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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

22107

Vol. 66, No. 86

Thursday, May 3, 2001

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

blane.workie@ost.dot.gov (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 levelentry boarding. We will carry forward

the 1996 provision and apply it here.

Airline personnel will generally not be

22108 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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, scheduledservice, 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, scheduledservice, 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

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

§ 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 levelentry 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

§ 382.29(a)(3) to state ‘‘passenger with a

disability’’ rather than ‘‘handicapped

passenger.’’

22110 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 382.39(a)(3) since

§ 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 CrossDisability 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

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

§ 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

§ 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 yearround service. In general, the industry

comments declared that in these

circumstances the rule should allow

boarding and deplaning assistance by

any means available, including handcarrying 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 § 382.40a(c)(1) to

read as follows: ‘‘a carrier that does not

provide passenger boarding by levelentry 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

§ 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, scheduledservice, 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

22112 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 levelentry 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 caseby-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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 382.40a

(c)(5) because it is confusing and could

appear to some as limiting the situations

in which alternative boarding must be

provided.

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

22114 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Representatives of industry supported

the current exemptions in § 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 § 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

§ 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

§ 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 § 382.21 (refusal of service)

since hand-carrying is not an option.

DOT Response: See response to

comments regarding § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 382.40a(c)(4).

11. 49 CFR 27.72(d)(4)

The comments and issues here are

identical to those discussed in

§ 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

§ 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 § 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

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

§ 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

§ 382.40, and assistance in boarding

aircraft with 31 or more seats shall be

provided as set forth in § 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:

§ 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 levelentry 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 § 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 § 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, § 27.72 is revised

to read as follows:

§ 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

22116 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510, 520, 522, 524, 529,

and 558

Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related

Products; Tylosin Tartrate for

Injection, etc.; Withdrawal of Approval

of NADAs

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

animal drug regulations by removing

those portions that reflect approval of 13

new animal drug applications (NADAs)

listed below. In a notice published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register, FDA is withdrawing approval

of the NADAs.

DATES: This rule is effective May 14,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela K. Esposito, Center for

Veterinary Medicine (HFV–210), Food

and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish

Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–

5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following sponsors have requested that

FDA withdraw approval of the NADAs

listed below because the products are no

longer manufactured or marketed:

Sponsor NADA Number Product (Drug) 21 CFR Cite Affected

(Sponsor Drug Labeler Code)

Elanco Animal Health, A Div. of Eli Lilly &

Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis,

IN 46285.

NADA 12–585 Tylan Injectable (tylosin tartrate) .... 522.2640b (000986)

NADA 15–207 Hyferdex Injection (iron dextran

complex).

522.1183(c) (000986)

NADA 30–330 Tylocine Sulfa Tablets (sulfadiazine, sulfamerazine, sulfamethazine, tylosin).not applicable