheelchairs or 

scooters do not make it onto their 

flights. PIDS asserted that if the 

passenger is informed of the situation 

after boarding, then they must be given 

the option to exit the plane and return 

to their undamaged mobility device. 

PVA also noted that the organization is 

unaware of any consistent policies and 

practices among all carriers in these 

situations. MDA and the Amputee 

Coalition reported the same. On the 

other hand, United States Gender and 

Disability Justice Alliance asserted that 

passengers are currently informed by 

airlines when there is an issue with 

stowage and are given the option to 

continue the flight without their 

wheelchair or stay with their 

wheelchair. 

From the airlines’ perspective, RAA 

commented that when a passenger’s 

wheelchair or scooter does not fit, the 

airline’s customer care personnel work 

with the passenger to be rebooked on 

the next available flight on which the 

wheelchair or scooter would fit. 

Allegiant noted similar views and stated 

that its current policy is for a CRO to be 

contacted for assistance and to consult 

the passenger regarding possible 

solutions. Allegiant also stated that 

these instances are very rare and are 

more characteristic of regional carriers 

operating smaller aircraft. 

A4A and IATA argued that a 

requirement to rebook a customer on a 

flight at a lower fare from an earlier or 

later flight raises serious concerns about 

the potential for dishonest behavior, 

which may rise to the level of fraud. 

They commented that if the Department 

implements this requirement, airlines 

should be permitted to strictly limit and 

condition the provision of alternative 

flights, as determined by the airline, but 

made transparent to the passenger (e.g., 

the airline can condition that the 

passenger must accept and fly on the 

immediately previous or next flight that 

can accommodate the passenger’s 

wheelchair; the airline can condition 

that the passenger must takes an 

alternative flight that minimizes the fare 

difference; the airline can limit the 

alternative travel to the same origin and 

destination, the same day of flight, the 

same number of legs, stops and 

connection points, and any other 

reasonable condition to minimize the 

costs to the airline, etc.). 

DOT Response: After carefully 

considering the comments, the 

Department has decided to adopt a final 

rule requiring airlines to reimburse a 

passenger who uses a wheelchair or 

scooter the difference between the fare 

on a flight taken by the passenger and 

the fare on a flight that the passenger 

would have taken if his or her 

wheelchair had been able to fit in the 

cabin or cargo compartment of the 

aircraft. The ACAA provides that 

airlines may not discriminate against 

passengers with a disability. 

Furthermore, 14 CFR 382.11 states that 

airlines must not discriminate against 

any qualified individual with a 

disability, by reason of such disability, 

in the provision of air transportation 

and exclude a qualified individual with 

a disability from or deny the person the 

benefit of any air transportation or 

related services that are available to 

other persons, among other things.38

We recognize that in some instances, 

passengers who use larger wheelchairs 

or scooters may only be able to select a 

more expensive flight because a cheaper 

flight option uses an aircraft that cannot 

accommodate their wheelchair or 

scooter. The Department believes that 

when this occurs, passengers who use 

larger wheelchairs or scooters are 

denied a benefit—the lower prices for 

air fare—that is available to other 

persons, which is discriminatory. 

Passengers who use larger wheelchairs 

or scooters should not have to pay 

higher prices for air fares only because 

their wheelchairs or scooters cannot be 

transported on certain flights. 

Accordingly, in situations where 

passengers who use wheelchairs or 

scooters cannot book their preferred 

flight because their wheelchairs or 

scooters cannot fit in the cabin or cargo 

compartment of the aircraft of their 

preferred flights, and the passengers 

must book more expensive flights that 

can accommodate their wheelchairs or 

scooters, airlines are required to 

reimburse them the difference between 

the more expensive flights the 

passengers purchased and had to take 

and the preferred flights that the 

passengers would have purchased and 

taken if their wheelchair or scooter had 

been able to fit. The Department is 

limiting the requirement to provide a 

fare reimbursement to flights that occur 

on the same day, on the same airline, 

and between the same origin and 

destination. 

In addition, we agree with A4A and 

IATA that airlines should be allowed to 

require certain documentation to obtain 

the fare reimbursement. We also agree 

with comments from disability rights 

organizations that the documentation 

requirement should not impose 

unreasonable barriers to passengers 

seeking the fare reimbursement and that 

airlines should display on their websites 

policies related to obtaining a refund of 

the fare difference. Therefore, the final 

rule permits airlines to require 

reasonable documentation from the 

passenger to verify: the dimensions of 

the passenger’s wheelchair or scooter; 

the cost of the passenger’s preferred 

flight that could not accommodate the 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter; and 

the cost of the more expensive flight the 

passenger purchased and had to take. 

Under this rule, an airline must provide 

reimbursements to passengers for fare 

difference occurring on the types of 

flights within 30 days of receiving a 

request and documentation that 

substantiates the cost(s), if such 

documentation is required by the 

airline. In addition, an airline must 

disclose on their website the 

documentation the airline requires from 

the passenger to support a 

reimbursement claim. 

A4A and IATA asserted that the 

proposed rule would ‘‘likely violate 

bilateral air transport agreements that 

prohibit the regulation of fares and 

require an open marketplace for air 

travel.’’ However, the commenters did 

not provide a rationale for this assertion, 

and the Department has been unable to 

independently identify any potential 

violation. We also note that no other 

commenter, including any U.S. air 

transport partner, submitted a comment 

making a similar assertion. 

The Department believes this rule 

strikes a balance between providing 

passengers who use wheelchairs or 

scooters equal access to lower air fare 

options and not imposing unduly 

burdensome requirements on airlines. 

Providing fare reimbursements is a 

reasonable accommodation and less 

burdensome to airlines than only 

operating aircraft large enough to 

accommodate larger wheelchairs or 

scooters or reconfiguring aircraft to have 

doors and cargo space large enough to 

fit larger wheelchairs or scooters. 

Further, this final rule requires 

airlines to offer passengers whose 

wheelchairs or scooters have not been 

loaded onto their scheduled flights, for 

whatever reason, an opportunity to 

disembark the aircraft and the choice of 

rebooking at no additional cost on the 

next available flight of the same carrier 

or on a partner carrier. In addition, 

airlines must offer free rebooking on the 

next available flight of the same carrier 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102428 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

39Comment from The Ability Center of Greater 

Toledo, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2022-0144-1409. 

or on a partner carrier, if the passenger’s 

wheelchair or scooter can fit on the 

aircraft, when an airline becomes aware 

that a passenger’s wheelchair or scooter 

does not fit on the passenger’s 

scheduled flight. We note that an airline 

may become aware of this issue in 

advance of travel, such as at the time of 

flight booking, or not until at the airport 

on the passenger’s day of travel. The 

rebooking requirement applies in both 

scenarios, and the airline should reach 

out to the passenger as early as possible 

to start the process. 

The Department was persuaded by the 

comments of PVA, AARP, AAPD, and 

other disability rights organizations that 

urged the Department to strengthen the 

proposed rule by requiring airlines to 

offer passengers with disabilities an 

option to disembark and rebook at no 

additional cost when their wheelchairs 

or scooters are not loaded onto aircraft. 

This requirement ensures that 

passengers with disabilities are not left 

stranded; instead, airlines are required 

to offer passengers with disabilities with 

options when their flight plans are 

disrupted because their wheelchair or 

scooter is not loaded onto the aircraft, 

whether the wheelchair or scooter is not 

loaded because it does not fit in the 

cargo compartment or for any other 

reason. 

The Department is pleased to hear 

from some industry commenters that 

airlines already make best efforts to 

accommodate the passenger’s needs as 

best as they can in these unfortunate 

situations. For example, RAA’s 

comment stated that when a passenger’s 

wheelchair or scooter does not fit in the 

cargo compartment, the airline’s 

customer care personnel work with the 

passenger to be rebooked on the next 

available flight on which the wheelchair 

or scooter would fit. However, disability 

rights organizations’ comments 

generally stated that they were not 

aware of any consistent policies and 

practices among all carriers. The 

Department believes that passengers 

with disabilities are going to benefit 

from this rule because, when a 

wheelchair or scooter is not loaded onto 

a passenger’s scheduled flight, the rule 

requires all airlines that fly to, within, 

or from the U.S. to offer alternative 

travel options on that airline or its 

partner airlines’ flights where the 

wheelchair or scooter will fit. 

The Department recognizes that some 

airlines only operate one type of aircraft 

and may not have partner airlines. This 

means that if the passenger’s device 

does not fit on the first flight of that 

carrier, then the carrier will most likely 

not be able to accommodate the 

passenger on a different flight operated 

by that same carrier or a partner carrier. 

In the rule text, the Department 

specifies that the rebooking 

requirements apply if ‘‘such an aircraft 

is available’’ to safely accommodate the 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter. In 

these situations where it is not possible 

to rebook the passenger, the airline is 

required to offer the passenger the 

opportunity to deplane the aircraft (if 

the issue arises at the airport on the 

passenger’s day of travel) and to fully 

refund the passenger the cost of any 

unused portion of a ticket and related 

paid fees for ancillary services (e.g., 

transport of checked or carry-on 

baggage, access to in-flight 

entertainment programs or Wi-Fi, and 

in-flight beverages and snacks, among 

other things) if they choose not to travel 

without their device. 

D. Seating Accommodations at the 

Airport 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, when 

discussing delayed wheelchairs and 

scooters, the Department specifically 

requested comment on whether airlines 

should be required to provide safe and 

adequate seating options at the airport 

while passengers wait for their delayed 

devices or loaner wheelchairs from the 

airlines. The Department also asked 

about what types of seating options 

would be appropriate, the cost, and 

logistics needed at airports. 

Comments Received: The Department 

received many comments on whether 

airlines should be required to provide 

safe and adequate seating options to 

passengers with disabilities who are 

waiting on delayed wheelchairs or 

loaner wheelchairs at the airport 

following airline mishandlings. 

Disability rights organizations 

strongly supported requiring airlines to 

provide safe and adequate seating 

accommodations while waiting at the 

airport. The Ability Center of Greater 

Toledo commented, ‘‘Individuals with 

disabilities, like everyone else, need 

suitable seating not only for comfort but 

also to avoid worsening any discomfort 

or pain. When awaiting a delayed 

mobility device at an airport, 

individuals with mobility disabilities 

may need to sit for an extended period. 

Therefore, it’s crucial for airports to 

provide designated and adaptive seating 

options to ensure that passengers with 

disabilities do not experience additional 

stress/harm while waiting for their 

essential equipment.’’ 39

Disability rights organizations offered 

different suggestions on what could be 

provided as a safe and adequate seating 

option for passengers with disabilities. 

PVA stated that options may need to 

vary depending on the passenger’s 

disability and the length of the delay. 

For shorter delays, PVA said that 

passengers should never be required to 

deplane the aircraft unless their 

mobility device is available; however, if 

they do deplane, then accommodations 

could include providing a wheelchair 

that the passenger can independently 

use; medical seat cushions; or use of an 

in-airport lounge area or hotel. For 

longer delays, PVA said that carriers 

must offer these accommodations and 

more, such as accessible transportation 

to the passenger’s destination or another 

location and/or providing a loaner 

wheelchair. Disability Rights Maryland 

stated that airlines should have a variety 

of seating and laying options available, 

including chairs with adjustable arm, 

back, and leg rests and a variety of 

cushioning. On the other hand, Indiana 

Disability Rights stated that certain 

individuals may need to be 

accommodated on a cot or a similar 

surface, such as a hospital bed or Sleep 

Number bed. 

Commenters from the healthcare 

sector such as Gillette Children’s 

Specialty Healthcare suggest that a 

variety of options may need to be 

available and that medical experts 

should be consulted on this. Open 

Doors believes airlines should be 

required to provide air-filled cushions 

and memory foam pads, although this 

will not be a perfect solution for 

everyone. 

Airline industry stakeholders had 

mixed opinions on the proposed 

requirement. A4A, IATA, and RAA 

generally agreed that airlines should 

provide seating options to passengers 

with disabilities who are waiting at the 

airport after their wheelchairs or 

scooters have been delayed or damaged 

by airlines. However, they stated that 

their concern is that airlines cannot be 

required to have medically tailored 

seating options for every form of 

disability and at every airport. RAA 

claimed that even hospitals are not held 

to this high of a standard. A4A and 

IATA also argued that seating within the 

airport is not always controlled by the 

airlines and should already meet the 

requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). Spirit agreed 

that this seating should be the airports’ 

responsibility rather than the airlines. 

DOT Response: The Department has 

concluded that it is necessary to adopt 

a requirement for airlines to provide 

safe and adequate seating 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities who are waiting for delayed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102429 

40Federal law prohibits passengers from 

interfering with crewmembers in the performance 

of their duties onboard aircraft and failing to obey 

crewmembers’ directions. See 14 CFR 121.580. 

wheelchairs or loaner wheelchairs at the 

airport. Some commenters have noted 

passengers with disabilities are often 

left in aisle chairs or airport wheelchairs 

when waiting for a delayed wheelchair 

or scooter and that these chairs may be 

highly inadequate and may cause 

physical harm to certain passengers if 

left sitting on them for prolonged 

periods. At the same time, determining 

the best type of seating accommodations 

that would be safe and adequate is not 

easy to do. Although some disability 

rights organizations suggested allowing 

passengers with disabilities to remain in 

their seats on the aircraft rather than 

waiting at the airport terminal in an 

aisle chair or airport wheelchair, this is 

often not possible because airlines 

require passengers with disabilities to 

deplane so they can use the aircraft for 

other flights. Passengers are required to 

follow crew member instructions, 

including instructions to get off an 

aircraft.40 Also, as pointed out by airline 

commenters, it is not realistic to expect 

airlines to establish and maintain a wide 

array of types of medical seating that 

can safely accommodate all types of 

needs at all the airports they serve. In 

this rule, rather than specifying the type 

of seating accommodation(s) that 

airlines must have, the Department is 

requiring airlines to consult with 

disability rights organizations to 

determine seating accommodations that 

work for most passengers with 

disabilities. This consultation is crucial 

because different individuals with 

disabilities have different seating needs 

and preferences. The Department 

acknowledges that the airport layout 

and other factors may also impact the 

eventual solution that is deemed 

appropriate. This consultation 

requirement is intended to ensure that 

seating accommodations that airlines 

establish adequately consider the needs 

of passengers with disabilities. The 

Department is providing carriers one 

year from the date of publication to 

implement this provision because of the 

time needed to consult with disability 

rights organizations, determine the type 

of seating accommodation that airline 

will provide, develop processes and 

procedures, and train staff. 

E. Enhanced Training Requirements 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department proposed to enhance its 

existing training requirements for airline 

employees and contractors who 

physically assist passengers with 

mobility disabilities or handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs or scooters. The 

Department proposed more thorough, 

frequent, and hands-on training of these 

employees and contractors. 

Specifically, for employees and 

contractors who provide physical 

assistance to passengers with mobilityrelated disabilities, airlines would be 

required to provide or ensure hands-on 

training covering safe and dignified 

physical assistance, including transfers 

to and from personal or airport 

wheelchairs, aisle chairs, and aircraft 

seats; proper lifting techniques to 

safeguard passengers; how to 

troubleshoot common challenges when 

providing physical assistance; and 

proper use of equipment used to 

physically assist passengers with 

disabilities. These personnel would also 

be required to receive other training 

covering collecting and sharing of 

passenger information needed to ensure 

safe, dignified, and prompt physical 

assistance, such as Special Service 

Request (SSR) codes. 

For employees and contractors who 

handle passengers’ wheelchairs and 

other mobility aid devices, airlines 

would be required to provide or ensure 

hands-on training covering common 

types of wheelchairs and other mobility 

aids and their features; airport and 

airline equipment used to load and 

unload wheelchairs and other mobility 

aids; and methods for safely moving and 

stowing wheelchairs, including lifting 

techniques, wheelchair disassembly, 

reconfiguration, and reassembly, and 

securement in the cargo compartment of 

the aircraft. Personnel who handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs and other 

mobility aid devices would also be 

required to receive other training 

covering the collecting and sharing of 

information regarding a passenger’s 

wheelchair or other mobility aid, 

including using any airline wheelchair 

handling form(s) that may exist, to 

ensure the safe and proper handling of 

such assistive devices. 

Under the NPRM’s proposal, ‘‘handson training’’ was defined as training that 

is received by an employee or contractor 

where the employee or contractor 

performs a task, function, or procedure 

that would be part of his or her normal 

duties in a controlled/simulated 

environment and with the use of a 

suitable life-sized model or equipment, 

as appropriate. 

As for training frequency, these 

covered airline employees and 

contractors would need to be initially 

trained prior to assuming their duties 

and then retrained at least once every 

twelve months after assuming their 

duties (‘‘refresher training’’). 

The NPRM also included minor 

proposed changes to disability-related 

training requirements for all other 

personnel (e.g., ticket counter agents 

and telephone reservation agents). 

These changes were primarily 

formatting and language changes, such 

as clarifying that all other personnel 

must receive training prior to assuming 

their duties and at least once every three 

years thereafter, to promote consistency 

throughout the regulation without 

expanding the airlines’ obligations. The 

more substantive change was the 

proposed requirement for airlines to 

consult with disabilities rights 

organizations not only regarding 

development of their initial training 

programs, as required today, but also to 

consult with such organizations when 

making changes to disability training 

programs and related policies and 

procedures that are expected to have a 

significant impact on assistance 

provided to individuals with 

disabilities. 

Finally, although not included in 

NPRM’s proposed rule text, the 

Department solicited comment on 

whether airlines should be required to 

designate wheelchair experts and 

transfer experts who could be consulted 

should a complex issue or problem arise 

while handling a passenger’s personal 

wheelchair or while physically assisting 

a passenger with a disability. 

Comments Received: At a high level, 

disability rights organizations, 

individuals with disabilities, and other 

non-airline stakeholders such as 

healthcare representatives, DME 

suppliers, and labor unions strongly 

supported heightened training standards 

and requirements for airline personnel 

and contractors. Many stated that 

training is key to ensuring safe and 

dignified assistance to individuals with 

disabilities and proper handling of 

passengers’ wheelchairs and scooters. 

However, several commenters argued 

that the Department’s proposed training 

requirements are not strong enough to 

correct existing training inadequacies 

and suggested various ways to 

strengthen DOT’s training. 

The first major recommendation that 

disability rights organizations had was 

for the Department to move away from 

its existing ‘‘proficiency’’ standard for 

airline training. Disability rights 

organizations called for a more rigorous 

approach with detailed training 

standards, competency tests, and/or 

certification programs for workers. PVA 

recommended training to fully educate 

personnel, which could be 

accomplished ‘‘by promulgating clear 

training requirements that provide the 

competency levels needed to physically 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102430 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

41The Department’s Airline Passenger with 

Disabilities Bill of Rights describes the fundamental 

rights of air travelers with disabilities under the 

ACAA and 14 CFR part 382. The Bill of Rights is 

available on the Department’s website at https://

www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/disabilitybill

ofrights. 

assist passengers, handle wheelchairs or 

scooters, or provide relevant assistance 

for passengers with disabilities in 

accordance with the personnel’s 

responsibilities.’’ PVA further 

recommended all personnel who 

provide physical assistance to 

passengers with disabilities or handle 

mobility devices ‘‘must be able to 

successfully demonstrate to a qualified 

instructor that they are able to safely 

provide physical assistance in boarding 

and deplaning.’’ PVA asserted that 

airline personnel must receive more 

frequent refresher trainings and 

reassessments to confirm competency 

levels are maintained. PVA’s sentiment 

was echoed by several others, including 

Cure SMA, MDA, AARP, and the 

Christopher and Dana Reeve 

Foundation. Other disability rights 

organizations provided slightly different 

recommendations. For example, the 

United States Gender and Disability 

Justice Alliance suggested that training 

should be an ongoing process, reflecting 

the evolving understanding of what it 

means to provide true accessibility. 

They further suggested that training 

should be conducted by individuals 

with disabilities, physical therapists, 

DME manufacturers, and providers who 

are familiar with mobility equipment. 

Disability rights organizations also 

recommended that the Department 

include additional topics to be covered 

by the enhanced training requirements. 

The most common suggested topics 

included effective communication 

techniques and listening to and 

respecting passengers’ instructions, 

assisting passengers with disabilities in 

emergency situations, the Department’s 

Airline Passenger with Disabilities Bill 

of Rights,41 and best practices from 

healthcare and homecare professionals. 

PVA specifically recommended that 

effective communications training 

include requirements for how to take 

instructions from the caregiver, if the 

passenger is non-verbal or unable to 

communicate their needs to the airline. 

In contrast, airline industry 

stakeholders pushed back on the 

Department’s proposal. A4A called for 

DOT to follow the 2024 FAA Act by 

implementing an 18-month training 

cycle, recognize the realities of airlines’ 

operations and personnel needs, and 

conduct a more fulsome and accurate 

economic analysis. ULCCs, regional 

carriers, and foreign airlines asserted 

that DOT’s current regulation is 

adequate, that airlines require flexibility 

in developing and implementing 

personnel training, and that the costs of 

enhanced training will outweigh any 

additional benefits. Airline industry 

stakeholders also commented that the 

scope of the Department’s training 

proposal is too broad and needs to be 

specifically tailored to each employee. 

A4A mentioned that the scope of the 

enhanced training requirements should 

be narrowed to only focus on 

wheelchairs and scooters, which is the 

focus of the rulemaking, rather than 

including other mobility aids and 

assistive devices. NACA agreed with 

limiting the scope to just wheelchairs 

and scooters and notes that it would be 

unrealistic to adequately train 

employees on a wide variety of other 

mobility aids. 

A4A also argued that training needs to 

be tailored to the respective duties of 

each employee and should not be based 

simply on the employee’s job title. A4A 

provided the following example: ‘‘[A] 

gate agent that only helps in the 

disassembly or reassembly of 

wheelchairs or scooters does not need to 

be trained in cargo compartment 

procedures, a highly specialized skillset 

that includes lift operation, weight and 

balance considerations, floor weight 

standards, fire suppression 

requirements, tie down equipment and 

procedures, and other factors. Requiring 

that a gate agent undergo such extensive 

training on cargo loading and unloading 

is excessive and unjustified by the costs 

and may not be permitted under some 

collective bargaining agreements.’’ RAA 

stated that it is fine with the training 

topics proposed by the Department but 

also wants to ensure that airlines can 

tailor training to employees’ specific job 

duties. 

The Department also received 

feedback on the training frequency 

proposed in the NPRM. Most disability 

rights organizations seemed to agree 

with the Department’s proposal, which 

called for initial training before 

employees and contractors assume their 

job duties and then refresher training 

each year after. PVA noted in its 

comment that even though disability 

advocates have argued for recurrent 

training every six months, they are 

willing to accept refresher training every 

twelve months in consideration of the 

eighteen-month training frequency 

included in the 2024 FAA Act. A few 

others recommended that the 

Department consider tying recurrent 

training to instances of violations 

related to safety and mishandlings. For 

example, Colorado Cross-Disability 

Coalition and Disability Rights 

Maryland stated that if two violations 

(or more) occur in a month, then more 

frequent training should be required. A 

minority of disability rights 

organizations, including the North 

Dakota Protection and Advocacy 

Project, did not believe that training 

every 12 months will be sufficient. 

Airline industry stakeholders had 

mixed opinions on training frequency. 

A4A recommended that the Department 

follow the 2024 FAA Act by setting a 

standard of an 18-month training cycle, 

which it asserts was based on significant 

input from the disability community 

and airlines. A4A stated that this 

frequency is critical for the continuity 

and efficiency of airline operations. 

NACA asserted the current regulatory 

standard of re-training every three years 

has been successful and should not be 

changed. RAA agreed with an 18-month 

training cycle, while foreign airlines 

split between 18 and 24 months. Spirit, 

on the other hand, was fine with annual 

training so long as it did not need to be 

provided in a hands-on format. 

Other stakeholder comments on the 

proposed annual training requirements 

were also mixed. Some stated that 

annual training is not enough. Open 

Doors specifically said that transfer 

training needs to occur every six 

months. 

The NPRM also included a proposed 

requirement for airlines to consult with 

disabilities rights advocacy 

organizations not only regarding the 

development of their training programs, 

as required today, but also to consult 

with such organizations when making 

changes to disability training programs 

and related policies and procedures that 

are expected to have a significant 

impact on assistance provided to 

individuals with disabilities. Disability 

rights organizations were generally in 

favor of this change as they maintain 

that they must be involved in 

developing, auditing, and implementing 

these training programs. For instance, 

the Rare Disease Diversity Coalition 

called for consultation with disability 

advocates and patient advocacy groups 

to ensure that training requirements 

incorporate perspectives from people 

with disabilities. However, PVA noted 

that the proposed regulatory language 

does not require consultation with 

organizations that represent mobility 

device users and does not ensure 

continuous engagement and 

accountability from airlines. 

Airline industry stakeholders had few 

comments on the aspect of the proposal 

that concerned consultation with 

disability organizations on changes to 

disability training programs and related 

policies and procedures. A4A agreed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102431 

42Section 542 of the 2024 FAA Act, titled 

‘‘Improved Training Standards for Assisting 

Passengers Who Use Wheelchairs,’’ requires the 

Department to issue a rulemaking to develop 

requirements for minimum training standards for 

airline personnel and contractors who assist 

wheelchair users who board or deplane using an 

aisle chair or other boarding device. The training 

standards, at a minimum, must require that they be 

able to successfully demonstrate skills on: (1) how 

to safely use the aisle chair, or other boarding 

device, including the use of all straps, brakes, and 

other safety features; (2) how to assist in the transfer 

of passengers to and from their wheelchair, the aisle 

chair, and the aircraft’s passenger seat, either by 

physically lifting the passenger or deploying a 

mechanical device for the lift or transfer; and (3) 

how to effectively communicate with, and take 

instruction from, the passenger. Training on the 

availability of accessible lavatories and on-board 

wheelchairs and the right of a qualified individual 

with a disability to request an on-board wheelchair 

is also required. 

43Section 543, titled ‘‘Training Standards for 

Stowage of Wheelchairs and Scooters,’’ requires the 

Department to issue a rulemaking to develop 

requirements for minimum training standards 

related to stowage of wheelchairs and scooters used 

by passengers with disabilities on aircraft. The 

training standards, at a minimum, must require that 

they be able to successfully demonstrate skills on: 

(1) how to properly handle and configure, at a 

minimum, the most commonly used power and 

manual wheelchairs and scooters for stowage on 

Continued 

with the premise of the consultation 

proposal and notes that many member 

airlines have established accessibility 

advisory groups that work directly with 

the disability community to improve 

training and services. However, A4A 

also requested that airlines be allowed 

to consult with disability community 

experts that are not necessarily 

associated with a particular organization 

but have equal or higher qualifications. 

Spirit generally stated that the 

Department should not regulate which 

disability organizations the airline 

confers with and when. 

Another point of contention for 

commenters was the NPRM’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘hands-on training.’’ 

Several disability organizations, 

including Colorado Cross-Disability 

Coalition, Access to Independence of 

Cortland County, and North Dakota 

Protection and Advocacy Project, 

commented that the Department’s 

proposed definition is reasonable. 

Others, including PVA, Indiana 

Disability Rights, and the Amputee 

Coalition, objected to the proposed 

definition. PVA stated that the use of a 

life-sized model is not an accurate 

simulation of the realities of transferring 

individuals with disabilities, who may 

be of different sizes, weights, and needs. 

MDA asserted that individuals with 

disabilities should be active participants 

in training to ensure skills are 

transferable in a real-world setting. 

Airline industry stakeholders and 

labor unions also provided mixed 

feedback. A4A commented that the 

proposed definition is mostly 

reasonable but that the Department 

needs to clarify what is meant by a 

‘‘controlled/simulated environment.’’ 

Allegiant found the Department’s 

proposed definition to be reasonable. 

NACA cautioned that hands-on training 

should not be performed while on-thejob because of the importance of giving 

employees an opportunity to make 

mistakes and learn from them. 

Transport Workers Union of America 

(TWU) agreed with the Department’s 

definition while Service Employees 

International Union (SEIU) did not find 

the language to be reasonable because it 

is too broad and urged the inclusion of 

supervised practicums with real people 

in the training. 

Lastly, the NPRM asked whether the 

enhanced training requirements should 

apply to other types of airline 

employees and contractors such as 

reservation agents, ticket counter agents, 

and managers. Disability rights 

organizations and other stakeholders 

wanted more employees to be covered 

under the final rule, while airline 

industry stakeholders approved of the 

NPRM’s approach on this and opposed 

any expansion. 

Disability rights organizations 

believed it would be beneficial for other 

frontline employees, including ticket 

counter agents and flight attendants, to 

also be covered by more comprehensive 

and frequent disability training 

requirements. They claimed these types 

of employees need to understand the 

full process of providing assistance to 

passengers with disabilities and could 

be called upon to provide ad-hoc 

assistance if no one else is available. 

Other stakeholders, including Open 

Doors and Able Americans of the 

National Center for Public Policy 

Research, shared comments like those of 

disability advocates. They generally 

viewed training for more frontline 

employees as a positive because of their 

view that the current standards are not 

sufficient. 

Enhanced training for managers and 

supervisors was mentioned the most in 

comments from disability rights 

organizations. MDA stated, ‘‘While 

managers may not directly assist the 

traveling public [with physical 

assistance], they should also receive the 

same training so that they may 

effectively assist if any issues arise.’’ 

Similarly, the United States Gender and 

Disability Justice Alliance stated, 

‘‘Supervisors need to have the same 

training so they are more aware of the 

[enplaning] and deplaning of people 

with disabilities, so they are aware of 

problems when they arise, and can help 

solve challenges when they arise.’’ 

As mentioned, airline industry 

stakeholders approved of the NPRM’s 

approach, which allowed for the 

training to be tailored around the 

respective duties of each employee. 

They did not believe that training 

requirements should apply solely based 

on an employee’s job title. A4A gave the 

following examples: Ticket counter 

agents and service call center agents 

may be involved in the sharing or 

gathering of passenger information 

regarding accessibility requests, but they 

will never handle mobility aids or assist 

with transferring the passenger; and 

managers and supervisors may only 

have duties related to personnel 

management and may not have actual 

oversight over employees’ performance 

or functions. In addition, airline 

industry stakeholders claimed that any 

expansion of the training requirements 

could have serious cost and labor 

implications that were not analyzed in 

the Department’s NPRM. 

Separately, the Department also asked 

whether airlines should be required to 

designate wheelchair experts and 

transfer experts who could be consulted 

should a complex issue or problem arise 

while handling a passenger’s personal 

wheelchair or while physically assisting 

a passenger with a disability. The 

Department received limited feedback 

on this idea. Generally, disability rights 

organizations approved of this. PVA 

stated that designated wheelchair and 

transfer experts can contribute 

significantly to resolving the complex 

issues that can occur when problems 

arise. PVA suggested that designated 

wheelchair and transfer experts should 

have advanced training, similar to a 

CRO, and serve as a peer leader that can 

provide meaningful assistance to ensure 

the passenger and their mobility device 

are safe throughout the air travel 

experience. On the other hand, airline 

industry stakeholders opposed any 

requirement on experts at this time. 

A4A argued that it is not clear what is 

meant by an ‘‘expert’’ and what type of 

training would be needed, what types of 

benefits such a position would result in, 

and how often ‘‘complex issues’’ even 

arise during transfers and wheelchair 

handling. 

DOT Response: Based on the 

comments received in response to the 

NPRM and Congress’s mandate in the 

2024 FAA Act requiring a rulemaking 

on minimum training standards related 

to assistance to wheelchair users who 

board or deplane using an aisle chair or 

other boarding device 42 and stowage of 

wheelchairs and scooters used by 

passengers with disabilities on 

aircraft,43 it is abundantly clear that the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102432 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

each aircraft type operated by the air carrier or 

foreign air carrier; (2) how to properly review any 

wheelchair or scooter information provided by the 

passenger or the wheelchair or scooter 

manufacturer; and (3) how to properly load, secure, 

and unload wheelchairs and scooters, including 

how to use any specialized equipment for loading 

or unloading, on each aircraft type operated by the 

air carrier or foreign air carrier. 

44The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public 

Law 118–63, Sec. 542, 543 (May 16, 2024). 

45Comment from The Partnership for Inclusive 

Disaster Strategies (PIDS), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2022- 

0144-1472. 

46See The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, 

Public Law 118–63, Sec. 542 (May 16, 2024). 

Department needs to enhance its current 

regulatory requirements in order to 

improve airline training on providing 

physical assistance to passengers with 

disabilities and handling passengers’ 

wheelchairs and scooters. These two 

service areas continue to be a serious 

concern for disability advocates and 

individuals with disabilities. As noted 

in the NPRM, inadequate training of 

these employees and contractors can 

result in physical harm to passengers 

with disabilities and costly damages to 

passengers’ wheelchairs and scooters. 

The Department is adopting the training 

requirements largely as proposed, with 

certain revisions discussed further 

below. 

The Department considers training of 

carrier personnel or contractors who 

provide physical assistance to 

passengers with disabilities and handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs or scooters as 

vital to good service to passengers and 

to compliance with the ACAA. While 

we recognize that carriers already have 

disability-related training programs, this 

final rule requires for the first time that 

airlines address specific topics in the 

training provided to those who 

physically assist passengers with 

disabilities and handle passengers’ 

wheelchairs or scooters. In selecting 

these topics, the Department considered 

research carried out by Volpe, laws and 

guidance of foreign governments, 

IATA’s guidance on wheelchair 

handling and assistance, and 

stakeholder comments received. These 

training topics are expected to better 

ensure that airline personnel and 

contractors provide safe and dignified 

assistance to persons with disabilities. 

Training received on required topics 

such as wheelchair disassembly and 

reassembly and proper loading and 

securement in the cargo compartment 

should reduce the likelihood of 

wheelchairs being damaged, delayed, or 

lost. Also, training on required topics 

such as safe and dignified transfer 

assistance and proper use of airline 

equipment should improve the overall 

service provided to persons who need 

physical assistance. The Department 

continues to believe that these topics are 

appropriate for the final rule and notes 

that the 2024 FAA Act requires these 

subjects to be covered.44

Also, we agree with the many 

commenters who believe that trainees 

must be able to show that they grasp the 

knowledge and concepts presented to 

them during training and can fully 

demonstrate tasks in front of an 

instructor. We acknowledge that this 

process is vital to a successful training 

program. As such, the Department is 

requiring employees and contractors 

who provide physical assistance to 

passengers with disabilities who use 

wheelchairs or scooters or handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs or scooters to 

successfully demonstrate their 

knowledge but is not specifying how 

this must be done (e.g., competency 

assessments or certification exams). By 

requiring employees and contractors to 

demonstrate their knowledge, the 

Department is expanding upon DOT’s 

existing requirement for airlines to 

ensure employees or contractors who 

deal with the traveling public are 

trained, as appropriate to the duties of 

each employee, to proficiency and 

addressing the concern of disability 

group commenters that some carrier 

personnel do not seem to have been 

trained to proficiency. 

The Department is also making a few 

changes to the scope of the required 

training topics for employees and 

contractors who provide physical 

assistance to passengers with 

disabilities who use wheelchairs or 

scooters or handle passengers’ 

wheelchairs or scooters in response to 

comments. First, the Department agrees 

with the dozens of commenters who 

stressed the importance of training on 

effective communications with 

passengers with mobility disabilities. As 

PIDS stated, ‘‘this training should 

include not only technical skills related 

to handling mobility aids but also 

emphasize the importance of respectful, 

person-centered interactions.’’ 45

Communications training is also 

required under the 2024 FAA Act.46

Accordingly, the Department is adding 

effective communications to the lists of 

required training topics noted in 14 CFR 

382.141(a)(3)–(4). The Department 

encourages airlines to not only provide 

required training but also to consider 

teaching employees and contractors 

basic sign language or gestures as it 

provides a way to communicate with 

individuals with disabilities that may 

improve overall communication quality 

and promote inclusion. 

Second, the Department also 

recognizes the calls from airlines for 

clarification in the regulation to allow 

for airlines to tailor the enhanced 

training around employees’ duties and 

to limit the scope of such enhanced 

training to wheelchairs and scooters. 

Both recommendations are in line with 

the Department’s original intent for the 

NPRM’s training proposal. We are not 

requiring airline employees or 

contractors to undergo extensive 

training on topics and devices that are 

not relevant to their work. The 

Department has clarified in 

§ 382.141(a)(3) that training is for 

employees and contractors who provide 

physical assistance to passengers using 

wheelchairs or scooters, as appropriate 

to the duties of each person, and 

clarified in § 382.141(a)(4) that training 

is for employees and contractors who 

handle passengers’ wheelchairs or 

scooters, as appropriate to the duties of 

each person. 

Regarding initial training on the new 

requirements, after carefully reviewing 

the comments, the Department is 

requiring airlines to ensure employees 

and contractors who provide physical 

assistance to passengers with 

disabilities or handle passengers’ 

wheelchairs or scooters receive in-depth 

hands-on training as required by this 

final rule no later than June 17, 2026. 

Airline employees or contractors who 

are hired after June 17, 2026, must 

receive in-depth hands-on training as 

required by this final rule before they 

assume their duties. The Department 

believes that 18 months responds to 

industry concerns about the time it 

would take develop training programs 

and train employees and contractors. 

As for the frequency of refresher 

training, the Department is adopting its 

proposal that refresher training be 

provided once every twelve months. 

Refresher training is intended to assist 

employees and contractors in 

maintaining proficiency, both by 

reminding them of ACAA requirements 

and their carriers’ procedures for 

implementing them. All disability rights 

organizations were in favor of refresher 

training being required once a year or 

called for even stricter training 

frequencies. The Department was not 

persuaded by the comments received 

from airline industry stakeholders to 

retain the current regulatory standard of 

refresher training being provided every 

three years or to follow the 2024 FAA 

Act by setting a standard of an 18-month 

training cycle. The 2024 FAA Act states 

that the Department must require 

airlines to retrain these employees and 

contractors every 18 months, ‘‘at a 

minimum.’’ Based on the statutory 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102433 

47See Department Responses to Questions by 

Airline Associations Regarding Ensuring Safe 

Accommodations for Air Travelers with Disabilities 

Using Wheelchairs NPRM, https://

www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022- 

0144-1318. 

48The Department considered but ultimately 

decided against requiring airlines to provide handson training to flight attendants because they do not 

physically assist persons with disabilities. Airlines 

are required to assist individuals with disabilities 

on board an aircraft with the use of the on-board 

wheelchair to enable the person to move to and 

from a lavatory but the assistance to a semiambulatory person in moving to and from the 

lavatory does not include lifting or carrying the 

person. See 14 CFR 382.111(c) and (d). 

49See 14 CFR 382.151. 

50See 14 CFR 382.65(e), which describes in detail 

the improved OBW standards. 

51 14 CFR 382.65(h). 

language, the Department cannot allow 

refresher training to be less frequent 

than 18 months but is permitted to 

adopt more rigorous standards as it sees 

fit. In addition, recurring training at 

least every 12 months gives the airlines 

the ability to stagger training around 

busy seasons and other major events as 

needed. Airlines do not need to wait 

until exactly the 12-month mark to 

commence the retraining for an 

employee. 

The Department is also adopting a 

modified version of the NPRM’s training 

consultation requirement, which stated 

that when developing disability training 

programs and related policies and 

procedures and when making changes 

to such training programs and related 

policies and procedures, airlines must 

consult with disability organizations 

that represent individuals who would 

be affected by those changes. Under the 

final rule, if a disability organization is 

not available for consultation, then the 

airline is permitted to work with other 

individuals with disabilities who are 

not associated with a particular 

organization representing individuals 

with disabilities. The Department 

recognizes that organizations may not 

always be readily available to assist the 

airlines on these training issues because 

of resource or other issues and 

understands from comments that certain 

airlines have established accessibility 

advisory groups that could step in under 

these circumstances. Regarding PVA’s 

concerns that airlines may not consult 

with organizations that represent 

mobility device users when appropriate 

since the existing rule requires 

consultation with organizations 

representing individuals with 

disabilities generally, we don’t expect 

for this to be the case because this final 

rule states, as did the proposal, that 

airlines ‘‘must consult with 

organizations representing individuals 

with disabilities who would be affected 

by those changes.’’ As such, if training 

changes are made that impact 

wheelchair services, then airlines are 

required to work with representatives of 

wheelchair users. 

The Department is also revising its 

definition for ‘‘hands-on training’’ in the 

final rule based on the comments 

received. The Department acknowledges 

that its original proposed definition may 

have been unclear in some respects. We 

addressed this potential lack of clarity 

in a subsequent publicly docketed 

document responding to questions 

raised by airline associations.47 In that 

document, we explained that while a 

‘‘controlled/simulated’’ environment for 

hands-on training was not defined in 

the NPRM, the Department would 

consider a ‘‘controlled/simulated’’ 

environment in the context of hands-on 

training to mean in-person training that 

offers a safe and controlled environment 

by the trainer where employees can 

learn and practice real-life scenarios 

without the possibility of real-life 

consequences to passengers with 

disabilities. In the NPRM, the 

Department had made clear its view that 

it would be unsafe for airline employees 

and contractors to practice transfer 

assistance for the first time on-the-job 

while assisting passengers during their 

travel by suggesting use of a mannequin 

or a person such as an instructor for the 

hands-on training. The Department also 

explained that it does not consider a 

‘‘controlled/simulated’’ environment to 

consist of virtual or online training 

where employees are not receiving 

hands-on practice. In the final rule, the 

Department is defining ‘‘hands-on 

training’’ to mean in-person training 

that is received by an employee or 

contractor where the employee or 

contractor can learn and practice reallife scenarios in a safe and controlled 

environment without the possibility of 

real-life consequences to passengers 

with disabilities and with the use of a 

suitable life-sized model or equipment, 

as appropriate. In the context of transfer 

assistance, training may include 

observation of an actual transfer of an 

individual with a disability through onthe-job shadowing. However, the 

Department is declining to mandate the 

approach mentioned in some disability 

advocate comments where trainees 

would practice assistance directly on 

passengers with disabilities. The 

Department continues to believe that 

this would be inappropriate as it poses 

a risk of harm and injury to the 

individual(s) with a disability. 

The Department is declining to 

expand the scope of the enhanced 

training requirements beyond the types 

of employees and contractors who were 

covered under the NPRM’s proposal— 

that is employees and contractors who 

provide physical assistance to 

passengers with disabilities who use 

wheelchairs and scooters and 

employees and contractors who handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs and scooters. 

The Department considers these types of 

employees and contractors to include 

those providing physical assistance 

directly to passengers with 

disabilities 48 or handling passengers’ 

wheelchairs or scooters as well as 

managers, supervisors, and CROs that 

directly oversee the functions of 

personnel who provide physical 

assistance or handle passengers’ 

wheelchairs or scooters or may be called 

on if an issue arises during these types 

of assistance. This clarification aligns 

with both disability advocate 

commenters who stated that managers 

and supervisors need enhanced training 

and airline commenters who called for 

tailored training based on job duties. 

Finally, regarding a requirement for 

designated wheelchair experts and 

transfer experts, the Department is 

declining to take any action at this time 

given the limited amount of information 

and data provided on this in response 

to the NPRM. Also, the Department is of 

the view that CROs can provide this 

type of assistance since CROs are the 

carrier’s ‘‘expert’’ in compliance with 

the requirements of the ACAA and part 

382 and are required to be thoroughly 

familiar with the requirements of this 

part and the carrier’s procedures with 

respect to passengers with a disability.49

F. Improved Standards for On-Board 

Wheelchairs 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department proposed to require 

expanded use of on-board wheelchairs 

(OBWs) with improved safety and 

accessibility features. For background, 

OBWs are wheelchairs that are used to 

transport an individual with a mobility 

disability between an aircraft seat and 

an aircraft lavatory. In our 2023 

accessible-lavatory final rule, we set 

new safety and accessibility standards 

for OBWs to be installed on new singleaisle aircraft with 125 or more passenger 

seats that are delivered on or after 

October 2, 2026.50 We also stated that if 

a carrier replaced an OBW on any large 

single-aisle aircraft after October 2, 

2026, then the replacement OBW must 

also meet the improved standards.51 In 

short, our 2023 final rule required 

improved OBWs only in the context of 

large single-aisle aircraft. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102434 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

52See 14 CFR 382.65(a), which specifies that 

aircraft with more than 60 seats and an accessible 

lavatory must have an OBW. See also 14 CFR 

382.65(b), which specifies that aircraft with more 

than 60 seats and no accessible lavatory must still 

have an OBW if a passenger requests one. 

53 14 CFR 382.65(g). 

54For new single-aisle aircraft over 125 seats that 

are delivered after October 2, 2026, carriers are not 

required to expand the existing FAA-certificated 

on-board wheelchair stowage space of the aircraft, 

or modify the interior arrangement of the lavatory 

or the aircraft, in order to stow the improved OBW. 

However, if the OBW does not fit within the 

original stowage space, and another space exists 

(e.g., an overhead compartment) where it could fit 

consistent with FAA safety standards, then the 

carrier must stow it in that space and must request 

any necessary FAA approval to do so. 14 CFR 

382.65(f). 

55See Comment of PVA et al. at 50; see also 

Comment of The Arc at 45 (both with no examples 

provided). 

56 Given the relatively small number of new twinaisle aircraft being delivered to airlines, compared 

to new large single-aisle aircraft, we believe the 

incremental cost to airlines will be both minimal 

and cost-justified for the reasons stated in our 

accessible lavatories final rule. 

In the NPRM, we proposed to further 

expand the use of improved OBWs in 

several different ways. First, we 

proposed that if carriers purchase an 

OBW after October 2, 2026, then it must 

meet the Department’s new standards. 

We reasoned that because improved 

OBWs will be available on the market at 

that time, then those OBWs should be 

selected if airlines choose to purchase 

an OBW for any reason. Second, we 

proposed that any aircraft with 60 or 

more passenger seats and an accessible 

lavatory (e.g., twin-aisle aircraft) 52 that 

are delivered after October 2, 2026, must 

be equipped with an improved OBW. 

This proposal would ensure that new 

twin-aisle aircraft are equipped with 

improved OBWs, just like new large 

single-aisle aircraft. Finally, we 

proposed that, by October 2, 2031, all 

OBWs for use on aircraft with 60 or 

more seats must meet the Department’s 

new safety and accessibility standards. 

We reasoned that it is important to have 

a date certain for all OBWs to meet the 

improved standards. 

We recognize that OBWs are 

manufactured by third parties, not by 

airlines; therefore, airlines cannot 

guarantee that an OBW meeting all the 

DOT’s safety and accessibility features 

will be available on the market by 

October 2, 2026. Thus, we proposed that 

carriers must acquire OBWs that comply 

with as many of the new safety and 

accessibility requirements as are 

available on the market; if a specific 

safety or accessibility feature is 

unavailable, then carriers must inform 

the Department of that fact. This 

proposal tracked the protocol that we 

adopted in the 2023 accessible 

lavatories final rule.53 Finally, in the 

NPRM, we asked questions about 

whether airlines should expand the 

interior stowage space in aircraft to 

accommodate improved OBWs.54

Comments Received: Disability 

organizations, including PVA et al., 

generally support the NPRM as 

proposed; however, they urged DOT to 

adopt October 2026 rather than October 

2031 as the compliance date for 

universal adoption. They contend that 

‘‘there are currently OBWs on the 

market that advertise themselves as 

being compliant’’ with the 2023 

standards, and therefore there is no 

reason to include an additional five 

years for universal adoption, because a 

marketplace solution already exists.55

They also asked the Department to 

adopt information and training 

requirements for OBWs. Approximately 

35 individuals offered comments on this 

proposal; all were generally supportive. 

A4A and IATA suggested that the 

Department adopt compliance deadlines 

that are tied to the effective date of the 

final rule, rather than the proposed 

fixed dates. Specifically, they 

recommended that any requirement for 

an improved OBW when airlines choose 

to purchase an OBW or when airlines 

install an OBW on new twin-aisle 

aircraft have a compliance date of two 

years from the effective date of this final 

rule. A4A and IATA recommended five 

years from the effective date of this final 

rule for universal compliance with 

improved OBW standards. They assert 

that fully-compliant OBWs are not yet 

available on the market, and that the 

extra time will allow airlines to avoid 

contractual/supply chain difficulties, 

especially when OBWs are almost never 

used on smaller aircraft. A4A and IATA 

also expressed concerns about airlines 

being required to continually purchase 

upgraded OBWs over time as newer 

OBWs meeting more safety and 

accessibility features are made available 

in the market. 

Regarding stowage space for OBWs, 

A4A, IATA, and RAA state that there is 

no basis for requiring expansion of OBW 

stowage space, particularly since the 

dimensions of improved OBWs are 

currently unknown. Carriers state that 

they will find appropriate stowage space 

on the aircraft for the OBW without a 

DOT rule requiring expansion of a 

dedicated stowage space. RAA 

expressed concerns about requiring 

carriers to install improved OBWs 

onboard the aircraft, as opposed to 

simply making them available for use. 

DOT Response: We are adopting the 

final rule as proposed with respect to 

improved OBW standards. In our view, 

it is reasonable to require the safety and 

accessibility features of improved OBWs 

in cases where carriers voluntarily 

purchase new OBWs after October 2026, 

and where carriers purchase new OBWs 

after that date to install on new twinaisle aircraft. Because improved OBWs 

will be on the market by that time for 

installation on new large single-aisle 

aircraft, it is also reasonable to require 

those same improved OBWs within the 

same time frame on new twin-aisle 

aircraft and for voluntarily purchased 

OBWs.56 Finally, the Department 

continues to be of the view that it is 

reasonable to set an October 2031 

deadline for universal adoption of 

improved OBWs for use on all aircraft 

with more than 60 seats. In our view, 

this deadline provides manufacturers 

appropriate additional time both to 

innovate (to produce OBWs with more 

safety and accessibility features) and to 

produce a sufficient supply of improved 

OBWs for use throughout airline 

systems. Similarly, the October 2031 

deadline provides airlines additional 

flexibility to address any contracting 

and supply-chain issues they may 

experience in the process of purchasing 

new OBWs and replacing older OBWs 

throughout their system. 

Despite industry comments to the 

contrary, nothing in the proposal or this 

rule requires airlines to continuously 

purchase new models of improved 

OBWs every time a new safety or 

accessibility feature becomes available. 

If an airline purchases a compliant OBW 

with as many safety and accessibility 

features as are available in October 

2026, then it will be deemed to be in 

compliance until October 2031. By 

October 2031, however, airlines are 

expected to acquire OBWs with as many 

safety and accessibility features as are 

available in the market at that time. We 

agree with commenters that there is no 

need to specifically mandate an 

expansion of dedicated OBW space 

onboard aircraft, given that the 

dimensions of any new OBW are 

currently unknown, and given airlines’ 

assurance that they will find 

appropriate stowage space. Finally, with 

regard to advocates’ request for 

information and training requirements, 

we find that they are not necessary 

because of existing requirements. The 

Department already requires airlines to 

train flight attendants to proficiency, by 

October 2, 2026, to provide assistance in 

transporting persons with disabilities to 

and from lavatory from the aircraft seat, 

including training on use of OBWs. The 

Department also already requires 

airlines to provide information on 

request and post information on their 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102435 

57See 14 CFR 382.63(h). We also note that 

Section 551 of 2024 FAA Act requires airlines to 

inform passengers about the rights and 

responsibilities of both passengers and airlines 

regarding the use of OBWs. This information must 

be provided: (1) on airline websites; and (2) when 

individuals book a ticket on a ‘‘covered aircraft’’ 

and inform an air carrier or foreign air carrier that 

they require the use of any wheelchair. A ‘‘covered 

aircraft’’ is any aircraft that is required to be 

equipped with an OBW pursuant to § 382.65. 

58Accessible Lavatories on Single-Aisle Aircraft, 

88 FR 50020 (August 1, 2023). 

59 14 CFR 382.64(a)(1–2). 

60 14 CFR 382.64(c). 

61 14 CFR 382.63(a)(1–2). 

62Analysis of Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

T–100 All Segment data. Data retrieved in Aug. 

2023. 

63Opinions were mixed on a recommended 

implementation date. Most advocates supported 

implementation for twin-aisle aircraft ordered one 

year after the effective date of the final rule, or 

delivered two years after the effective date of the 

final rule. Others suggested a similar 10–12 year 

implementation timeframe as we adopted in the 

2023 rulemaking; others urged action as soon as 

possible. 

64See https://www.transportation.gov/sites/ 

dot.gov/files/docs/ATA%20Guidelines

%20Lavatories1.pdf. In 1992, a 97th-percentile 

male weighed 240 pounds; in 2024; a 95thpercentile male weighs 280 pounds. 65As noted above, the 95/95 standard explicitly 

calls for a lavatory large enough to accommodate 

both a large passenger and a large attendant, while 

the twin-aisle lavatory standard is silent regarding 

the size of the passenger or the attendant. 

websites regarding the accessibility 

features of aircraft lavatories by October 

2, 2026.57

G. Size Standard for Lavatories on 

Twin-Aisle Aircraft 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the 

Department sought comment on 

whether it should require airlines to 

expand the size of lavatories on twinaisle aircraft. We noted that in 2023, we 

set new size standards for lavatories on 

large single-aisle aircraft.58 Specifically, 

new single-aisle aircraft with an FAAcertificated maximum seating capacity 

of 125 seats or more in which lavatories 

are provided, must include at least one 

lavatory of sufficient size to permit a 

qualified individual with a disability 

equivalent in size to a 95th-percentile 

male to approach, enter, maneuver 

within as necessary to use all lavatory 

facilities, and leave, by means of the 

aircraft’s on-board wheelchair, in a 

closed space that affords privacy 

equivalent to that afforded to 

ambulatory users. The lavatory must 

also be large enough to permit an 

assistant equivalent in size to a 95thpercentile male to assist the individual 

with a disability.59 This ‘‘95/95 

standard’’ applies to new single-aisle 

aircraft originally ordered after October 

3, 2033, or delivered after October 2, 

2035, or are part of a new typecertificated design filed with the FAA or 

a foreign carrier’s safety authority after 

October 2, 2024.60

In the NPRM, we noted that the 95/ 

95 standard for new single-aisle aircraft 

is likely larger than the standard for 

twin-aisle aircraft lavatories. Part 382 

requires twin-aisle aircraft to include at 

least one lavatory of sufficient size to 

permit a qualified individual with a 

disability to enter, maneuver within as 

necessary to use all lavatory facilities, 

and leave, by means of the aircraft’s onboard wheelchair, while affording 

privacy equivalent to that afforded 

ambulatory users.61 The twin-aisle 

standard does not specifically reference 

attendants, and does not specifically 

reference the size of either the passenger 

or the attendant. 

We sought comment on whether to 

apply the 95/95 standard to twin-aisle 

aircraft, particularly because twin-aisle 

aircraft are typically used for even 

longer flights than single-aisle aircraft.62

While we did not propose specific rule 

text, we asked extensive questions about 

the size and accessibility of twin-aisle 

aircraft lavatories today, as well as the 

costs and benefits of adopting a larger 

size standard. We requested, but did not 

receive, significant data on these 

questions during the previous 

rulemaking on accessible lavatories. 

Comments Received: Most disability 

organizations, including PVA et al., 

recommended adopting the 95/95 

standard for twin-aisle aircraft to ensure 

consistency across long-haul flights.63

They cited anecdotes from passengers 

with disabilities, and PVA survey data, 

indicating that passengers’ experience 

with current twin-aisle lavatories is 

‘‘varied,’’ with some lavatories reported 

to be too dangerous and/or too small. A 

minority of advocates urged DOT to 

require even larger lavatories (e.g., large 

enough to accommodate two attendants 

and/or an adult changing table). 

Approximately 30 individuals offered 

comments specifically on this proposal. 

All were supportive, with most 

expressing concern about the size of 

lavatories generally. 

Airline industry stakeholders, 

particularly A4A and IATA, urged the 

Department to further study the issue 

via the ACAA Advisory Committee, or 

via a full notice and comment process 

with proposed regulatory text, and seek 

input from lavatory manufacturers, 

before adopting any rule. They argued 

that the Department has no basis for 

calculating costs or benefits, given the 

lack of data on whether current 

lavatories are effective and/or meet the 

95/95 standard. For similar reasons, 

they were not in favor of the Department 

setting an implementation period. Two 

airlines supported the 95/95 standard 

for twin-aisle aircraft in conjunction 

with further study/cooperation with 

advocates. Boeing indicated that they 

did not know the precise parameters of 

what would meet the 95/95 standard. 

The aircraft manufacturer urged further 

study, including study of transfer 

training and on-board wheelchair 

(OBW) size. Boeing did not provide any 

data on whether lavatories today meet 

the 95/95 standard. They suggested that 

their twin-aisle lavatories meet nonbinding 1992 guidelines, which called 

for a 97.5th-percentile-male standard.64

We received no comments from other 

manufacturers of aircraft or aircraft 

lavatories. 

DOT Response: Despite our efforts 

through this NPRM and the prior 

rulemaking on accessible lavatories, the 

Department has not received adequate 

data from which to assess the costs and 

benefits of a requirement to adopt a 95/ 

95 standard for lavatories on twin-aisle 

aircraft. We believe it is generally 

reasonable to assume that a lavatory 

meeting the 95/95 standard would be as 

large as, or larger than, the typical 

baseline accessible lavatory found on 

twin-aisle aircraft today.65 However, it 

is not clear how much larger a 95/95 

lavatory would be, and it is also not 

clear whether any incremental benefits 

of a 95/95 lavatory would justify the 

costs of a requirement to install them. 

For this reason, the Department is 

deferring for a later rulemaking the 

determination of whether to apply the 

95/95 standard to twin-aisle aircraft. 

Meanwhile, the Department plans to 

examine how best to obtain sufficient 

data and information so as not to delay 

action in this area. This issue remains 

an area of interest for the Department 

given twin-aisle aircraft are typically 

used for even longer flights than singleaisle aircraft. 

III. Compliance Periods 

Carriers must comply with the 

provisions in this final rule by January 

16, 2025, with some exceptions. 

On or after March 17, 2025, airlines 

must offer passengers the option of 

either the carrier handling the prompt 

repair or replacement of the passengers’ 

wheelchairs/scooter or the passenger 

arranging for the repair or replacement 

of the device through his or her 

preferred vendor. Carriers also have 

until that date to comply with the 

requirement to notify in writing 

passengers whose wheelchairs or 

scooters have been mishandled of their 

rights, including their right to choose a 

preferred vendor, if desired, for device 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102436 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

repairs or replacement. The requirement 

for airlines to reimburse passengers the 

difference between the fare on a flight 

a wheelchair or scooter user took and 

the fare on a flight that the wheelchair 

or scooter user would have taken if his 

or her wheelchair had fit is also March 

17, 2025. 

Beginning on June 16, 2025, carriers 

must transport a delayed wheelchair or 

scooter to the passenger’s final 

destination within 24 hours of the 

passenger’s arrival for domestic flights 

and short international flights and 

within 30 hours of the passenger’s 

arrival for long international flights. 

On or after December 17, 2025, 

carriers must comply with the 

requirement to notify passengers 

whether their wheelchairs or scooters 

have been loaded onto their flights 

(including whether their device could 

not fit on the passenger’s scheduled 

flight because of its size or weight) 

before the aircraft cabin door closes and 

the requirement to notify passengers 

with disabilities before they deplane 

when their wheelchairs or scooters have 

been unloaded from the cargo 

compartments of their flights upon 

arrival. Carriers also have until that date 

to establish and provide, after 

consultation with disability rights 

organizations, safe and adequate seating 

accommodation(s) to be used by a 

person with a disability when waiting 

for a delayed personal wheelchair or 

waiting for a loaner wheelchair after a 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter is 

mishandled by the carrier and cannot be 

promptly returned. 

No later than June 17, 2026, carriers 

must have provided or ensured initial 

training on the new requirements for all 

employees and contractors who provide 

physical assistance to passengers with 

mobility disabilities or handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs or scooters, 

including in-depth hands-on training. 

Relevant airline employees or 

contractors who are hired after June 17, 

2026, must receive in-depth hands-on 

training as required by this final rule 

before they assume their duties. 

IV. Severability 

The overall purpose of this final rule 

is to increase access to safe and 

dignified air travel for individuals with 

disabilities. Some of the provisions of 

this final rule clarify the Department’s 

existing interpretation of the ACAA by 

specifying when safe, adequate, and 

prompt assistance is required to be 

provided by airlines. Other provisions 

improve accommodations for 

individuals with disabilities in the 

event of a wheelchair mishandling by an 

airline. Such provisions include 

notifying passengers when their 

wheelchairs have been loaded onto and 

off of the aircraft, strict timeframes for 

the return of a delayed wheelchair, 

improved options for passengers when 

coordinating wheelchair repairs and 

replacements, new requirements for 

loaner wheelchairs, and provisions for 

reimbursing passengers for costs related 

to mishandlings. Separately, the rule 

requires airline personnel that provide 

physical assistance to individuals with 

disabilities and that handle passengers’ 

personal wheelchairs to receive annual 

hands-on training. Finally, the rule 

requires an expanded rollout of OBWs 

with improved safety and accessibility 

features. 

This entire suite of measures is 

designed to ensure accessibility and 

equality in air travel for individuals 

with disabilities and to address the 

ongoing and serious difficulties that 

wheelchair users experience today 

when traveling, including wheelchair 

damage and personal injuries. However, 

the Department finds that these 

proposals can operate independently 

from each other, if necessary, and are 

intended to operate as such. For 

example, the requirement that service 

must be safe and dignified (as defined 

in this rule) is intended to operate 

separately from the requirement that 

assistance must be prompt. Updated 

training standards can operate 

separately and are not related to 

requirements to reimburse passengers 

with disabilities the difference between 

the fare on a flight taken by a passenger 

who uses a wheelchair and the fare on 

a flight that the passenger would have 

taken if his or her wheelchair had been 

able to fit in the cabin or cargo 

compartment of the aircraft. Likewise, 

the new rule text regarding a rebuttable 

presumption of a violation set forth the 

specific metric by which the 

Department measures violations of the 

ACAA for enforcement purposes is 

separate and unrelated from 

requirements regarding standards for 

on-board wheelchairs. Even the 

notification provisions can stand 

separately from each other because they 

relate to distinct and independent 

duties to notify passengers of their 

rights before the flight, during the 

journey, and after the flight. In general, 

in the event that a court were to 

invalidate one or more of this final 

rule’s provisions as finalized, the 

Department’s intent is that the 

remaining provisions should remain in 

effect to the greatest extent possible. 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’), supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563 (‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’), 

directs Federal agencies to propose or 

adopt a regulation only after making a 

reasoned determination that the benefits 

of the intended regulation justifies its 

costs. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has determined that this 

final rule is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 and 

requires an assessment of potential 

benefits and costs. Accordingly, the 

Department has prepared a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for the final rule, 

summarized in this section and 

available in the docket. Table 1 below 

provides a summary of the costs and 

benefits of this proposed rulemaking. 

The rule is expected to reduce 

injuries, including fatalities, sustained 

by passengers with disabilities while 

receiving physical assistance from 

airline staff (this physical assistance is 

usually provided when transferring 

between different types of wheelchairs 

and between wheelchairs and airplane 

seats). Benefits of avoided injuries and 

fatalities due to improved transfer 

assistance are discussed qualitatively 

but were not quantified due to 

uncertainty related to baseline rate of 

fatality or injury per enplanement from 

poor transfer assistance, the 

effectiveness of the final rule in 

preventing such injuries and fatalities, 

and the typical social cost of such 

injuries. Additional unquantified 

benefits from the final rule include the 

avoidance of potentially embarrassing or 

undignified experiences from poor 

transfer assistance that include being 

treated disrespectfully, being dropped, 

or having clothing disarrayed and body 

parts exposed. 

The rule is also expected to reduce 

the frequency and degree of damages to 

wheelchairs and scooters and the 

impacts to passengers due to damaged 

wheelchairs and scooters. Wheelchair 

and scooter mishandlings can make 

them inoperable, which is an 

undignified situation and has an 

immediate and severe impact on 

passengers’ personal mobility. It can 

also lead to passengers suffering injuries 

from using a temporary wheelchair or 

scooter that is not customized to their 

needs while their personal wheelchair 

or scooter is being repaired or replaced. 

Passengers who use OBWs conforming 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102437 

to the new performance standards will 

benefit from the increased safety and 

accessibility features of the wheelchairs, 

leading to reduced injury during use of 

the OBW during flight. The greater 

safety, convenience, and accessibility 

provided by these provisions could lead 

passengers with disabilities to increase 

their use of air travel, either by 

switching from slower modes of travel 

or by making more long-distance trips. 

The potential increase in travel and the 

associated increase in consumer surplus 

have not been quantified in this 

analysis. 

Under the final rule, the additional 

training requirement will increase costs 

for carriers in the form of additional 

labor hours for personnel who will 

receive training, labor hours for trainers, 

and in some cases additional cost to 

acquire and maintain equipment used in 

the training. Carriers will have 

flexibility in terms of how they manage 

the trainings and how they are 

performed, but the final rule requires 

certain topics be covered. Some of the 

provisions of the final rule are expected 

to have costs but have not been 

estimated quantitatively. These impacts 

have been summarized in tables 1 and 

2 below. 

BILLING CODE P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5ER17DE24.073</GPH>

Table 1: Total Benefits and Costs for Quantified Provisions (2025-2044) (millions) 

Final Rule Provision 

§ 382.141 Enhanced Training 

Requirements for Certain 

Airline Personnel and 

Contractors 

§ 382.141 Enhanced 

Wheelchair Handling 

Training Component 

§ 382.141 Enhanced 

Physical Assistance 

Training Component 

§ 382.65 Onboard Wheelchair 

Performance Requirements 

Total Costs 

Total Benefits 

Net Benefits 

Final Rule Provision 

Safe and Dignified Assistance 

for Passengers with 

Disabilities(§ 382.ll{b) and 

§ 382.3) 

Prompt Boarding, Deplaning, 

and Connecting Assistance 

for Passengers with 

Disabilities(§ 382.89(a) and§ 

382.89(b)) 

Wheelchair Handling 

Requirements(§ 382.130(ab)) 

Tota I 20-yea r Annualized 

Value Value, 

Discounted at 2 Discounted at 2 

Costs/Benefits percent Percent Unquantified Impacts 

Costs -$292.7 -$14.7 NIA 

Benefits $221.2 $11.1 A voided Loss of 

Mobility; Improved 

Passenger Dignity; 

A voided Fatalities and 

Injuries 

Costs -$149.6 -$7.5 NIA 

Benefits $221.2 $11.1 Avoided Loss of 

Mobility; Avoided 

Fatalities and Injuries 

Costs -$143.1 -$7.2 NIA 

Benefits Not quantified Not quantified Improved Passenger 

Dignity; Avoided 

Fatalities and Injuries 

Costs -$18.0 -$0.9 NIA 

Benefits Not quantified Not quantified A voided Injuries, and 

Lavatory Accessibility 

-$310.7 -$15.6 NIA 

$221.2 $11.1 NIA 

-$89.5 -$4.5 NIA 

Table 2: Impacts for Unquantified Provisions 

Costs/Benefits Impacts 

Benefits Clarifies Existing Requirements 

Costs Potentially additional staffing in some circumstances 

Transfers NIA 

Benefits Clarifies existing requirements 

Costs Potential additional staffing in some circumstances 

Transfers NIA 

Benefits Clarifies existing requirements 

Costs NIA 

Transfers NIA 

Benefits Passengers have critical information 

Costs Development and operation costs for airlines 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102439 

66 14 CFR 298.2. 

67Bureau of Transportation Statistics. No date. 

‘‘Aviation Support Tables: Carrier Decode’’ https:// 

www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.aspx?gnoyr_

VQ=GDH&QO_fu146_anzr=N8vn6v10%20

f722146%20gnoyr5. To access the data, download 

all field names, filter to only show ‘‘Carrier_Group_

New’’ code 5, sort by End_Date, and count entries 

with no End_Date value. 

BILLING CODE C 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. A 

direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is 

a small business if it provides air 

transportation only with small aircraft 

(i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000- 

pound payload capacity).66 In 2024, 29 

air carriers meeting these criteria 

reported passengers traffic data to the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics.67 As 

described in the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), the primary 

regulatory initiatives discussed in this 

final rule would apply to carriers that 

operate aircraft with FAA-certificated 

maximum capacity of 19 or more seats. 

This group of impacted air carriers 

includes small businesses. There would 

be an impact on those carriers due to 

proposed increased training 

requirements for personnel who provide 

physical assistance and perform 

wheelchair handling. The RIA estimates 

that the final rule would require two 

additional hours of training per year for 

personnel performing physical 

assistance or performing wheelchair 

handling (§ 382.141), as well as costs 

related to trainers and materials. 

However, the cost of two additional 

hours of wages per year per employee is 

expected to be nonsignificant. Assuming 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5ER17DE24.074</GPH>

Final Rule Provision 

Passenger Notifications 

{§382.41{b}, § 382.125, § 

382.130} 

Prompt Return of Delayed 

Wheelchairs or Scooters(§ 

382.130{c}{1-5}} 

Prompt Repair or 

Replacement of Damaged 

Wheelchairs or Scooters(§ 

382.130{d}} 

Loaner Wheelchair 

Accommodations (§ 

382.130{e} and 

382.130{c}(4}} 

Fare Difference 

Reimbursement and 

Rebooking Requirements (§ 

382.132 and 382.125{f}{2}} 

All Provisions 

Costs/Benefits 

Transfers 

Benefits 

Costs 

Transfers 

Benefits 

Costs 

Transfers 

Benefits 

Costs 

Transfers 

Benefits 

Costs 

Transfers 

Benefits 

Costs 

Transfers 

Impacts 

NIA 

A voided fatalities and injuries; mobility 

Potentially high incremental costs for returning delayed 

wheelchairs in some circumstances. 

Carriers incur ground transportation cost reimbursement 

dollar for dollar, and passengers receive benefit of 

reimbursement dollar for dollar. 

Avoided fatalities and injuries; mobility 

Development and operation costs for airlines. 

Avoided fatalities and injuries; mobility while passenger's 

chair is being repaired 

Potential costs for new terminal seating 

Increased accessibility for preferred routes and times. 

A voided delayed wheelchair and safety and mobility; 

avoided final destination delivery costs for delayed 

wheelchairs 

Development and operation costs for airlines. 

Carriers incur cost of reimbursement dollar for dollar, and 

passengers receive benefit of reimbursement dollar for 

dollar. 

New trips taken by people with disabilities; generalized cost 

reduction for passengers with disabilities switching to air 

travel from other modes. 

Potential increased average cost per seat due to increase in 

share of passengers using wheelchairs 
102440 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

68See 40 CFR 1508.4. 

69 Id. 

relevant personnel work 2,000 hours per 

year on average (40 hours per week 

times 50 weeks per year), a two-hour 

increase is just a 0.1% increase in labor 

costs for the impacted roles which 

would be a much smaller percentage of 

all labor costs and an even smaller 

percentage of all operating costs. The 

other provisions of the rule either apply 

only to carriers that operate at least one 

aircraft with more than 60 seats and are 

therefore not small businesses, or do not 

impose costs. Accordingly, the 

Department does not believe that the 

final rule would have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

One regulatory alternative which 

would reduce impacts on small 

businesses due to the rule is to require 

enhanced training only for carriers that 

operate any aircraft with more than 60 

seats. The Department has concluded 

that this alternative does not meet the 

objectives of the rulemaking. Employees 

and contractors of carriers that qualify 

as small entities should also be 

sufficiently trained to ensure that 

passengers who use wheelchairs, 

including those who live in smaller 

communities of the country, receive 

safe, prompt, and dignified assistance 

during air travel. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This final rule 

does not (1) have substantial direct 

effects on the States, the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among the various 

levels of government; (2) impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments; or (3) 

preempt State law. States are already 

preempted from regulating in this area 

by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 

U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

D. Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because this final rule will not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian Tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule adds new collections of 

information that would require OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA). 

The rule requires carriers to notify 

passengers in writing when they are 

checking their wheelchairs or scooters 

that if their wheelchair or scooter is 

mishandled, they have the right to 

contact a CRO and a right to file a claim 

with the carrier. 

The rule requires carriers to notify 

passengers whether their wheelchairs or 

scooters have been loaded onto their 

flights (including whether their device 

could not fit on the passenger’s 

scheduled flight because of its size or 

weight) before the aircraft cabin door 

closes. The rule also requires carriers to 

notify passengers, before they deplane, 

when their wheelchairs or scooters have 

been unloaded from the cargo 

compartment of their flights. 

Next, the rule requires airlines to 

notify passengers whose wheelchairs or 

scooters have been mishandled in 

writing of their rights: (1) to file a claim 

with the airline, (2) to receive a loaner 

wheelchair from the airline with certain 

customizations, (3) to choose a preferred 

vendor, if desired, for device repairs or 

replacement, and (4) to have a CRO 

available and be provided information 

on how to contact the CRO. 

The rule also requires airlines to 

provide status update notifications to 

passengers on their delayed wheelchairs 

or scooters when there is a status 

change. Carriers must also publish 

information in a prominent and easily 

accessible place on their public-facing 

websites describing the relevant 

dimensions and other characteristics of 

the cargo holds of all aircraft types 

operated by the carrier, including the 

dimensions of the cargo hold entry, that 

would limit the size, weight, and 

allowable type of cargo. 

In addition, the rule requires airlines 

to disclose on their websites 

information on the documentation 

required from the passengers related to 

reimbursements of the fare difference 

when passengers who use wheelchairs 

or scooters cannot book their preferred 

flight because their wheelchairs or 

scooters cannot fit in the cabin or cargo 

compartment of the aircraft of their 

preferred flights, and the passengers 

must book more expensive flights that 

can accommodate their wheelchairs or 

scooters. 

Notifications must be provided in an 

accessible format for individuals with 

disabilities. A carrier is defined as a 

U.S. citizen or foreign citizen that 

undertakes, directly or indirectly, or by 

a lease or any other arrangement, to 

engage in air transportation. Under the 

PRA, before an agency submits a 

proposed collection of information to 

OMB for approval, it must first publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

providing notice of the proposed 

information collection and a 60-day 

comment period, and otherwise consult 

with members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information. The 

Department has not yet published a 

notice of the proposed information 

collection. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) requires, at 2 U.S.C. 

1532, that agencies prepare an 

assessment of anticipated costs and 

benefits before issuing any rule that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted annually 

for inflation) in any one year. As 

described elsewhere in the preamble, 

this final rule will have no such effect 

on State, local, and Tribal governments 

or on the private sector. Therefore, the 

Department has determined that no 

assessment is required pursuant to 

UMRA. 

G. National Environmental Policy Act 

The Department has analyzed the 

environmental impacts of this final 

action pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 

determined that it is categorically 

excluded pursuant to DOT Order 

5610.1C, Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (44 Fed. Red. 

56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical 

exclusions are actions identified in an 

agency’s NEPA implementing 

procedures that do not normally have a 

significant impact on the environment 

and therefore do not require either an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS).68

In analyzing the applicability of a 

categorical exclusion, the agency must 

also consider whether extraordinary 

circumstances are present that would 

warrant the preparation of an EA or 

EIS.69 Paragraph 4.c.6.i of DOT Order 

5610.1C categorically excludes 

‘‘[a]ctions relating to consumer 

protection, including regulations.’’ This 

rulemaking concerns consumer and 

civil rights protection for individuals 

with disabilities. The Department does 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102441 

not anticipate any environmental 

impacts, and there are no extraordinary 

circumstances present in connection 

with this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382 

Air carriers, Civil rights, Consumer 

protection, Individuals with Disabilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department of 

Transportation proposes to amend 14 

CFR part 382 as follows: 

PART 382—NONDISCRIMINATION ON 

THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR 

TRAVEL 

■ 1. Amend the authority citation for 

part 382 to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702 and 41705, 

Pub. L. 115–254, and Pub. L. 118–63. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Amend § 382.3 by adding in 

alphabetical order definitions for 

‘‘Custody’’, ‘‘Dignified’’, ‘‘Hands-on 

training’’, ‘‘Mishandled’’, and ‘‘Safe’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 382.3 What do the terms in this rule 

mean? 

* * * * * 

Custody means the time period when 

a passenger has checked a wheelchair, 

scooter, or other assistive device with a 

carrier and the carrier has control of a 

passenger’s wheelchair, scooter, or other 

assistive device. 

(1) An airline’s custody begins when 

the passenger hands the device to an 

airline’s representative or agent or 

leaves the wheelchair, scooter, or other 

assistive device at a location as 

instructed by the airline. 

(2) An airline’s custody ends when 

the passenger, or someone acting on 

behalf of the passenger, or another 

airline takes physical possession of the 

wheelchair, scooter, or other assistive 

device. 

* * * * * 

Dignified means assistance provided 

in a manner that respects a passenger’s 

independence, autonomy, and privacy, 

which includes but is not limited to: 

airline personnel providing transfer 

assistance in a manner that ensures the 

passenger’s clothing is not removed; 

airline personnel not unduly delaying 

requests for access to a restroom such 

that the individual soils himself or 

herself; and, to the maximum extent 

possible, airline personnel 

communicating directly with the 

individual with disability (e.g., rather 

than his or her companion or another 

individual) when the individual with 

disability is interacting with them. 

* * * * * 

Hands-on training means in-person 

training that is received by an employee 

or contractor where the employee or 

contractor can learn and practice reallife scenarios in a safe and controlled 

environment without the possibility of 

real-life consequences to passengers 

with disabilities and with the use of a 

suitable life-sized model or equipment, 

as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

Mishandled means lost, delayed, 

damaged, or pilfered. 

* * * * * 

Safe means assistance provided to 

individuals with disabilities that does 

not put them at heightened risk of 

bodily injury, which may include loss 

or damage to wheelchairs and other 

assistive devices that result in bodily 

injury. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—Nondiscrimination and 

Access to Services and Information 

■ 3. In § 382.11, redesignate paragraph 

(b) as paragraph (c) and add new 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 382.11 What is the general 

nondiscrimination requirement of this part? 

* * * * * 

(b) As a carrier or an indirect carrier, 

the assistance you provide with respect 

to this part must be performed in a safe 

and dignified manner. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Information for 

Passengers 

■ 4. Revise § 382.41 to read as follows: 

§ 382.41 What flight-related information 

must carriers provide to qualified 

individuals with a disability? 

(a) As a carrier, you must provide the 

following information, on request, to 

qualified individuals with a disability or 

persons making inquiries on their behalf 

concerning the accessibility of the 

aircraft expected to make a particular 

flight. The information you provide 

must be specific to the aircraft you 

expect to use for the flight unless it is 

unfeasible for you to do so (e.g., because 

unpredictable circumstances such as 

weather or a mechanical problem 

require substitution of another aircraft 

that could affect the location or 

availability of an accommodation). The 

required information is: 

(1) The specific location of seats, if 

any, with movable armrests (i.e., by row 

and seat number); 

(2) The specific location of seats (i.e., 

by row and seat number) that the 

carrier, consistent with this part, does 

not make available to passengers with a 

disability (e.g., exit row seats); 

(3) Any aircraft-related, servicerelated or other limitations on the 

ability to accommodate passengers with 

a disability, including limitations on the 

availability of level-entry boarding to 

the aircraft at any airport involved with 

the flight. You must provide this 

information to any passenger who states 

that he or she uses a wheelchair for 

boarding, even if the passenger does not 

explicitly request the information. 

(4) Any limitations on the availability 

of storage facilities, in the cabin or in 

the cargo bay, for mobility aids or other 

assistive devices commonly used by 

passengers with a disability, including 

storage in the cabin of a passenger’s 

wheelchair as provided in §§ 382.67 and 

382.123; 

(5) Information regarding accessibility 

of lavatories (see § 382.63(h)); and 

(6) The types of services to passengers 

with a disability that are or are not 

available on the flight. 

(b) As a carrier, you must publish 

information in a prominent and easily 

accessible place on your public-facing 

website(s) describing the relevant 

dimensions and other characteristics of 

the cargo holds of all aircraft types you 

operate, including the dimensions of the 

cargo hold entry, that would limit the 

size, weight, and allowable type of 

cargo. 

Subpart E—Accessibility of Aircraft 

■ 5. In § 382.65, revise paragraph (h) to 

read as follows: 

* * * * * 

(h)(1) If you replace an on-board 

wheelchair supplied on aircraft with an 

FAA-certificated maximum seating 

capacity of 125 or more after October 2, 

2026, then you must replace it with an 

on-board wheelchair that meets the 

standards set forth in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(2) After October 2, 2026, if you 

purchase or otherwise obtain a new onboard wheelchair for use on aircraft 

with more than 60 passenger seats, it 

must meet the standards set forth in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(3) Any on-board wheelchair supplied 

on aircraft with an FAA-certificated 

maximum seating capacity of more than 

60 passenger seats and that has an 

accessible lavatory and that was 

delivered after October 2, 2026, must 

meet the standards set forth in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(4) After October 2, 2031, any onboard wheelchair that you provide for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102442 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

passengers’ use on aircraft with more 

than 60 passenger seats must meet the 

standards set forth in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

(5) For purposes of paragraphs (h)(2) 

through (4) of this section, you must 

acquire OBWs that comply with as 

many of the safety and accessibility 

requirements in paragraph (e) of this 

section as are available. You must 

inform the Department at the address 

cited in 14 CFR 382.159 that an onboard wheelchair meeting that 

requirement is unavailable, if that is the 

case. 

Subpart G—Boarding, Deplaning, and 

Connecting Assistance 

■ 6. Section 382.89 is added to subpart 

G to read as follows: 

§ 382.89 How timely must the service 

required under this Subpart be provided by 

carriers to passengers with disabilities? 

(a) As a carrier, the assistance you 

provide with respect to this subpart 

must be performed in a prompt manner. 

(b) Whether the assistance is prompt 

is dependent on the totality of the 

circumstances, except, for as set forth in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Prompt assistance for a person 

who uses a boarding chair (i.e., aisle 

chair) in deplaning means: 

(1) Personnel and boarding chair must 

be available to deplane the passenger 

when the last passenger who did not 

request deplaning assistance departs the 

aircraft; 

(2) The passenger’s personal 

wheelchair must be available as close as 

possible to the door of the aircraft to the 

maximum extent possible, except: 

(i) Where this practice would be 

inconsistent with Federal regulations 

governing transportation security or the 

transportation of hazardous materials; or 

(ii) When the passenger requests the 

wheelchair be returned at a location 

other than the door of the aircraft; and 

(3) When a passenger’s personal 

wheelchair is not available at the door 

of the aircraft for the reasons set forth 

in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, an 

airport wheelchair must be available as 

close as possible to the door of the 

aircraft for the passenger’s use. 

■ 7. In § 382.95, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 382.95 What are carriers’ general 

obligations with respect to boarding and 

deplaning assistance? 

(a) As a carrier, you must provide or 

ensure the provision of assistance 

requested by or on behalf of passengers 

with a disability, or offered by carrier or 

airport operator personnel and accepted 

by passengers with a disability, in 

enplaning and deplaning. This 

assistance must include, as needed, the 

services of personnel and the use of 

ground wheelchairs, accessible 

motorized carts, boarding wheelchairs, 

and/or on-board wheelchairs where 

provided in accordance with this part, 

and ramps or mechanical lifts. 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—Stowage of Wheelchairs, 

Other Mobility Aids, and Other 

Assistive Devices 

■ 8. In § 382.125, add paragraphs (e) and 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 382.125 What procedures do carriers 

follow when wheelchairs, other mobility 

aids, and other assistive devices must be 

stowed in the cargo compartment? 

* * * * * 

(e) You must notify passengers in 

writing when they check wheelchairs or 

scooters to be stowed in the baggage 

compartment that they have the right to 

contact a CRO, how they can contact a 

CRO, and the right to file a claim with 

the airline if their wheelchairs or 

scooters are mishandled while in your 

custody. You must provide this 

notification in an accessible format for 

individuals with disabilities. 

(f)(1) You must notify passengers with 

disabilities, before the aircraft cabin 

door closes, whether their wheelchairs 

or scooters have been loaded in the 

cargo compartments of their flights, 

including whether their device could 

not fit on the passenger’s scheduled 

flight because of its size or weight. 

(2) If a passenger’s wheelchair or 

scooter is not loaded on his or her 

scheduled flight for whatever reason, 

you must offer to disembark the 

passenger and rebook them at no 

additional cost on the next available 

flight operated by you or a partner 

carrier. In addition, when you become 

aware that a passenger’s wheelchair or 

scooter does not fit on the passenger’s 

scheduled flight, if that is the case, you 

must offer to rebook the passenger at no 

additional cost on the next available 

flight operated by you or a partner 

carrier where the wheelchair or scooter 

will fit, if such an aircraft is available. 

(3) You must notify passengers with 

disabilities, before they deplane, when 

their wheelchairs or scooters have been 

unloaded from the cargo compartments 

of their flights upon arrival. 

(4) You must provide the notifications 

required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (3) of 

this section in an accessible format for 

individuals with disabilities. 

■ 9. Section 382.130 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 382.130 What are the handling 

requirements for wheelchairs, scooters, 

other mobility aids, and other assistive 

devices and what obligations apply when 

wheelchairs or other assistive devices are 

mishandled? 

(a) You must return checked 

wheelchairs, scooters, other mobility 

aids, and other assistive devices to the 

passenger in the condition in which you 

received them. Whenever a passenger’s 

checked wheelchair, scooter, other 

mobility aid, or other assistive device 

that was in your custody is not returned 

to the passenger in the same condition 

it was received, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that you mishandled the 

passenger’s wheelchair, scooter, other 

mobility aid, or other assistive device in 

violation of the ACAA. 

(1) The presumption of a violation in 

this paragraph (a) can be overcome if 

you can successfully demonstrate that 

the alleged mishandling of the 

wheelchair, scooter, other mobility aid, 

or other assistive device did not occur 

while the wheelchair, scooter, other 

mobility aid, or assistive device was in 

your control and custody (e.g., the 

damage occurred before the passenger 

checked the wheelchair, scooter, other 

mobility aid, or assistive device; the 

damage occurred after you returned the 

wheelchair, scooter, other mobility aid, 

or assistive device to the passenger) or 

that the passenger’s claim is false or 

fraudulent. 

(2) The presumption of a violation in 

this paragraph (a) cannot be overcome 

by demonstrating that the mishandling 

of a checked wheelchair, scooter, other 

mobility aid, or other assistive device is 

the result of ‘‘an act of God’’ or other 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

airline. 

(b) When you become aware that a 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter has 

been mishandled (i.e., your personnel 

notices that the wheelchair or assistive 

device has been mishandled or the 

passenger notifies airline personnel of 

the mishandling of the wheelchair or 

assistive device, whichever occurs first), 

you must immediately notify the 

impacted passenger in writing of his or 

her rights to file a claim with the carrier, 

to receive a loaner wheelchair or scooter 

from the carrier with certain 

customizations described in paragraph 

(e) of this section, to choose a preferred 

vendor for repairs or replacement of the 

device, and to have a Complaints 

Resolution Official (CRO) available and 

be provided information on how to 

contact the CRO. You must provide this 

notification in an accessible format for 

individuals with disabilities. 

(c)(1) When a passenger’s checked 

wheelchair or scooter has been delayed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102443 

while in your custody, you must ensure 

that the device is transported to the 

passenger’s final destination within 24 

hours of the passenger’s arrival for 

domestic flights and short international 

flights between the United States and a 

foreign point that is 12 hours or less in 

duration and within 30 hours of the 

passenger’s arrival for long international 

flights between the United States and a 

foreign point that is more than 12 hours 

in duration. You must transport the 

delayed device by whatever means are 

available to safely do so. 

(2) You must provide passengers a 

choice between picking up the delayed 

wheelchair or scooter at the passenger’s 

final destination airport or having the 

delayed wheelchair or scooter delivered 

to a reasonable location requested by the 

passenger, such as the passenger’s home 

or hotel. Depending on the passenger’s 

choice, the delayed wheelchair or 

scooter is considered to be provided to 

the passenger either when the passenger 

or another person authorized to act on 

behalf of the passenger picks up the 

delayed wheelchair or scooter at his or 

her destination airport or when you 

deliver the delayed wheelchair or 

scooter to the passenger or another 

person authorized to act on behalf of the 

passenger at a reasonable location 

requested by the passenger, such as the 

passenger’s home or hotel. 

(3) If a passenger files a claim with 

you for a delayed wheelchair or scooter, 

you must provide them updates when 

there is a status change for the delayed 

device. 

(4) In consultation with disability 

rights organizations, you must establish 

and provide safe and adequate seating 

accommodations at the airport to be 

used by individuals with disabilities 

who are waiting for delayed personal 

wheelchairs or scooters or waiting for 

loaner wheelchairs or scooters after a 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter is 

mishandled by you and cannot be 

promptly returned. 

(5) You must reimburse passengers for 

the cost(s) of any transportation to or 

from the airport that the passenger 

incurred as a direct result of you 

delaying the passenger’s wheelchair or 

scooter. You may require passengers to 

submit documentation that substantiates 

the cost(s), such as receipts or invoices, 

to receive reimbursement. 

(d) When a passenger’s checked 

wheelchair or scooter has been lost, 

damaged, or pilfered while in your 

custody, you must: 

(1) Provide the passenger a reasonable 

timeframe to inspect the wheelchair or 

scooter and to file a claim with the 

carrier for the mishandling; 

(2) Provide the passenger the 

following options if repair or 

replacement is needed: 

(i) The passenger may file a claim 

with you and elect for the carrier to 

handle the repair or replacement of the 

wheelchair or scooter. If the passenger 

selects this option, you must promptly 

repair or replace the wheelchair or 

scooter, with a device of equivalent or 

greater function and safety, and pay the 

cost of repair or replacement; or 

(ii) The passenger may file a claim 

with you and elect to use the 

passenger’s preferred vendor to repair or 

replace the wheelchair or scooter. If the 

passenger selects this option, you are 

responsible for promptly transporting 

the passenger’s wheelchair or scooter to 

the passenger’s preferred vendor, unless 

the passenger has indicated that he or 

she will arrange for the transport 

themselves, and for directly paying the 

cost of transport and repair or 

replacement, with a device of equivalent 

or greater function and safety; and 

(3) Promptly review all claims 

received within a reasonable time of the 

repaired or replaced wheelchair or 

scooter being returned to the passenger 

alleging that the provided repairs were 

not sufficient. If the passenger’s claim is 

warranted and the initial repairs were 

insufficient, then you must promptly 

repair or replace the device to the 

passenger’s satisfaction. 

(e) While the passenger is waiting for 

his or her mishandled personal 

wheelchair or scooter to be returned, 

repaired, or replaced, you must use your 

best efforts to work with the passenger 

and to provide an adequate loaner 

wheelchair or scooter that meets the 

passenger’s functional, mobility-related 

and safety-related needs, to the 

maximum extent possible. You must 

pay for the cost of the loaner wheelchair 

or scooter. If the loaner wheelchair or 

scooter you offer does not meet the 

passenger’s functional and safety-related 

needs as well as the passenger’s existing 

device, the passenger may find and 

secure an alternative loaner wheelchair 

or scooter that is better than the one you 

offered, and you must reimburse the 

passenger for the cost of that loaner 

within 30 days of the passenger’s 

request. You may require the passenger 

to provide documentation substantiating 

the cost, such as receipts or invoices, to 

receive the reimbursement. 

(f) The liability limits for carriers 

under the Montreal Convention will 

apply if the wheelchair or scooter 

mishandling occurs on an international 

flight. 

■ 10. Section 382.132 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 382.132 What requirements apply when a 

passenger who uses a wheelchair or 

scooter cannot purchase a certain flight 

because his or her wheelchair or scooter 

will not fit in the cabin or cargo 

compartment of the aircraft for that flight? 

(a) As part of your obligation under 

§ 382.11 to not exclude a qualified 

individual with a disability from or 

deny the person the benefit of any air 

transportation or related services that 

are available to other persons, to the 

extent a passenger who uses a 

wheelchair or scooter cannot book his or 

her preferred flight because his or her 

wheelchair or scooter cannot fit in the 

cabin or cargo compartment of the 

aircraft of the preferred flight, and the 

passenger must book a more expensive 

flight that can accommodate the 

passenger’s wheelchair or scooter, you 

must, upon request, reimburse the 

passenger the difference between the 

more expensive flight the passenger 

purchased and had to take and the 

preferred flight that the passenger 

would have purchased and taken if his 

or her wheelchair or scooter had been 

able to fit. 

(b) As a condition for issuing 

reimbursements in paragraph (a) of this 

section, you may require the following 

from passengers with disabilities: 

(1) The preferred flight and the more 

expensive flight are on the same airline; 

(2) The preferred flight and the more 

expensive flight are on the same day; 

(3) The preferred flight and the more 

expensive flight have the same origin 

and destination; 

(4) Reasonable documentation to 

verify: the dimensions of the passenger’s 

wheelchair or scooter; the cost of the 

passenger’s preferred flight that could 

not accommodate the passenger’s 

wheelchair or scooter; and the cost of 

the more expensive flight the passenger 

purchased and had to take. 

(c) You must provide the 

reimbursement required by paragraph 

(a) of this section within 30 days of 

receiving a request and the reasonable 

documentation permitted in paragraph 

(b) of this section, if you require such 

documentation. 

(d) You must disclose on your website 

accurate information on the 

documentation you require from the 

passenger to support a reimbursement 

claim. 

Subpart J—Training and 

Administrative Provisions 

■ 11. Revise § 382.141 to read as 

follows: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
102444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 382.141 What training are carriers 

required to provide for their personnel (i.e., 

employees and contractors)? 

(a) As a carrier that operates aircraft 

with 19 or more passenger seats, you 

must ensure training, meeting the 

requirements of this paragraph, for all 

personnel who interact with the 

traveling public or who handle 

passengers’ assistive devices, as 

appropriate to the duties of each 

employee or contractor. 

(1) General. You must ensure training 

to proficiency concerning: 

(i) The requirements of this part and 

other applicable Federal regulations 

affecting the provision of air travel to 

passengers with a disability; 

(ii) Your procedures, consistent with 

this part, concerning the provision of air 

travel to passengers with a disability, 

including the proper and safe operation 

of any equipment used to accommodate 

passengers with a disability; and 

(iii) Your procedures that safeguard 

the safety and dignity of passengers 

with disabilities when providing service 

required under this part. 

(2) Communication. You must ensure 

employees and contractors who interact 

with the traveling public are trained 

with respect to awareness of different 

types of disabilities, including how to 

distinguish among the differing abilities 

of individuals with disabilities. 

(i) You must ensure such employees 

and contractors are trained on 

appropriate ways to communicate and 

interact with passengers with 

disabilities, including persons with 

physical, sensory, speech, mental, 

intellectual, or emotional disabilities 

(e.g., communicating directly with the 

individual with a disability instead of to 

the travel companion/interpreter). 

(ii) You must also ensure such 

employees and contractors are trained to 

recognize requests for effective 

communication accommodation from 

individuals who have disabilities 

impacting communication (e.g., hearing 

or vision impaired individuals, nonverbal individuals), and to use the most 

common methods for communicating 

with these individuals that are readily 

available, such as writing notes or 

taking care to enunciate clearly, for 

example. Training in sign language is 

not required. You must also train these 

employees to recognize requests for 

communication accommodations from 

deaf-blind passengers and to use 

established means of communicating 

with these passengers when they are 

available, such as passing out Braille 

cards if you have them, reading an 

information sheet that a passenger 

provides, or communicating with a 

passenger through an interpreter, for 

example. 

(3) Physical assistance. You must 

ensure that employees and contractors 

who provide physical assistance to 

passengers with disabilities who use 

wheelchairs or scooters are trained in 

the matters listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section, and the 

following, as appropriate to the duties of 

each person: 

(i) Hands-on training concerning safe 

and dignified physical assistance, 

including: transfers to and from 

personal or airport wheelchairs, aisle 

chairs, and aircraft seats; proper lifting 

techniques to safeguard passengers; how 

to troubleshoot common challenges in 

providing physical assistance; and 

proper use of equipment used to 

physically assist passengers with 

disabilities; and 

(ii) Other training concerning the 

collecting and sharing of passenger 

information, such as Special Service 

Request (SSR) codes, needed to ensure 

safe, dignified, and prompt physical 

assistance, and effective 

communications with passengers with 

mobility disabilities, or their companion 

if direct communication with the 

individual with a disability is not 

possible. 

(iii) As part of this training, the 

employees and contractors must be able 

to successfully demonstrate their 

knowledge on the matters listed in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section (e.g., competency assessments or 

certification exams). 

(4) Handling of wheelchairs and 

scooters. You must ensure that 

employees and contractors who handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs or scooters are 

trained in the matters listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, 

and the following, as appropriate to the 

duties of each person: 

(i) Hands-on training concerning 

common types of wheelchairs and 

scooters and their features, airport and 

airline equipment used to load and 

unload wheelchairs and scooters, and 

methods for safely moving and stowing 

wheelchairs, including lifting 

techniques, wheelchair disassembly, 

reconfiguration, and reassembly, and 

securement in the cargo compartment of 

the aircraft; and 

(ii) Other training concerning the 

collecting and sharing of information 

regarding a passenger’s wheelchair or 

scooter, including using any airline 

wheelchair handling form(s) that may 

exist, to ensure the safe and proper 

handling of such assistive devices, and 

effective communications with 

passengers with mobility disabilities, or 

their companion if direct 

communication with the individual 

with a disability is not possible. 

(iii) As part of this training, the 

employees and contractors must be able 

to successfully demonstrate their 

knowledge on the matters listed in 

paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section (e.g., competency assessments or 

certification exams). 

(5) Consulting with disability rights 

organizations. You must consult with 

organizations representing individuals 

with disabilities in your home country 

when developing your training program 

and your policies and procedures. When 

making changes to such training 

programs and related policies and 

procedures that will have a significant 

impact on assistance provided to 

individuals with disabilities, you must 

consult with organizations representing 

individuals with disabilities who would 

be affected by those changes. If such 

organizations are not available in your 

home country, you must consult with 

individuals with disabilities and/or 

international organizations representing 

individuals with disabilities. 

(6) Training frequency. You must 

ensure that all personnel who are 

required to receive training receive 

refresher training on the matters covered 

by this section, as appropriate to the 

duties of each employee and contractor, 

as needed to maintain proficiency. The 

training program must describe how 

proficiency will be maintained. 

(i) All personnel who provide 

physical assistance to passengers with 

disabilities must receive initial training 

described in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section by June 17, 2026, and at least 

once every twelve months thereafter. All 

personnel who provide physical 

assistance to passengers with 

disabilities hired after June 17, 2026, 

must receive initial training described 

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section prior 

to assuming their duties and at least 

once every twelve months thereafter. 

(ii) All personnel who handle 

passengers’ wheelchairs or scooters 

must receive initial training described 

in paragraph (a)(4) of this section by 

June 17, 2026, and at least once every 

twelve months thereafter. All personnel 

who handle passengers’ wheelchairs or 

scooters hired after June 17, 2026, must 

receive initial training described in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section prior to 

assuming their duties and at least once 

every twelve months thereafter. 

(iii) All other personnel must receive 

training prior to assuming their duties 

and at least once every three years 

thereafter. 

(7) Contractors. You must provide, or 

ensure that your contractors receive, 

training concerning travel by passengers 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102445 

with disabilities. This training is 

required only for those contractors who 

interact directly with the traveling 

public or who handle passengers’ 

assistive devices, and it must be tailored 

to the employees’ functions. Training 

for contractors must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(8) Complaint Resolution Officials 

(CROs). The employees you designate as 

CROs, for purposes of § 382.151 of this 

part, must receive training concerning 

the requirements of this part, including 

the training described in paragraphs 

(a)(3) and (4) of this section and the 

duties of a CRO prior to assuming their 

duties as a CRO and at least once every 

twelve months thereafter. 

(b) If you are a carrier that operates 

only aircraft with fewer than 19 

passenger seats, you must ensure that 

your employees and contractors who 

directly interact with the traveling 

public are trained, as appropriate to 

their duties, to ensure that they are 

familiar with the matters listed in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, as well 

as to ensure they are knowledgeable on 

how to communicate with individuals 

with differing disabilities, how to 

physically assist individuals with 

mobility disabilities, and how to 

properly handle passengers’ 

wheelchairs and scooters. 

Issued this 12th day of December, 2024, in 

Washington, DC. 

Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29731 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES5