[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22107-22116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11201]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 22107]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

49 CFR Part 27

[OST Docket No. 1999-6159]
RIN 2105-AC81


Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is 
amending its rules implementing the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 
(ACAA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require 
airports and air carriers to provide boarding assistance to individuals 
with disabilities by using ramps, mechanical lifts, or other suitable 
devices where level-entry boarding by loading bridge or mobile lounge 
is not available on any aircraft with a seating capacity of 31 or more 
passengers. This final rule parallels the 1996 final rule for aircraft 
with a seating capacity of 19 through 30 passengers.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Office of the General 
Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424, 
Washington, DC., 20590, 202-366-4723 (voice), (202) 755-7687 (TTY), 
202-366-9313 (fax), or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adcfc1ccc3c883dac2dfc6c4c8edc2ded983c9c2d983cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f6f8f5faf1bae3fbe6fffdf1d4fbe7e0baf0fbe0baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a> (email). Arrangements 
to receive the rule in an alternative format may be made by contacting 
the above named individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information

    Many airline passengers have mobility impairments and must be 
boarded and deplaned using a wheelchair. In 1996, the Department issued 
a rule to require the use of ramps, lifts or similar devices on most 
aircraft with 19 through 30 seats. At that time, the Department 
considered requiring ramps, lifts, or similar devices on all aircraft 
with 30 or fewer seats but the development of lift devices appeared not 
to have proceeded to the point where imposing regulation for the 
smallest aircraft (e.g., those under 19 passenger seats) would have 
been justified. Many believed that existing lift devices were not 
designed to work, or could not work, with aircraft with seating 
capacity of 19 or fewer passengers. The 1996 rule focused on smaller 
aircraft because many smaller aircraft don't use loading bridges, and 
in many cases mobility-impaired passengers have been boarded by being 
carried up aircraft stairs in a special ``boarding chair.'' This 
process is undignified for the passenger, and potentially dangerous for 
both the passenger and those who are providing the boarding assistance.
    In August 1999, recognizing that the need for level-entry boarding 
for passengers with mobility impairments also existed in larger 
aircraft, the Department of Transportation published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to extend the applicability of the 
1996 final rule to aircraft with a seating capacity of 31 or more 
passengers. Similar to the 1996 final rule on aircraft with 19 through 
30 seats, in the 1999 NPRM the Department proposed to require airports 
and airlines to work together to ensure the availability of lifts to 
provide level-entry boarding where it was not already available for 
passengers with disabilities traveling on aircraft with 31 or more 
seats. We received 27 comments from disability community organizations, 
individuals with disabilities, carriers, and industry associations 
representing airports and airlines. Of the 27 commenters, the vast 
majority generally supported the proposal but suggested substantive 
modifications in various parts of the rule.

Discussion of Comments

1. Boarding Assistance Methods

    Comments: The disability community comments had a common theme that 
carrying passengers up stairs by hand or in a boarding chair is a 
grossly offensive way of providing access, for reasons having to do 
with the dignity, safety, and comfort of passengers. Some disability 
group commenters did say, however, that using boarding chairs to carry 
passengers up stairs should be permitted with the consent of the 
passenger when a lift is inoperative or when there is an emergency. One 
disability group advocate, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, stressed 
that travelers with disabilities should be consulted about alternative 
arrangements (e.g. an alternative flight) when level boarding is not 
available.
    The majority of the comments from industry also supported the use 
of mechanical lifts, ramps or other suitable devices in most situations 
where level entry-boarding bridges and accessible passenger lounges are 
not available. However, American Trans Air argued against the general 
requirement for lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices. The carrier 
thought that airlines should be permitted to use ``reasonable efforts'' 
to provide boarding assistance to individuals with disabilities using 
mechanical lifts, ramps or other suitable devices that do not require 
employees to lift or carry passengers up stairs.
    The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) requested 
clarification as to when, if ever, a passenger with a disability may be 
carried onto an aircraft with the use of a chair or other device and 
when, if ever, a passenger with a disability may be physically hand 
carried on board. The ATA also requested clarification as to whether 
carrier personnel may assist a passenger transferring from an aisle 
chair to a seat by directly picking up the passenger's arms or legs.
    DOT Response: The Department is not persuaded that carriers should 
be permitted to simply use ``reasonable efforts'' to provide boarding 
assistance using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices 
that do not require employees to lift or carry passengers up stairs. It 
is not enough to use ``reasonable efforts'' to provide level-entry 
boarding. We will carry forward the 1996 provision and apply it here. 
Airline personnel will generally not be

[[Page 22108]]

permitted to carry passengers up stairs in a boarding chair, because it 
is an undignified and unsafe way of providing access for passengers and 
it increases risks to carrier personnel involved. The Department is 
requiring that, under normal circumstances, on an aircraft with 31 or 
more seats, carrier personnel may not lift passengers in boarding 
chairs up stairs as a means of effectuating the change of level needed 
for boarding. Hand-carrying (bodily picking up a passenger for purposes 
of a change of level) is only allowed when necessary for an emergency 
evacuation. In all other abnormal circumstances (e.g. if a lift breaks 
down), the carrier can use whatever means are available (including 
boarding chairs but not hand-carrying) as a means of effectuating the 
change of level needed for boarding. The use of a boarding chair to 
carry a passenger up or down stairs in such abnormal circumstances is 
conditioned on the passenger's consent (except in the case of emergency 
evacuations).
    The Department wants it to be clear that this does not mean that 
boarding chairs and/or aisle chairs cannot be used in the boarding 
assistance process. Indeed, their use is usually necessary to get the 
passenger to a seat from a lift. Nor does it mean that carrier 
personnel are relieved of their obligation to assist passengers in 
transferring from their own wheelchairs to a boarding or aisle chair 
and then from that device to an aircraft seat.

2. Implementation Schedules

    Comments: Both carriers and airports commented that the 18-month 
time frame for negotiating and implementing an agreement for the 
acquisition and use of level-entry boarding assistance devices was not 
sufficient to allow for the re-programming of funding, negotiations 
between carriers and airports, and employee training. On the other 
hand, disability community organizations and individuals with 
disabilities seemed to feel that the proposed 18-month time frame was 
too long and advocated for shortening the time to 12-months. These 
commenters argued for a shortening of time because years have passed 
since the ACAA regulations have been in place, lifts have been 
available for some time, and commenters believe that airlines and 
airports are capable of providing boarding assistance within the 12-
month time frame.
    DOT Response: The Department believes that existing lifts or lifts 
put in place in response to the 1996 small aircraft lift rule will 
assist in meeting the requirements of this rule. We expect that there 
may be many situations in which the same boarding assistance equipment 
used to provide access to 19 through 30 seat aircraft can be used for 
larger aircraft. Further, the final rule provides an 18-month time 
frame to permit an orderly acquisition process for additional equipment 
and to avoid increasing costs through an overly abrupt start-up 
requirement. In choosing an 18-month schedule, the Department has tried 
to balance the need to provide accessibility as soon as possible and 
the need to give parties a reasonable amount of time to do the work. 
The Department continues to believe that 18 months accomplishes this 
objective.

3. Private Charters and Irregular or Emergency Operations

    Comments: Carriers and airports argued that the requirement for 
airports and carriers to negotiate concerning the acquisition of 
boarding assistance devices should be limited to situations where the 
carrier is a regular, scheduled-service, or frequent user of the 
airport. These commenters asserted that the rule should not apply to 
private charters and irregular or emergency operations at airports 
where the carrier does not provide regular scheduled service. They also 
contended that the requirement for an agreement for the acquisition and 
use of boarding assistance devices should not apply to certain seasonal 
service.
    DOT Response: The Department does not believe that it is advisable 
to waive its level-entry boarding assistance requirements in situations 
where a carrier provides seasonal service or the carrier is not a 
regular, scheduled-service, or frequent user of an airport. The main 
point of this regulation is to ensure that, in as many situations as 
possible, passengers with disabilities be able to travel by air, with 
safety and dignity. Carriers have ongoing working relationship with 
every airport that they fly to regardless of how infrequent the flights 
to that particular airport may be. For instance, carriers must pay 
airports take-off and landing fees. It is not persuasive to assert that 
the infrequency or irregularity of the relationship between a carrier 
and an airport should result in the Department not requiring them to 
negotiate with one another to acquire mechanical lifts, ramps, or other 
suitable devices that do not require employees to lift or carry 
passengers up stairs. Given the mandate of the Air Carrier Access Act, 
it is reasonable to require accessibility even where a carrier provides 
seasonal service or the carrier is not a regular, scheduled-service, or 
frequent user of an airport.

4. Responsibility for Obtaining and Maintaining Lifts

    Comments: Carriers and airports disagreed over who should be 
responsible for providing lift devices and maintaining them in proper 
working condition. Two airport commenters, the American Association of 
Airport Executives and the City of Billings Aviation and Transit 
Department, contended that airports must have flexibility to assess 
costs/charges against airlines for procurement and maintenance of 
lifts. These two commenters also wanted flexibility to require airlines 
to be responsible for the training of all employees in the use of lifts 
and the establishment of basic safety and insurance requirements. 
American Trans Air commented that under most circumstances airports and 
not carriers should be responsible for maintaining all lifts and other 
accessibility equipment in proper working condition. This commenter 
stated that joint responsibility between a carrier and an airport is 
appropriate only if a carrier is a frequent user, is responsible for 
more than 10% of the enplanements at the airport, or has regularly 
scheduled service to that point.
    DOT Response: The Department believes that airports and carriers 
can negotiate among themselves to determine their respective 
responsibilities in paying for and maintaining mechanical lifts or 
other suitable devices. Airports and carriers have worked together for 
decades to find a basis for agreement on a wide variety of air 
transportation matters, so the concept of airports and air carriers 
negotiating to determine how accessibility will be provided is 
appropriate. The Department will not dictate one-size-fits-all 
solutions to issues that are better decided locally by the parties 
concerned. Carriers and airports share a joint responsibility to ensure 
that passengers with disabilities have the opportunity to use aircraft 
with 31 or more seats.

5. Regulatory Evaluation

    Comments: The Regional Airline Association disputed the 
Department's statement in the NPRM that the incremental cost of the 
rule would be negligible because lifts are already in place or required 
to be in place by existing rules. The commenter seemed to be arguing 
that the cost of the rule would be more than negligible because 860 
aircraft (40% of the total regional fleet) have more than 30 seats and 
lifts are not required by existing rules for these aircraft. American 
Trans Air also

[[Page 22109]]

disagreed with the Department's certification that the proposed rule 
would not have a significant impact on carriers and airports. American 
Trans Air stated that they fly to any airport that is certified to 
accept their fleet type and argued that airport operating authorities 
of smaller stations do not generally have the sustained traffic that 
would justify the capital costs of developing a lift capability.
    DOT Response: The Department realizes that this is the first time 
that lifts or other suitable devices have been required to access an 
aircraft with 31 or more seats, but we expect that there may be many 
situations in which the same boarding assistance equipment that is 
currently required to be used to provide access to smaller aircraft can 
be used to provide access to aircraft with 31 or more seats. The 
Department believes that this rule which covers aircraft with more than 
30 seats would require only minimal increase in the number of lifts 
already acquired by airports and air carriers because the demand for 
lifts is determined primarily by the size of the airport. For example, 
every airport needs at least one lift, and large airports, where gates 
are far apart and short turn-around time is important, need two or 
more. The frequency of lift usage by passengers with disabilities is 
only a secondary factor because the lifts acquired in response to the 
1996 final rule on aircraft with seating capacity of 19 through 30 
passengers are not used to their full potential. The Department 
estimates that the average use of a lift per day is less than 1 
operation.
    Further, the requirement to provide boarding assistance to 
individuals with disabilities using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other 
suitable devices apply only at airports with 10,000 or more annual 
enplanements, primary airports that have commercial service and where 
lifts would receive more use. Airports with less than 10,000 annual 
enplanements (small airports which often may not have regularly 
scheduled service) are not covered by this rule. The 10,000 enplanement 
threshold is also the same standard that has applied since 1996 to 
ramp/lift assistance for aircraft with 19 through 30 seats.

6. Availability of Lifts

    Comments: One commenter, Broward County, expressed its view that 
existing lifts on the market will not accommodate certain widebody 
aircraft and requested that the failure of airports to have lifts for 
widebodies on-site not constitute non-compliance. This commenter 
explained that it represents an airport and that this airport had 
purchased a ``Lift-A-Loft'' transporter but the ``Lift-A-Loft'' will 
reportedly not accommodate a 747 or a DC-10. Two other commenters, the 
Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association and the National Association of 
Protection and Advocacy Systems, wrote that they were aware of two 
companies that manufacture lifts that service large aircraft. They 
stated that Lift-A-Loft Corporation manufactures at least one lift that 
can service aircraft as large as a 747. A second company, Wollard 
Airport Equipment Company, was also cited as a company that 
manufactures lifts that access commuter, regional and jet aircraft up 
to Boeing 727.
    DOT Response: The Department is not convinced that existing lifts 
will not accommodate certain widebody aircraft. No carrier or carrier 
association voiced concerns that existing lifts on the market would not 
accommodate larger aircraft. Nevertheless, the final rule has a 
provision permitting airports and air carriers to seek a written 
waiver, under limited circumstances, from the requirement that they 
must provide boarding assistance to persons with disabilities by using 
ramps or mechanical lifts where level-entry boarding by loading bridge 
or mobile lounge is not available. A waiver will be granted only if the 
carrier can demonstrate that no existing lift or other suitable device 
on the market will accommodate the aircraft, and the carrier agrees to 
provide enplaning/deplaning assistance using boarding chairs as was 
allowed prior to the adoption of this final rule. If the use of 
existing models of lifts or other feasible devices to enplane a 
passenger would present an unacceptable risk of significant damage to 
the aircraft or injury to passenger or employees, then the Department 
would view this as meaning that there is no suitable device to 
accommodate the aircraft.

7. Funding

    Comments: One commenter, the City of Billings Aviation and Transit 
Department, requested that the Department of Transportation develop 
procedures establishing the number of lifts needed and how many will be 
eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding.
    DOT Response: The Department does not perceive a need to dictate 
procedures establishing the number of lifts needed in each airport for 
each carrier. The Department would prefer that the parties concerned 
develop their own procedures establishing the number of lifts needed in 
their specific situations. AIP is an option that can assist in the 
purchase of lifts but the amount of AIP funding available varies each 
year.

8. Foreign Air Carriers

    Comments: The Air Transport Association requested clarification as 
to what extent this final rule will apply to foreign air carriers and 
U.S. airline operations wholly outside the United States.
    DOT Response: This rule does not specifically mention foreign air 
carriers or U.S. airline operations wholly outside the United States 
because we did not propose to cover them in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking and it would be outside the scope of the notice to now cover 
foreign air carriers. Also, Sec. 382.3(c) of the Department's Air 
Carrier Access Act rule states that this rule (part 382) does not apply 
to foreign air carriers or to airport facilities outside the United 
States, its terrorities, possessions or commonwealths. However, on May 
18, 2000, the Department of Transportation, through the Office of 
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, notified foreign airlines serving 
the United States that effective April 5, 2000, as mandated by the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 
(AIR 21), they are now subject to the requirements of the Air Carrier 
Access Act. The Department is currently working on a separate 
rulemaking to make the regulations implementing the Air Carrier Access 
Act applicable to foreign air carriers.

9. Penalties

    Comments: The Paralyzed Veterans of America thought DOT should 
establish specific and automatic penalties against carriers that fail 
to provide level-entry boarding regardless of any alternative 
arrangements accepted by the disabled passenger.
    DOT Response: The Department does not need to create a new penalty 
provision in order to bring an enforcement case against an airport or 
an airline for failure to provide level-entry boarding. If an airline 
fails to comply with its obligations, the enforcement procedure of 14 
CFR 382.65(c) and (d) would apply. If an airport fails to comply, the 
procedures of 49 CFR part 27, subpart C would apply.

10. Definitions

    Comments: The ATA requested clarification on the meaning of 
``acquisition.'' The Paralyzed Veterans of America requested a change 
to Sec. 382.29(a)(3) to state ``passenger with a disability'' rather 
than ``handicapped passenger.''

[[Page 22110]]

    DOT Response: The Department uses the word ``acquisition'' of 
equipment to mean the purchase or lease of equipment. The Department 
assumes the disability group commenter is referring to 
Sec. 382.39(a)(3) since Sec. 382.29(a)(3) does not exist. The 
Department amended part 382 in 1996 to change terms containing the word 
``handicap'' or ``handicapped'' to ``disability.'' See 61 FR 56422. 
Most occurrences of the words ``handicap'' or ``handicapped'' were 
subsequently replaced by the word ``disability'' in the published rule. 
However, certain phrases that contain a version of the word 
``handicap'' were inadvertently overlooked. We are correcting that in 
this final rule. These changes are editorial in nature and do not 
require notice and comment.

11. Unrelated Issues

    Comments: The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition expressed 
frustration at the refusal of operators of small aircraft to transport 
or even sell a ticket to persons who cannot walk or who need in-flight 
medical oxygen. Another individual commenter requested a standard, 
industry-wide protocol for transporting of power wheelchairs and 
expressed anger at removal of gel batteries and damage to a chair.
    DOT Response: Since their inception, the ACAA rules have required 
carriers using aircraft of all sizes to transport and provide 
enplaning/deplaning assistance to passengers who require it (although 
level-entry boarding might not be required in all cases). However, in 
some models of small aircraft, no existing model of lift or other 
device will work and the stairs that are built into the door of the 
aircraft are not strong enough to accommodate two or three persons at a 
time, as the use of a boarding chair would require. The result is that 
airlines may legally deny boarding to persons with mobility impairments 
in some limited situations. See 55 FR 8033-8034, March 6, 1990. This 
rulemaking does not concern small aircraft, in-flight oxygen, or the 
transportation of power wheelchairs and any new requirements on these 
topics would be outside the scope of the notice.

Section-By-Section Analysis

    The Department has revised the format and subsequently the 
numbering of the rule text language in part 382 from that proposed in 
the August 1999 NPRM. The August 1999 NPRM placed the boarding 
assistance requirements for large aircraft in subpart (b) of 
Sec. 382.39 which is titled ``Provision of services and equipment.'' 
The Department now realizes that it will be clearer if we simply create 
a new Sec. 382.40a for boarding assistance requirements concerning 
large aircraft. The comments that the Department received for each 
individual section are discussed below under the revised section 
number.

14 CFR 382.39

1. 14 CFR 382.39(a)(2)
    Comments: Several disability advocates were concerned about 
exemptions for aircraft carrying less than 19 passengers, and for float 
planes. They believe that it is technically feasible to provide safe 
and dignified access to small aircraft currently exempt from level 
boarding requirements. These commenters suggest widening the scope of 
air carrier regulations to require boarding access for all commercial 
airline flights regardless of aircraft size. Representatives of 
industry supported the current exemptions in Sec. 382.40 for three 
specific 19-seat aircraft models, aircraft with fewer than 19 
passengers, and float planes.
    The Paralyzed of America pointed out that in the proposed 
Sec. 382.39(a)(2) in the NPRM the Department mistakenly referred to 
paragraph (c) instead of paragraph (b).
    DOT Response: This rulemaking concerns only aircraft with seating 
capacity of 31 or more passengers. In November 1996, the Department 
published a final rule concerning aircraft with 19 through 30 seats. In 
the 1996 final rule, the Department explained that it was aware of 
three 19-seat ``problem aircraft'' with which existing models of lifts 
do not work well, and the Department exempted the Fairchild Metro, the 
Jetstream 31, and the Beech 1900 (C and D models) from the boarding 
assistance requirements. The Department also exempted float planes, 
which often pick up passengers from docks or floating platforms, 
because they are incompatible with lift use. In addition, in the 1996 
final rule, the Department decided to exempt all aircraft carrying 
fewer than 19 passengers because the existing lift devices did not 
appear designed to work with, or able to work with, some of the 
smallest aircraft. Additionally, the smallest aircraft carry a very 
small share of the national air traffic.
    The commenter is correct in noting that in the proposed 
Sec. 382.39(a)(2) in the NPRM the Department mistakenly referred to 
paragraph (c) instead of paragraph (b). This error has been rectified 
in the final rule.

14 CFR 382.40a

1. 14 CFR 382.40a(a)
    Comments: The American Association of Airport Executives suggested 
creating two categories of aircraft (31 through 50, and greater than 50 
passenger seats) and exempting airports that have no regularly 
scheduled operations by aircraft with more than 50 seats from having to 
have lifts or other boarding devices suitable for aircraft with more 
than 50 seats. The commenter reasoned that most existing equipment 
designed to facilitate boarding by disabled passengers would serve most 
turboprop and regional jet equipment but not aircraft with more than 50 
seats.
    DOT Response: The Department is not adopting this suggestion. 
Carriers have ongoing working relationships with every airport that 
they fly to regardless of how infrequent the flights to that particular 
airport may be. Further, the Department has provided carriers and 
airports an 18-month implementation schedule to permit an orderly 
acquisition process for additional equipment and to avoid increasing 
costs through an overly abrupt start-up requirement.
2. 14 CFR 382.40a(b)
    Comments: Many of the comments from persons with a disability and 
organizations representing the interests of persons with a disability 
supported not allowing enplaning and deplanning of passengers with 
disabilities through hand-carrying or the use of boarding chairs under 
any circumstances. These commenters felt the rule should require lifts 
for boarding access when there are no level entrances or loading 
bridges. Several of the disability group commenters supported allowing 
enplaning and deplaning of disabled passengers using boarding chairs in 
emergency situations or if a lift is temporarily not working. The 
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) stressed that disabled travelers 
should be consulted about alternative arrangements (i.e. an alternative 
flight) when level boarding is not available and requested that the 
Department more thoroughly set forth and more prominently display 
within its rules the carrier's duties with respect to alternative 
arrangements.
    American Trans Air wrote that it did not support the requirement to 
provide boarding assistance by using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other 
suitable devices that do not require employees to lift or carry 
passengers up stairs and preferred the use of ``reasonable efforts to 
provide boarding assistance.''
    The Air Transport Association requested clarification as to when, 
if

[[Page 22111]]

ever, a passenger with a disability may be carried onto an aircraft 
with the use of a chair or other device and when, if ever, a passenger 
with a disability may be physically hand-carried on board. The ATA also 
requested clarification as to whether carrier personnel may assist a 
passenger transferring from an aisle chair to a seat by directly 
picking up the passenger's arms or legs.
    DOT Response: The Department is not persuaded by the argument that 
carriers be permitted to use ``reasonable efforts'' to provide boarding 
assistance using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices 
that do not require employees to lift or carry passengers up stairs in 
boarding chairs. It is not enough to use ``reasonable efforts'' to 
provide level-entry boarding. Airline personnel will generally not be 
permitted to carry passengers up stairs in a boarding chair because it 
is an undignified and unsafe way of providing access for passengers and 
it increases risks to carrier personnel involved. The Department is 
requiring that, under normal circumstances, on an aircraft with 31 or 
more seats, carrier personnel may not lift passengers in boarding 
chairs up stairs as a means of effectuating the change of level needed 
for boarding. Hand-carrying (bodily picking up passenger for purposes 
of a change of level) is only allowed when necessary for an emergency 
evacuation. In all other abnormal circumstances (e.g., if a lift breaks 
down), the carrier can use whatever means are available (including 
boarding chairs or an alternative flight, but not hand-carrying) as a 
means of effectuating the change of level needed for boarding. The use 
of a boarding chair to carry the passenger up or down stairs is 
conditioned on the passenger's consent (except in the case of emergency 
evacuations).
    The Department wants it to be clear that this does not mean that 
boarding chairs and/or aisle chairs cannot be used in the boarding 
assistance process. Indeed, their use is necessary to get the passenger 
to a seat from a lift. Nor does it mean that carrier personnel are 
relieved of their obligation to assist passengers in transferring from 
their own wheelchairs to a boarding or aisle chair and then from that 
device to an aircraft seat.
    The Department does not agree with the PVA's comment that there is 
a need for the Department to set forth in more detail and more 
prominently display in its rules the carrier's duties with respect to 
alternative arrangements. Section 382.45(a)(2) already requires the 
carrier to inform a passenger with a disability of any limitations on 
the ability of the aircraft to accommodate the passenger whenever a 
passenger states he uses a wheelchair for boarding. In addition, 
alternative arrangements due to an inoperable lift should not be 
commonplace. Section 382.40a(c)(6) requires that the agreement between 
carriers and airports ensure that all lifts and other accessibility 
equipment are in proper working condition. Further, carriers on their 
own often ensure that a passenger with a disability is provided the 
option of an alternative flight when the required boarding assistance 
cannot be provided.
3. 14 CFR 382.40a(c)(1)
    Comments: The vast majority of comments from carriers, airports, 
and industry associations argued that the requirement for a carrier to 
negotiate in good faith with the airport operator at each airport 
should be limited to those situations where the carrier is a regular, 
scheduled-service, or frequent user of the airport. They contended that 
Sec. 382.40a should not apply to private charters and irregular or 
emergency operations at airports where the carrier does not provide 
regular scheduled service. They also asserted that Sec. 382.40a should 
not apply to as carriers and airports with limited seasonal-only 
service and regional airlines that provide seasonal service because 
demand is not adequate to support year-round service. In general, the 
industry comments declared that in these circumstances the rule should 
allow boarding and deplaning assistance by any means available, 
including hand-carrying with the express consent of the passenger.
    The American Association of Airport Executives also requested an 
exemption for airports without regularly scheduled operations by 
aircraft with more than 50 seats from having lifts or other boarding 
devices suitable for aircraft with larger seating capacity. The same 
commenter requested clarification as to whether the phrase ``to 
negotiate in good faith with each carrier serving the airport'' applied 
to charters and non-scheduled carriers. Two other industry association 
commenters, the ATA and the Regional Airline Association, thought the 
requirement for agreements with airports was unnecessarily broad. They 
suggested revising Sec. 382.40a(c)(1) to read as follows: ``a carrier 
that does not provide passenger boarding by level-entry boarding 
bridges or accessible passenger lounges at an airport at which it 
provides regular scheduled service shall negotiate in good faith with 
that airport concerning the acquisition and use of boarding assistance 
devices.''
    American Trans Air commented that it supports the provision but 
would like the costs to be allocated between operator and carrier based 
on proportionate use of facility. Two commenters representing airports 
argued that airports must have flexibility to: assess costs/charges for 
procurement and maintenance of lifts, require airlines to be 
responsible for training of all employees in the use of lifts, 
establish basic safety and insurance requirements before airlines can 
use lifts, and release the airports of liability if carriers do not 
follow these procedures.
    The Paralyzed Veterans of America thought DOT should require that 
copies of all contracts negotiated under this rule be submitted to DOT 
for review and made available to the public as a means of ensuring 
compliance and determining the responsible party.
    DOT Response: The Department does not believe it is necessary to 
require copies of all contracts negotiated under this rule be submitted 
to DOT for review since the written agreements between carriers and 
airports must be made available to DOT upon request. Also, airports and 
carriers can negotiate among themselves to determine their respective 
responsibilities in paying for and maintaining mechanical lifts or 
other suitable devices. See response to comments regarding 
``Responsibility for Obtaining and Maintaining Lifts'' for a fuller 
discussion of why the Department believes airports and carriers can 
negotiate among themselves.
    The Department will adopt the suggestion of two industry commenters 
to narrrow the requirements of Sec. 382.40a(c)(1) by limiting the type 
of carrier that must negotiate in good faith to those carriers that do 
not provide passenger boarding by level-entry boarding bridges or 
accessible passenger lounges at an airport. However, the Department 
does not believe that it is advisable to waive its level-entry boarding 
assistance requirements in situations where a carrier provides seasonal 
service or the carrier is not a regular, scheduled-service, or frequent 
user of an airport. See response to comments regarding ``Private 
Charters and Irregular or Emergency Operations'' for a fuller 
discussion of why the Department believes it is reasonable to require 
accessibility even where a carrier provides seasonal service or the 
carrier is not a regular, scheduled-service, or frequent user of an 
airport.
4. 14 CFR 382.40a(c)(2)
    Comments: Most of the disability groups and persons with 
disabilities argued that a 12-month total time frame rather than 18-
month total time frame was appropriate. They contended that a

[[Page 22112]]

3-month time frame for airport operators and air carriers to negotiate 
and sign a written agreement allocating responsibility for providing 
boarding assistance was sufficient and argued that a 9-month time frame 
to implement the agreement would be more than enough time. One person 
with a disability commented that 18 months is enough time to start 
using lifts for larger aircraft. The PVA stated that it would like for 
the final rule to require immediate implementation where level-entry 
boarding equipment is available to carriers or airports and is usable 
on aircraft affected by these regulations.
    Representatives of industry strongly argued that more time than the 
Department's proposed 18-month schedule was needed to complete all 
actions necessary to ensure accessible boarding for passengers with 
disabilities. Two commenters, the American Association of Airport 
Executives and the City of Billings Aviation and Transit Department, 
requested a change to a minimum of a 24-month deadline in lieu of 18 
months to allow for funding re-programming, air carrier negotiations, 
and employee training. The Regional Airline Association requested 36 
months in lieu of 18 months due to what it perceived to be significant 
costs to regional airlines. American Trans Air commented that it would 
support the18-month timeline only if carrier negotiation with airports 
is restricted to those carriers that are frequent users of airports, 
airports that are responsible for more than 10% of the enplanements, or 
carriers that have regular scheduled service at airports.
    The Air Transport Association requested exemptions on a case-by-
case basis for carriers and airports unable to secure lifts or other 
devices due to lack of availability from manufacturers and their 
demonstrated good faith efforts to obtain lifts, ramps, or other 
devices in a timely manner.
    DOT Response: The Department believes existing lifts or lifts put 
in place in response to the 1996 small aircraft lift rule will assist 
in meeting the requirements of this rule. See response to comments 
regarding ``Implementation Schedules'' for a fuller discussion of why 
the Department chose an 18-month time frame. The Department notes that 
the rule already requires immediate implementation where level-entry 
boarding equipment is available to carriers and airports. Section 
382.39(a)(2) states that boarding shall be by level entry boarding 
platforms or accessible passenger lounges, where these means are 
available. Otherwise, carriers shall use ramps, lifts, or other devices 
for enplaning and deplaning persons with disabilities who need this 
kind of assistance. In sum, carriers are required to use these devices 
as soon as they are ready where level-entry boarding platforms are not 
available for a flight (i.e., a carrier cannot decline to use an 
available lift).
    The Department believes it is unnecessary to grant waivers on a 
case-by-case basis for carriers and airports unable to secure lifts or 
other devices due to lack of availability from manufacturers and their 
demonstrated good faith efforts to obtain lifts, ramps, or other 
devices in a timely manner. Air carriers and airports have 18 months 
from the effective date of the rule to acquire lifts or other suitable 
devices. We expect that there may be many situations in which the same 
boarding assistance equipment used to provide access to smaller 
aircraft can be used to provide access to aircraft with 31 or more 
seats. The final rule includes a provision permitting airports and air 
carriers to seek a written waiver only if the carrier can demonstrate 
that no existing lift or other suitable device on the market will 
accommodate the aircraft and the carrier agrees to provide enplaning/
deplaning assistance using boarding chairs as was allowed prior to 
adoption of this final rule. See response to comments regarding 
``Availability of Lifts'' for a fuller discussion of when the 
Department will grant a waiver.
5. 14 CFR 382.40a(c)(3)
    Comments: American Trans Air commented that it supported the 
provision whereby a passenger requiring lift assistance may be required 
to check in at least one hour before the scheduled departure time.
    DOT Response: The Department agrees with the commenter and the 
final rule is the same as the proposal in the NPRM.
6. 14 CFR 382.40a(c)(4)
    Comments: Broward County expressed its view that existing lifts on 
the market will not accommodate certain widebody aircraft and requested 
that the failure of airports to have lifts for widebodies on-site not 
constitute non-compliance. The Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America 
and the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems wrote 
that they were aware of two companies that manufacture lifts that 
service large aircraft.
    DOT Response: The Department is not convinced that existing lifts 
will not accommodate widebody aircraft. Nevertheless, the final rule 
includes a new provision waiving the requirement for boarding 
assistance to persons with disabilities by using ramps or mechanical 
lifts under limited circumstances. Boarding assistance by lift is not 
required on any widebody aircraft determined by the Department of 
Transportation to be unsuitable on the basis that no existing boarding 
assistance device on the market will accommodate the aircraft without 
significant risk of serious damage to the aircraft or injury to 
passenger or employee.
7. 14 CFR 382.40a(c)(5)
    Comments: American Trans Air commented that it supports this 
provision and understands that it would be able to refuse transport for 
passengers with disabilities without jeopardy according to Sec. 382.31 
(refusal of service) since hand-carrying is not an option. The 
Paralyzed Veterans of America expressed concern that the phrase ``for 
reasons beyond the control of the parties to the agreement'' in 
proposed Sec. 382.40a (c)(5) seems to limit mandatory alternative 
boarding to situations where the air carrier or airport was not at 
fault for the failure to provide level-entry boarding. The PVA 
requested that the Department ensure that passengers have an option of 
alternative boarding or an alternative flight regardless of who is 
responsible for the failure to provide entry level boarding.
    DOT Response: A carrier may not refuse transport on an aircraft 
with seating capacity of 31 or more passengers when level-entry 
boarding assistance through lift, ramp or other suitable device is not 
available. If a lift is not available, regardless of the reason, then 
the airline must consult with the passenger and provide boarding 
assistance by any available means to which the passenger consents 
(except hand-carrying as defined in Sec. 382.39(a)(2)). For example, 
carrier personnel may carry a passenger up stairs in a boarding chair 
if the passenger consents. The Department is not aware of any model of 
aircraft with seating capacity of 31 or more seats with stairs that are 
built into the door of the aircraft that are not strong enough to 
accommodate two or three persons at a time, as the use of boarding 
chairs would require. If the passenger does not consent to being 
carried in a boarding chair, then the carrier may offer other options 
such as an alternative flight. The Department has removed the phrase 
``for reasons beyond the control of the parties to the agreement'' from 
Sec. 382.40a (c)(5) because it is confusing and could appear to some as 
limiting the situations in which alternative boarding must be provided.

[[Page 22113]]

8. 14 CFR 382.40a(c)(6)
    Comments: American Trans Air thought that airports and not carriers 
should be responsible for maintaining all lifts and other accessibility 
equipment in proper working condition. This commenter stated that joint 
responsibility between a carrier and an airport is appropriate only if 
the carrier is a frequent user, is responsible for more than 10% of 
enplanements, or has regularly scheduled service. The PVA would like 
for the final rule to include a regular schedule for deployment and 
testing of lifts to ensure that any mechanical difficulties are 
discovered and resolved before a passenger needs the equipment to board 
an aircraft. This disability organization thought the final rule should 
require regular maintenance and testing on a schedule consistent with 
manufacturer instructions. If equipment cannot be repaired the same 
day, then the disability group commenter would like for the carrier to 
be required to make arrangements for replacement.
    DOT Response: The Department believes that airports and carriers 
can negotiate among themselves to determine their respective 
responsibilities in paying for and maintaining mechanical lifts or 
other suitable devices. See response to comments regarding 
``Responsibility for Obtaining and Maintaining Lifts'' for a fuller 
discussion of why the Department believes airports and carriers can 
negotiate among themselves.
    Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has an 
Advisory Circular on Lift Maintenance titled ``Guide Specification for 
Devices Used to Board Airline Passengers With Mobility Impairments'' 
(AC No. 150/5220-21B) as guidance on how to maintain lifts in proper 
working condition. Carriers and airports share a joint responsibility 
to ensure that passengers with disabilities have the opportunity to use 
aircraft with 31 or more seats.
9. 14 CFR 382.40a(d)(1)
    Comments: American Trans Air requested that the Department consider 
requiring Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) and other contract service 
providers involved in the use of boarding assistance equipment to be 
responsible for their own training. This commenter also suggested that 
the Department require airports where the carrier is not a frequent 
user to be responsible for ensuring service/contract providers are 
trained/certified. A disability group advocate, the PVA, recommended 
that the training requirements for personnel be stronger and suggested 
regular training of personnel with periodic refreshers.
    DOT Response: Carriers and airports are ultimately responsible for 
ensuring that contract service providers are adequately trained in the 
use of boarding assistance equipment. The general part 382 requirement 
of training to proficiency includes refresher training, as needed, to 
maintain proficiency. We note that Sec. 382.61, which applies to 
carriers that operate aircraft with more than 19 seats, requires 
refresher training as appropriate to the duties of each employee to 
ensure that proficiency is maintained. For example, for personnel 
involved in providing boarding assistance, training to proficiency 
would cover the use of the boarding assistance equipment used by the 
carrier and appropriate boarding assistance procedures that safeguard 
the safety and dignity of passengers.

49 CFR Part 27

1. 49 CFR 27.72(a)
    Comments: One person with a disability expressed concern about the 
fact that the NPRM is limited to boarding assistance at airports with 
more than 10,000 annual enplanements.
    DOT Response: The Department made the tentative decision not to 
apply this rule to airports with fewer than 10,000 enplanements because 
these airports are non-primary airports--small airports that often may 
not have regularly scheduled service. Airports with 10,000 or more 
annual enplanements are primary airports that have more commercial-
service traffic and where lifts would receive more use. The 10,000 
enplanement threshold is the same standard that has applied since 1996 
to ramp/lift assistance for aircraft with 19 through 30 seats.
2. 49 CFR 27.72(b)
    Comments: One commenter agreed that sub-section (c ) of Sec. 27.72 
should apply to aircraft with a seating capacity of 19 through 30 
passengers only so long as exemption for 19-seat aircraft models such 
as the Jetstream 31 remain.
    DOT Response: The requirement for airports and carriers to jointly 
provide ramps or lifts for aircraft with 19 through 30 passenger seats 
does not override the existing exemption for certain aircraft such as 
the Jetstream 31. Indeed, the requirement as it pertains to 19 through 
30 seat aircraft and the exemption for three aircraft types have been 
in existence since 1996. Nothing in the current proceeding affects 
them.
3. 49 CFR 27.72(c)(1)
    Comments: American Trans Air supported the requirement that airport 
operators negotiate in good faith with each carrier, but would like the 
cost of boarding devices to be apportioned between operator and carrier 
based on enplanements and/or departures.
    DOT Response: Again, the Department believes that airports and 
carriers can negotiate among themselves to determine their respective 
responsibilities in paying for mechanical lifts or other suitable 
devices. Airports and carriers have worked together for decades to find 
a basis for agreement on a wide variety of air transportation issues, 
so the concept of airports and air carriers negotiating to determine 
how accessibility will be provided is appropriate.
4. 49 CFR 27.72(c)(2)
    Comments: American Trans Air commented that Chicago Express's 
aircraft are currently exempt from the requirement to implement 
agreement within the specified time frame because its entire fleet 
consists of the Jetstream 31, a 19-seat aircraft model determined by 
the Department of Transportation to be unsuitable for boarding 
assistance by lift. On behalf of Chicago Express, its affiliate/code-
share partner, this carrier requested an 18-month period from the date 
Chicago Express acquires aircraft/equipment that is not exempt to the 
date that it must use mechanical lifts.
    DOT Response: The Department will not allow an additional 18-month 
compliance period for carriers that choose to begin operating aircraft 
for which boarding assistance by lift is required. The purpose of the 
initial phase-in period was to enable carriers to avoid costs through 
an overly abrupt start-up requirement. By now all carriers should be 
aware of the general boarding assistance requirements for aircraft 
with19 through 30 seats and realize that they must acquire lifts or 
other suitable devices if they operate aircraft for which boarding 
assistance by lift is required.
5. 49 CFR 27.72(c)(3)
    Comments: Some disability advocates such as Access to Independence 
and Mobility were concerned about exemptions for aircraft carrying 
fewer than 19 passengers, and for float planes. They believe that it is 
technically feasible to provide safe and dignified access to small 
aircraft currently exempt from level boarding requirements. These 
commenters suggest widening the scope of air carrier regulations to 
require boarding access for all commercial airline flights regardless 
of aircraft size.

[[Page 22114]]

Representatives of industry supported the current exemptions in 
Sec. 382.40 for three specific 19-seat aircraft models, aircraft with 
fewer than 19 passenger seats, and float planes. One disability group 
recommended replacing the word ``lift'' in Sec. 27.72(c)(3)(iv) with 
``boarding assistance device'' since not all boarding assistance 
devices are lifts.
    DOT Response: The Department has replaced the word ``lift'' in 
Sec. 27.72(c)(3)(iv) with the phrase ``lifts, ramps, or other suitable 
boarding devices'' because a lift is not the only acceptable boarding 
device. See response to comments regarding Sec. 382.39(a)(2) for a 
discussion of why the Department has exempted small aircraft and float 
planes from level boarding requirements.
6. 49 CFR 27.72(c)(4)
    Comments: American Trans Air commented that it supports this 
provision and understands that it would be able to refuse transport for 
passengers with disabilities without jeopardy according to Sec. 382.21 
(refusal of service) since hand-carrying is not an option.
    DOT Response: See response to comments regarding 
Sec. 382.40a(c)(5).
7. 49 CFR 27.72(c)(5)
    Comments: American Trans Air commented that it supports the 
provision but believes the responsibility for maintaining the lifts and 
other accessibility equipment should be apportioned based on 
proportionate use of the facility.
    DOT Response: See response to comments regarding 
Sec. 382.40a(c)(6).
8. 49 CFR 27.72(d)(1)
    Comments: One carrier commented that it supports the provision but 
would like the costs to be allocated between operator and carrier based 
on proportionate use of facility. Two commenters representing airports 
argued that airports must have flexibility to: assess costs/charges for 
procurement and maintenance of lifts, require airlines to be 
responsible for training of all employees in the use of lifts, 
establish basic safety and insurance requirements before airlines can 
use lifts, and release the airports of liability if carriers do not 
follow these procedures. The Paralyzed Veterans of America thought DOT 
should require copies of all contracts negotiated under this rule be 
submitted to DOT for review and made available to the public as a means 
of ensuring compliance and determing the responsible party. The 
American Association of Airport Executives suggested adding ``where 
level entry boarding is not otherwise available'' to the end of the 
first sentence to conform the airport requirement with the air carrier 
requirement.
    DOT Response: The Department will add the sentence ``where level 
entry boarding is not otherwise available'' to the end of the first 
sentence to conform the airport requirement with the air carrier 
requirement. The Department will not allocate the costs between 
operator and carrier based on proportionate use of facility. Airports 
and carriers can negotiate among themselves to determine their 
respective responsibilities in paying for and maintaining mechanical 
lifts or other suitable devices. See response to comments regarding 
Sec. 382.40a(c)(1) for further detail.
9. 49 CFR 27.72(d)(2)
    The comments and issues here are identical to those discussed in 
Sec. 382.40a(c)(2) earlier. See that section for a discussion of 
comments and DOT response.
10. 49 CFR 27.72(d)(3)
    Comments: One commenter expressed his view that existing lifts on 
the market will not accommodate widebody aircraft and requested that 
the failure of airports to have lifts for widebodies on-site not 
constitute non-compliance. Two commenters wrote that they were aware of 
two companies that manufacture lifts that service large aircraft.
    DOT Response: See response to comments regarding 
Sec. 382.40a(c)(4).
11. 49 CFR 27.72(d)(4)
    The comments and issues here are identical to those discussed in 
Sec. 382.40a(c)(5) earlier. See that section for a discussion of 
comments and DOT response.
12. 49 CFR 27.72(d)(5)
    The comments and issues here are identical to those discussed in 
Sec. 382.40a(c)(6) earlier. See that section for a discussion of 
comments and DOT response.
13. 49 CFR 27.72(e)
    Comments: American Trans Air supported the provision that airports 
shall ensure that airport personnel involved in providing boarding 
assistance are trained. This commenter also requested that the 
Department impose responsibility on the airports where the carrier is 
not a frequent user of the airport for ensuring that service/contract 
providers are trained. The PVA recommended that the training 
requirements for personnel be stronger and suggested regular training 
of personnel with periodic refreshers.
    DOT Response: See response to comments regarding 
Sec. 382.40a(d)(1).

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been determined to be non-significant under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures. Any costs or benefits resulting from this 
action would be so minimal that no further assessment is required since 
existing lifts, or lifts previously in place in response to the small 
aircraft lift rule, will be sufficient to meet the proposed 
requirements in many situations. The Office of the Secretary has 
prepared and placed in the docket a regulatory evaluation of the final 
rule.

B. 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 adopt any regulation that: (1) Has 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) imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or 
(3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

C. Executive Order 13084

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian 
tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance 
costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply.

D. 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. 
We hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the 
overall national

[[Page 22115]]

annual costs are not great, few of the aircraft covered by this rule 
are operated by small entities, and few of commercial service airports 
covered by this rule could properly be regarded as small entities.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule imposes no new information reporting or record keeping 
necessitating clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this 
rulemaking.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 382

    Air carriers, Consumer protection, Individuals with disabilities, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 27

    Airports, Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 14 CFR part 382 and 49 
CFR part 27 are amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 382 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 47105, and 41712.

    2. In 14 CFR Part 382, the term ``handicapped person'' or 
``handicapped passenger'' is revised to read ``individual with a 
disability'' wherever it occurs. The term ``handicapped persons'' or 
``handicapped passengers'' is revised to read ``individuals with a 
disability'' whenever it occurs.

    3. Section 382.39(a)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 382.39  Provision of services and equipment.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Boarding shall be by level-entry loading bridges or accessible 
passenger lounges, where these means are available. Where these means 
are unavailable, assistance in boarding aircraft with 30 or fewer 
passenger seats shall be provided as set forth in Sec. 382.40, and 
assistance in boarding aircraft with 31 or more seats shall be provided 
as set forth in Sec. 382.40a. In no case shall carrier personnel hand-
carry a passenger in order to provide boarding or deplaning assistance 
(i.e., directly pick up the passenger's body in the arms of one or more 
carrier personnel to effect a change of level that the passenger needs 
to enter or leave the aircraft). Hand-carrying of passengers is 
permitted only for emergency evacuations.
* * * * *

    4. A new section 382.40a is added to read as follows:


Sec. 382.40a  Boarding assistance for large aircraft.

    (a) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section apply to air carriers 
conducting passenger operations with aircraft having a seating capacity 
of 31 or more passengers at airports with 10,000 or more annual 
enplanements, in any situation where passengers are not boarded by 
level-entry loading bridges or accessible passenger lounges.
    (b) Carriers shall, in cooperation with the airports they serve, 
provide boarding assistance to individuals with disabilities using 
mechanical lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices that do not require 
employees to lift or carry passengers up stairs.
    (c) (1) Each carrier that does not provide passenger boarding by 
level-entry loading bridges or accessible passenger lounges shall 
negotiate in good faith with the airport operator at each airport 
concerning the acquisition and use of boarding assistance devices. The 
carrier(s) and the airport operator shall, by no later than March 4, 
2002, sign a written agreement allocating responsibility for meeting 
the boarding assistance requirements of this section between or among 
the parties. The agreement shall be made available, on request, to 
representatives of the Department of Transportation.
    (2) The agreement shall provide that all actions necessary to 
ensure accessible boarding for passengers with disabilities are 
completed as soon as practicable, but no later than December 4, 2002. 
All air carriers and airport operators involved are jointly responsible 
for the timely and complete implementation of the agreement.
    (3) Under the agreement, carriers may require that passengers 
wishing to receive boarding assistance requiring the use of a lift for 
a flight check in for the flight one hour before the scheduled 
departure time for the flight. If the passenger checks in after this 
time, the carrier shall nonetheless provide the boarding assistance by 
lift if it can do so by making a reasonable effort, without delaying 
the flight.
    (4) Level-entry boarding assistance under the agreement is not 
required with respect to float planes or with respect to any widebody 
aircraft determined by the Department of Transportation to be 
unsuitable for boarding assistance by lift, ramp, or other device on 
the basis that no existing boarding assistance device on the market 
will accommodate the aircraft without a significant risk of serious 
damage to the aircraft or injury to passengers or employees.
    (5) When level-entry boarding assistance is not required to be 
provided under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, or cannot be provided 
as required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section (e.g., because of 
mechanical problems with a lift), boarding assistance shall be provided 
by any available means to which the passenger consents, except hand-
carrying as defined in Sec. 382.39 (a)(2).
    (6) The agreement shall ensure that all lifts and other 
accessibility equipment are maintained in proper working condition.
    (d) The training of carrier personnel required by Sec. 382.61 shall 
include, for those personnel involved in providing boarding assistance, 
training to proficiency in the use of the boarding assistance equipment 
used by the carrier and appropriate boarding assistance procedures that 
safeguard the safety and dignity of passengers.

    5. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 
amended (29 U.S.C. 794); sec. 16(a) and (d) of the Federal Transit 
Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5310(a) and (f); sec. 165(b) of 
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, as amended (23 U.S.C. 142nt).


    6. In 49 CFR part 27, Sec. 27.72 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 27.72  Boarding assistance for aircraft.

    (a) Paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section apply to airports with 
10,000 or more annual enplanements.
    (b) Airports shall, in cooperation with carriers serving the 
airports, provide boarding assistance to individuals with disabilities 
using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other devices that do not require 
employees to lift or carry passengers up stairs. Paragraph (c) of this 
section applies to aircraft with a seating capacity of 19 through 30 
passengers. Paragraph (d) of this section applies to aircraft with a 
seating capacity of 31 or more passengers.
    (c) (1) Each airport operator shall negotiate in good faith with 
each carrier serving the airport concerning the acquisition and use of 
boarding assistance devices for aircraft with a seating capacity of 19 
through 30 passengers. The airport operator and the carrier(s) shall, 
by no later than September 2, 1997, sign a written agreement allocating 
responsibility for meeting the boarding assistance requirements of this 
section between or

[[Page 22116]]

among the parties. The agreement shall be made available, on request, 
to representatives of the Department of Transportation.
    (2) The agreement shall provide that all actions necessary to 
ensure accessible boarding for passengers with disabilities are 
completed as soon as practicable, but no later than December 2, 1998, 
at large and medium commercial service hub airports (those with 
1,200,000 or more annual enplanements); December 2, 1999, for small 
commercial service hub airports (those with between 250,000 and 
1,199,999 annual enplanements); or December 2, 2000, for non-hub 
commercial service primary airports (those with between 10,000 and 
249,999 annual enplanements). All air carriers and airport operators 
involved are jointly responsible for the timely and complete 
implementation of the agreement.
    (3) Boarding assistance under the agreement is not required in the 
following situations:
    (i) Access to aircraft with a capacity of fewer than 19 or more 
than 30 seats;
    (ii) Access to float planes;
    (iii) Access to the following 19-seat capacity aircraft models: the 
Fairchild Metro, the Jetstream 31, and the Beech 1900 (C and D models);
    (iv) Access to any other 19-seat aircraft model determined by the 
Department of Transportation to be unsuitable for boarding assistance 
by lift, ramp or other suitable device on the basis of a significant 
risk of serious damage to the aircraft or the presence of internal 
barriers that preclude passengers who use a boarding or aisle chair to 
reach a non-exit row seat.
    (4) When boarding assistance is not required to be provided under 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, or cannot be provided as required by 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section (e.g., because of mechanical 
problems with a lift), boarding assistance shall be provided by any 
available means to which the passenger consents, except hand-carrying 
as defined in 14 CFR 382.39(a)(2).
    (5) The agreement shall ensure that all lifts and other 
accessibility equipment are maintained in proper working condition.
    (d)(1) Each airport operator shall negotiate in good faith with 
each carrier serving the airport concerning the acquisition and use of 
boarding assistance devices for aircraft with a seating capacity of 31 
or more passengers where level entry boarding is not otherwise 
available. The airport operator and the carrier(s) shall, by no later 
than March 4, 2002 sign a written agreement allocating responsibility 
for meeting the boarding assistance requirements of this section 
between or among the parties. The agreement shall be made available, on 
request, to representatives of the Department of Transportation.
    (2) The agreement shall provide that all actions necessary to 
ensure accessible boarding for passengers with disabilities are 
completed as soon as practicable, but no later than December 4, 2002. 
All air carriers and airport operators involved are jointly responsible 
for the timely and complete implementation of the agreement.
    (3) Level-entry boarding assistance under the agreement is not 
required with respect to float planes or with respect to any widebody 
aircraft determined by the Department of Transportation to be 
unsuitable for boarding assistance by lift, ramp, or other device on 
the basis that no existing boarding assistance device on the market 
will accommodate the aircraft without a significant risk of serious 
damage to the aircraft or injury to passengers or employees.
    (4) When level-entry boarding assistance is not required to be 
provided under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, or cannot be provided 
as required by paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section (e.g., because of 
mechanical problems with a lift), boarding assistance shall be provided 
by any available means to which the passenger consents, except hand-
carrying as defined in 14 CFR 382.39(a)(2).
    (5) The agreement shall ensure that all lifts and other 
accessibility equipment are maintained in proper working condition.
    (e) In the event that airport personnel are involved in providing 
boarding assistance, the airport shall ensure that they are trained to 
proficiency in the use of the boarding assistance equipment used at the 
airport and appropriate boarding assistance procedures that safeguard 
the safety and dignity of passengers.

    Issued this 27th day of April 2001 at Washington, DC.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 01-11201 Filed 5-1-01; 10:22 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>