`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 102398-102445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29731]



[[Page 102397]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 242

December 17, 2024

Part V





 Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





14 CFR Part 382





Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers With Disabilities Using 
Wheelchairs; Final Rule

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

[[Page 102398]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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), 
[email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], or [email protected] (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 55 FR 8008 (Mar. 6, 1990).
    \3\ See, 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).
    \4\ See, 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).
    \5\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 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).
    \7\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-254, 
Sec. 440 (Oct. 5. 2018).
    \10\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 102399]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public Law 118-63, 
Sec. 544 (May 16, 2024).
    \12\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Paralyzed 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/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-ACAA-Survey-Results-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Many 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-Agreement-Improve-Wheelchair-Access-PDF.
    \15\ Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers With 
Disabilities Using Wheelchairs, 89 FR 17766 (Mar. 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 14 CFR 234.6 (requiring airlines to annually report 
mishandling of wheelchairs and scooters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102400]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 89 FR 38852 (May 8, 2024).
    \18\ The questions and the Department's responses are available 
at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-0144-1318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This total includes approximately 1,055 form letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102401]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.068


[[Page 102402]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.069


[[Page 102403]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.070


[[Page 102404]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.071


[[Page 102405]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.072

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

[[Page 102406]]

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ PVA's comment was co-signed by more than fifty other 
disability rights organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-expert 
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 A[eacute]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

[[Page 102407]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See American Airlines, Inc., Order 2013-12-4 (Dec. 6, 
2024).
    \22\ See 14 CFR 382.151(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, Sec.  
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 14 CFR 382.125(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102408]]

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 pre-arranged, 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 check-in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act Committee 
Recommendation'' (February 4, 2022), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0204-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 able-bodied 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 pre-staging 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

[[Page 102409]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 self-identify 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, elite-
level 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 14 CFR 382.95.
    \27\ See 14 CFR 382.93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act Committee 
Recommendation'' at 13.
    \29\ See 73 FR 27614, 27620 (May 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102410]]

mishandling of a wheelchair or other assistive device a per se 
violation of the ACAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ``Per se'' is a Latin phrase that means ``by itself'' or 
``inherently.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office 
of Airline Information (OAI), Technical Reporting Directive #30--
Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs and Scooters (October 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ``Res ipsa loquitur'' is a Latin phrase that means ``the 
thing speaks for itself.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 14 CFR 234.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 third-
party.\34\ While ``acts of God'' or actions

[[Page 102411]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 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 permissible grounds for exempting the 
carriers from the baggage fee refund obligation because the affected 
bags are under carriers' custody.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office 
of Airline Information (OAI), Technical Reporting Directive #30A--
Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs and Scooters (December 21, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102412]]

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 low-cost 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

[[Page 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-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances, 
like how the Department generally analyzes other disability-related 
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

[[Page 102414]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Federal 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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,

[[Page 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-and-comment 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

[[Page 102416]]

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 six-day 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

[[Page 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 
all-terrain 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

[[Page 102418]]

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-by-case 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

[[Page 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 time-consuming 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 pre-existing. 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

[[Page 102420]]

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

[[Page 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 on-call 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

[[Page 102422]]

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 health-related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 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.
    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 Cross-Disability 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

[[Page 102424]]

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 
case-by-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

[[Page 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

[[Page 102426]]

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

[[Page 102427]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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

[[Page 102428]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Comment from The Ability Center of Greater Toledo, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2022-0144-1409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102429]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Federal 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 mobility-related 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, ``hands-on 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

[[Page 102430]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The 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/disabilitybillofrights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102431]]

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-the-job 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

[[Page 102432]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Section 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.
    \43\ Section 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public Law 118-63, 
Sec. 542, 543 (May 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Comment from The Partnership for Inclusive Disaster 
Strategies (PIDS), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2022-0144-1472.
    \46\ See The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public Law 118-63, 
Sec. 542 (May 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 102433]]

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 real-life 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 on-the-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Department considered but ultimately decided against 
requiring airlines to provide hands-on 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 
semi-ambulatory person in moving to and from the lavatory does not 
include lifting or carrying the person. See 14 CFR 382.111(c) and 
(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See 14 CFR 382.151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 single-aisle 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 14 CFR 382.65(e), which describes in detail the 
improved OBW standards.
    \51\ 14 CFR 382.65(h).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 102434]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 14 CFR 382.65(g).
    \54\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Comment of PVA et al. at 50; see also Comment of The 
Arc at 45 (both with no examples provided).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
twin-aisle 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Given the relatively small number of new twin-aisle 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102435]]

websites regarding the accessibility features of aircraft lavatories by 
October 2, 2026.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 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 Sec.  382.65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 twin-aisle 
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 FAA-certificated 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 95th-percentile 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 type-certificated 
design filed with the FAA or a foreign carrier's safety authority after 
October 2, 2024.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Accessible 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 on-board 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 14 CFR 382.63(a)(1-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Analysis of Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 All 
Segment data. Data retrieved in Aug. 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Opinions 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-binding 1992 guidelines, which called for a 97.5th-percentile-
male standard.\64\ We received no comments from other manufacturers of 
aircraft or aircraft lavatories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See 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 95th-percentile male weighs 280 
pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 single-aisle aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 102436]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 102438]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.073


[[Page 102439]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.074

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 (Sec.  
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

[[Page 102440]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 14 CFR 298.2.
    \67\ Bureau 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%20f722146%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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 102441]]

not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no 
extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See 40 CFR 1508.4.
    \69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

0
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

0
2. Amend Sec.  382.3 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for 
``Custody'', ``Dignified'', ``Hands-on training'', ``Mishandled'', and 
``Safe'' to read as follows:


Sec.  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 real-life 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

0
3. In Sec.  382.11, redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and add 
new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  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

0
4. Revise Sec.  382.41 to read as follows:


Sec.  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, service-related 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 
Sec. Sec.  382.67 and 382.123;
    (5) Information regarding accessibility of lavatories (see Sec.  
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

0
5. In Sec.  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 on-board 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 on-board wheelchair that you provide 
for

[[Page 102442]]

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 on-board wheelchair meeting that requirement is 
unavailable, if that is the case.

Subpart G--Boarding, Deplaning, and Connecting Assistance

0
6. Section 382.89 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec.  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.

0
7. In Sec.  382.95, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  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

0
8. In Sec.  382.125, add paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  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.

0
9. Section 382.130 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 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.

0
10. Section 382.132 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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

0
11. Revise Sec.  382.141 to read as follows:

[[Page 102444]]

Sec.  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, non-verbal 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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`