Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel

In addition to this general revision and update, the Department in this rule is making important substantive changes to the rule in three areas: coverage of foreign carriers, accommodations for passengers who use oxygen and other respiratory assistive devices, and accommodation for deaf or hard-of-hearing passengers. The original 1986 ACAA covered only U.S. air carriers. However, on April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) amended the ACAA specifically to include foreign carriers. The ACAA now reads in relevant part: 2 See 64 FR 5096, February 2, 1999 (for 49 CFR Part 26, disadvantaged business enterprise) and 65 FR 79462, December 19, 2000 (for 49 CFR Part 40, drug and alcohol testing procedures). 3 In providing air transportation, an air carrier, including (subject to [49 U.S.C.] section 40105(b)) any foreign air carrier, may not discriminate against an otherwise qualified individual on the following grounds: (1) The individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. (2) The individual has a record of such an impairment. (3) The individual is regarded as having such an impairment. Section 40105(b) provides as follows: (b) Actions of Secretary and Administrator.— (1) In carrying out this part, the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator— (A) shall act consistently with obligations of the United States Government under an international agreement; (B) shall consider applicable laws and requirements of a foreign country; and (C) may not limit compliance by an air carrier with obligations or liabilities imposed by the government of a foreign country when the Secretary takes any action related to a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued under chapter 411 of this title. (2) This subsection does not apply to an agreement between an air carrier or an officer or representative of an air carrier and the government of a foreign country, if the Secretary of Transportation disapproves the agreement because it is not in the public interest. Section 40106 (b)(2) of this title applies to this subsection. In response to the AIR-21 requirements, the Department on May 18, 2000, issued a notice of its intent to investigate complaints against foreign carriers according to the amended provisions of the ACAA. The notice also announced the Department's plan to initiate a rulemaking modifying Part 382 to cover foreign carriers. On November 4, 2004, the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to apply the ACAA rule to foreign carriers (69 FR 64364). The NPRM sought to apply Part 382 to foreign carriers in a way that achieves the ACAA's nondiscrimination objectives while not imposing undue burdens on foreign carriers. This NPRM also proposed revisions to a number of other provisions of 14 CFR Part 382 and generally reorganized the rule. The Department received about 1300 comments on this NPRM. In this preamble to the final rule, this proposed rule is called the “Foreign Carriers NPRM” or the “2004 NPRM.” On September 7, 2005, the Department published a second NPRM, on the subject of medical oxygen and portable respiratory assistive devices (70 FR 53108). The Department received over 1800 comments on this proposed rule, which is referred to in this preamble as the “Oxygen NPRM.” On February 23, 2006, the Department published a third NPRM, concerning accommodations for passengers who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deaf-blind. The Department received over 700 comments on this proposed rule, which is called the deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) NPRM in this preamble. This document addresses the over 3800 comments received on all three NPRMs. The section-by-section analysis will describe each provision of the combined final rule. 4 In this preamble, when we mention the “present,” “current,” or “existing” rule, we mean the version of Part 382 that is in effect now. It will remain in effect until a year from today, when it will be replaced by the provisions that are published in this final rule. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES General Regulatory Approach A number of airline industry commenters-- principally, but not only, foreign carriers -- criticized the Foreign Carriers NPRM’s approach as being too detailed and prescriptive. Many of these commenters said they preferred a more general approach, in which an overall objective of nondiscrimination and service to persons with disabilities was stated, with the details of implementation left to the discretion of carrier policies, guided by codes of recommended practice issued by various governments or international organizations. It is the Department’s experience, over the 21 years since the enactment of the Air Carrier Access Act, that in order to ensure that carriers are accountable for providing nondiscriminatory service to passengers with disabilities, detailed standards and requirements are essential. If all that carriers are responsible for is carrying out, in their best judgment, general objectives of nondiscrimination and good service, or best practices or recommendations, or regulations that are not enforceable by the Department, then effective enforcement of the rights Congress intended to protect in the ACAA becomes impracticable. It is understandable that carriers would wish to implement their goals through policies of their own devising and to limit potential compliance issues. However, the Department is responsible for ensuring consistent nondiscriminatory treatment of passengers with disabilities, including implementation of the variety of specific accommodations that are essential in providing such treatment. We must structure our response to this mandate in a way that allows for clear and consistent implementation by the carriers, and clear and consistent enforcement by the Department. Consequently, we are convinced that the approach taken in the NPRM, reflecting the Department’s years of successful experience in carrying out the ACAA, is appropriate. Coverage and Definition of “Flight” The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to cover the activities of foreign carriers with respect to a “flight,” defined as a continuous journey, in the same aircraft or using the same flight number that begins or ends at a U.S. airport. The Foreign Carriers NPRM included several examples of what would or would not be considered covered “flights.” One of these examples proposed that if a passenger books a journey on a foreign carrier from New York to Cairo, with a change of plane or flight number in London, the entire flight would be covered for that passenger. When there is a change in both aircraft and flight number at a foreign airport, the rule would not apply beyond that point. Another example proposed that the rules applying to U.S. carriers would apply to a flight operated by a foreign carrier between foreign points that was also listed as a flight of a U.S. carrier via a code sharing arrangement. Commenters, including foreign carriers, generally conceded that it was acceptable for the rule to cover foreign carriers’ flights that started or ended at a U.S. airport. Some carriers said that it was burdensome for them to continue to observe Part 382 rules for a leg of a flight that did not itself touch the U.S. (e.g., the London-Cairo leg in the example mentioned above). We note that only service and nondiscrimination provisions of the rule apply in such a situation, not aircraft accessibility requirements. Foreign carriers’ main objection, however, centered on codeshare flights between two foreign points. They said that it was an inappropriate extraterritorial extension of U.S. jurisdiction to apply U.S. rules to a foreign carrier just because the foreign carrier’s flight between two foreign points carried 5 passengers under a code-sharing arrangement with a U.S. carrier. In response to these comments, the Department has changed the applicable provision of the final rule. If a foreign carrier operates a flight between two non-U.S. points and the flight carries the code of a U.S. carrier, the final rule will not extend coverage to the foreign carrier for that flight segment and the foreign carrier will not be responsible to the Department for compliance with Part 382 for that segment. Rather, with respect to passengers ticketed to travel under the U.S. carrier’s code, the Department regards the transportation of those passengers to be transportation by a U.S. carrier, concerning which the U.S. carrier is responsible for Part 382 compliance. If there is a service-related violation of Part 382 on a flight between two non-U.S. points operated by a foreign carrier, affecting a passenger traveling under the U.S. carrier’s code, the violation would be attributed to the U.S. carrier, and any enforcement action taken by the Department would be against the U.S. carrier. We note that the aircraft accessibility requirements would not apply in such a situation. U.S. carriers can work with their foreign carrier codeshare partners to ensure that required services are provided to passengers. Conflict of Law Waivers and Equivalent Alternative Determinations One of the most frequent comments made by foreign carriers and their organizations was that implementation of the proposed rules would lead to conflicts between Part 382 and foreign laws, rules, voluntary codes of practice, and carrier policies. These conflicts, commenters said, would lead to confusion and reduce efficiency in service to passengers with disabilities. Many commenters advocated that the Department should defer to foreign laws, rules, and guidance, or accept them as equivalent for purposes of compliance with Part 382. In anticipation of this concern, and in keeping with the Department’s obligation and commitment to giving due consideration to foreign law where it applies, the Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed a conflict of laws waiver mechanism. Under the proposal, a foreign carrier would be required to comply with Part 382, but could apply to DOT for a waiver if a foreign legal requirement conflicted with a given provision of the rule. If DOT agreed that there was a conflict, then the carrier could continue to follow the binding foreign legal requirement, rather than the conflicting provision of Part 382. Foreign carriers commented that this provision was unfair, because it would force them to begin complying with a Part 382 requirement allegedly in conflict with a foreign legal requirement while the application for a waiver was pending. Some commenters also objected to DOT making a determination concerning whether there really was a conflict between DOT regulations and a provision of foreign law. In order to determine whether a foreign carrier should be excused from complying with an otherwise applicable provision of Part 382, the Department has no reasonable alternative to deciding whether a conflict with a foreign legal requirement exists. The Department cannot rely solely on an assertion by a foreign carrier that such a conflict exists. Comments from a number of foreign carriers asked the Department to broaden the concept of the proposed waiver, by allowing foreign carriers to comply with recommendations, voluntary codes of practice, etc. We do not believe such a broadening is necessary to comply with the Department’s legal obligations. Nor would it be advisable from a policy point of view, as it would not provide the consistency that passengers with disabilities should expect, regardless of the identity or nationality of the carrier they choose. We therefore want to make clear, for purposes of this waiver provision, what we mean by a conflict with a provision of foreign law. By foreign law, we mean a legally binding mandate (e.g., a statute, regulation, a safety rule equivalent to an FAA regulation) that imposes a nondiscretionary obligation on the foreign carrier to take, or refrain from taking, a certain action. Binding mandates frequently can subject a carrier to penalties imposed by a government in the event of noncompliance. Guidance, recommendations, codes of best practice, policies of carriers or carrier organizations, and other materials that do not have mandatory, binding legal effect on a carrier cannot give rise to a conflict between Part 382 and foreign law for purposes of this Part, even if they are published or endorsed by a foreign government. In order to create a conflict, the foreign legal mandate must require legally something that Part 382 prohibits, or prohibit 6 something that Part 382 requires. A foreign law or regulation that merely authorizes carriers to adopt a certain policy, or gives carriers discretion in a certain area that Part 382 addresses, does not create a conflict cognizable under the conflict of laws waiver provision. For example, Part 382 says that carriers are prohibited from imposing number limits on passengers with disabilities. Suppose that Country S has a statute, or the equivalent of an FAA regulation, mandating that no more than three wheelchair users can, under any circumstances, travel on an S Airlines flight. S Airlines would have no discretion in the matter, since it was subject to a legal mandate of its government. This would create a conflict between Part 382 and the laws of Country S that could be the subject of a conflict of laws waiver. However, suppose that the government of Country S publishes a guidance document that says limiting wheelchair users on a flight to three is a good idea, has a regulation authorizing S Airlines to impose a number limit if it chooses, or approves an S Airlines safety program that includes a number limit. In these cases, the conflict of laws waiver would not apply, since in each case there is not a binding government requirement for a number limit, and S Airlines has the discretion whether or not to adopt one. We note one exception to this point. If a foreign government officially informs a carrier that it intends to take enforcement action (e.g., impose a civil penalty) against a carrier for failing to implement a provision of a government policy, guidance document, or recommendation that conflicts with a portion of the Department’s rules, the Department would view the government action as creating a legal mandate cognizable under this section. While retaining the substance of the conflict of laws provision of the NPRM, the Department has, in response to comments, modified the process for considering waiver requests.. We agree with commenters that it would be unfair to insist that carriers comply with a Part 382 provision that allegedly conflicts with foreign law while a waiver request is pending. Consequently, we have established an effective date for the rule of one year after its publication date. We strongly encourage carriers, even where a provision of Part 382 itself explicitly allows an exception in order to comply with a foreign law (i.e., section 382.87(a)), to consider filing a conflict of law waiver request as outlined in section 382.9(a) whenever a carrier believes itself bound by a legal mandate that requires something Part 382 prohibits or prohibits something Part 382 requires. If a carrier sends in a waiver request within 120 days of the publication date of the final rule, the Department will, to the maximum extent feasible, respond before the effective date of the rule. If we are unable to do so, the carrier can keep implementing the policy or practice that is the subject of the request until we do respond, without becoming subject to enforcement action by the Department. The purpose of the 120-day provision is to provide an incentive to foreign carriers to conduct a due diligence review of foreign legal requirements that may conflict with Part 382 and make any waiver requests to DOT promptly, so that the Department can resolve the issues before the rule takes effect. What a foreign carrier obtains by filing all its conflict of laws waiver requests within the first 120 days is, in effect, a commitment from DOT not to take enforcement action related to implementing the foreign law in question pending DOT’s response to the waiver request. For example, if S Airlines filed a waiver request with respect to an alleged requirement of a Country S law requiring number limits for disabled passengers within 120 days of the rule’s publication, then the Department would not commence an enforcement action relating to an alleged violation of Part 382’s prohibition of number limits that occurred during the interval between the effective date of Part 382 and the date on which DOT responds to S Airline’s waiver request. This would be true even if the Department later denies the request. However, if S Airlines did not file its request until 180 or 210 days after the rule is published, DOT could begin enforcement action against the carrier for implementing number limits inconsistent with Part 382 during the period between the effective date of the rule and the Department’s response to the waiver request. If the Department granted the waiver request, any enforcement action relating to the carrier’s actions during that interval would probably be dismissed. However, if the waiver request were denied, the enforcement action would proceed. S Airlines thus would have put itself at somewhat greater risk by failing to submit its waiver request on a timely basis. 7 We also recognize that laws change. Consequently, if a new provision of foreign law comes into effect after the 120-day period, a carrier may file a waiver request with the Department. The carrier may keep the policy or practice that is the subject of the request in effect pending the Department’s response, which we will try to provide within 180 days. Again, the carrier would not be at risk of a DOT enforcement action relating to the period during which the Department was considering the waiver request concerning the new foreign law. Carriers should not file frivolous waiver requests, the stated basis for which is clearly lacking in merit or which are filed with the apparent intent of delaying implementation of a provision of Part 382 or abusing the waiver process. In such cases, the Department may pursue enforcement action even if the frivolous waiver request has been filed within 120 days. As a general matter, a carrier that does not file a request for a waiver, or whose request is denied, cannot then raise the alleged existence of a conflict with foreign law as a defense to a DOT enforcement action. Many foreign carriers and their organizations also said that a conflict of laws waiver, standing alone, was insufficient. They said that their policies and approaches to assisting passengers with disabilities, or laws or policies relating to disability access of foreign carriers’ countries (either single- country laws or those of, for example, the European Union) should be recognized as equivalent to DOT’s rules. Compliance with equivalent foreign laws and carrier policies, they said, should be sufficient to comply with Part 382. U.S. disability law includes a concept – equivalent facilitation -- that can address these comments to a reasonable degree. This concept, which is embodied in such sources as the Department’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), states that a transportation or other service provider can use a different accommodation in place of one required by regulation if the different accommodation provides substantially equivalent accessibility. The final rule permits U.S. and foreign carriers to apply to the Department for a determination of what the final rule will call an “equivalent alternative.” (We use this term is used in place of “equivalent facilitation” to avoid any possible confusion with the use of “equivalent facilitation” in other contexts.). If, with respect to a specific accommodation, the carrier demonstrates that what it wants to do will provide substantially equivalent accessibility to passengers with disabilities than literal compliance with a particular provision of the rule, the Department will determine that the carrier can comply with the rule using its alternative accommodation. This provision applies to equipment, policies, procedures, or any other method of complying with Part 382 It should be emphasized that equivalent alternative determinations concern alternatives only to specific requirements of Part 382. The Department will not entertain an equivalent alternative request relating to an entire regulatory scheme (e.g., an application asserting that compliance with European Union regulations on services to passengers with disabilities was equivalent to Part 382 as a whole). It should be emphasized that the fact that a carrier policy or foreign regulation addresses the same subject as a provision of Part 382 does not mean the carrier policy or foreign regulation is an equivalent alternative. For example, both Part 382 and various carrier policies address the transportation of service animals. A policy or regulation that was more restrictive than Part 382 would not be viewed as an equivalent alternative, since it provided less, rather than substantially equivalent, accessibility for passengers who use service animals. As with the conflict of laws waiver, if a carrier submits a request for an equivalent alternative determination within 120 days of the publication of this Part, the Department will endeavor to have a response to the carrier by the effective date of the rule. If the Department has not responded by that time, the carrier can implement its proposed equivalent alternative until and unless the Department disapproves it. However, with respect to a request filed subsequent to that date, carriers must begin complying with the Part 382 provision when it becomes effective, and could not use their proposed equivalent alternative until and unless the Department approved it. 8 Other International Law Issues A number of foreign carriers said that application of the rule alike to U.S. and foreign carriers was unfair, in that U.S. carriers receive Federal funds to support their operations, while European and other foreign carriers do not. Commenters also argued that it was unfair for DOT to allow U.S. carriers to avoid civil penalties if they have introduced programs that go beyond minimum requirements. The Department disagrees with both these comments. The very reason for the existence of the ACAA is that the Supreme Court, in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 477 U.S. 597 (1986), determined that, with minor exceptions not germane to the issue raised by commenters, U.S. carriers do not receive Federal financial assistance. For this reason, the Court said, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – which applies only to entities receiving Federal financial assistance – largely does not cover U.S. air carriers. Congress then enacted the ACAA to ensure that U.S. air carriers provided nondiscriminatory service to passengers with disabilities, notwithstanding the absence of Federal financial assistance. The situation that the Court saw in 1986 remains: U.S. carriers engaging in international transportation do not receive Federal financial assistance. The second of these comments appears to be a somewhat inaccurate reflection of a DOT enforcement policy that, in some cases, allows a carrier to invest part of a civil penalty to improve services for passengers with disabilities above and beyond what the ACAA requires, rather than paying the amount of this investment to the Department. For example, if a carrier were assessed a $1.5 million civil penalty for failure to provide timely and adequate assistance to passengers who use wheelchairs, the Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings might require a cash payment of only $200,000 if the carrier agreed to use the remaining $1.3 million to enhance accessibility for passengers with mobility impairments in ways that go beyond the requirements of Part 382. Since this enforcement approach applies equally to foreign and U.S. carriers, continued implementation of this policy will not result in any inequity between U.S. and foreign carriers. Numerous foreign carriers and organizations complained that the Foreign Carriers NPRM was inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 40105(b), which directs the Secretary to “act consistently with obligations of the United States government under an international agreement” and to “consider applicable laws and requirements of a foreign country.” In the context of this rule, the Department believes that the conflict of laws waiver provision effectively discharges the statutory obligation imposed on the Department by the language of subsection (b)(1)(B), since the Department would “consider” foreign requirements in implementing its waiver authority when a Department regulatory provision was shown to conflict with a foreign legal mandate. In addition, the Department has also provided greater flexibility in the rule through incorporating an equivalent alternative provision, which covers policies and practices that are not mandated by foreign laws and requirements. This provision will facilitate our efforts to implement ACAA requirements smoothly in the context of our international relationships. A related argument that many foreign carriers made is that the Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed provisions inconsistent with international agreements binding on the U.S., thereby violating subsection (b)(1)(A). In particular, commenters cited provisions of the Chicago Convention (e.g., Articles 1 and 37 and Annex 9). Article 1 concerns the sovereignty of signatory states with respect to aviation; Article 37 authorizes the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to adopt standards and recommendations in a variety of areas, and Annex 9 includes a series of standards and recommendations concerning transportation of persons with disabilities. In the Department’s view, Article 1 is fully consistent with the adoption of requirements that affect flights to and from the U.S., a point with which many commenters agreed. The one area in which the Foreign Carriers NPRM was said by many commenters to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction – coverage of foreign carriers with respect to flights carrying passengers under the code of a U.S. carrier – has been changed in the final rule, as described above. The authority of ICAO under Article 37 to issue standards and recommendations does not purport to pre-empt a signatory state’s authority to issue rules concerning air commerce to and from its airports. 9 Nor do the standards and recommendations of Annex 9 with respect to transportation of passengers with disabilities purport to occupy the field, such that member states are pre-empted from issuing their own rules in this area. Indeed, the ICAO recommended practices suggest that member states should take their own implementing actions. It is reasonable to state that the provisions of the ACAA and Part 382 faithfully carry out these recommendations, making concrete many of the suggestions that ICAO makes to member states. The two ICAO standards in Annex 9 related to transportation of passengers with disabilities are the following: Standard 8.27. Contracting States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that airport facilities and services are adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities. Standard 8.34. Contracting States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that persons with disabilities have adequate access to air services. The ACAA rule does not conflict with these standards, it supports them. The rule requires that airport facilities and services involving transportation to and from the U.S. provide nondiscriminatory service to passengers with disabilities. The rule includes a variety of steps necessary to ensure that passengers with disabilities have nondiscriminatory access to air services, again in transportation to and from the U.S. Some commenters alleged that requirements of the Chicago Convention regarding “notification of differences” should apply to the rulemaking and that the Department had failed to comply with them. The relevant language is the following: Notification of differences. The attention of Contracting States is drawn to the obligation imposed by Article 38 of the Convention by which Contracting States are required to notify the Organization of any differences between their national regulations and practices and the International Standards contained in this Annex and any amendments thereto. Contracting States are invited to extend such notification to any differences from the Recommended Practices contained in this Annex, and any amendments thereto. The requirement for a notification of differences applies only to differences between Standards and national regulations. As noted above, there are no differences between the ICAO Standards and the ACAA rule. The Convention’s language says that States are “invited” to extend notification to ICAO with respect to any differences from Recommended Practices. Obviously, an “invitation” falls well short of a legal mandate. In any event, the ACAA requirements have the effect of carrying out the Recommended Practices. We reject any assertion that, by making specific accommodations mandatory (e.g., by saying “must” instead of “should”) or by limiting airline discretion to provide poorer rather than better accommodations for passengers (e.g., with respect to service animals), the rule is creating “differences” with International Standards cognizable under provisions of the Chicago Convention. In connection with their Chicago Convention-related arguments, a number of foreign carriers or organizations cited British Caledonian Airways v. Bond, 665 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir., 1981). This case arose from the crash of a DC-10 that FAA traced to cracks in engine pylons that were exacerbated by faulty maintenance procedures. FAA issued an emergency Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) grounding all DC-10s of U.S. carriers. FAA then issued a similar SFAR prohibiting foreign carriers’ DC- 10s from operating in U.S. airspace. Shortly before FAA rescinded the SFARs in question, their purpose having been achieved, several foreign carriers sought judicial review of the foreign carrier SFAR. The Court found that the SFAR conflicted with Article 33 of the Chicago Convention, which provides that certificates of airworthiness or licenses issued by the State in which the aircraft is registered must be recognized as valid by other contracting States, unless the country of registration is not observing “minimum standards.” 10 This case concerns solely Article 33 and its relationship to the validity of carrier airworthiness certificates issued by foreign governments. This rulemaking, on the other hand, has nothing to do with Article 33 or airworthiness certificates. The case therefore is irrelevant to the rulemaking. It may be that commenters were arguing that DOT regulatory actions in general that conflict with the Chicago Conventions are vulnerable to court challenges; however, as noted above, this regulation is fully consistent with relevant portions of the Chicago Convention. Other comments from foreign carriers and organizations were more policy-oriented in nature, asking for consultation through ICAO or other channels prior to publication of a rule which, while carefully limited to matters affecting service to and from the U.S., had implications for the international aviation system. Comments asked for greater focus on international harmonization. In fact, the Department consulted extensively with other interested parties. The volume and detail of comments from foreign carriers and organizations testify to the extensive opportunity non-U.S. parties have had to participate in this rulemaking. This final rule reflects the Department’s consideration of this participation (and we note that participation between the time of the Foreign Carriers NPRM and the final rule is just as valid as participation before issuance of the Foreign Carriers NPRM). DOT officials also met and had phone conferences with organizations representing European and Asian governments and/or carriers. It would be unreasonable to contend that this extensive participation somehow does not count. The Department is willing to continue discussions with foreign carriers and international organizations with respect to harmonization of U.S. and other standards in the area of transportation of passengers with disabilities. Meantime, the Department has a responsibility to carry out its statutory mandate to apply the ACAA to foreign carriers, and we cannot make working with other parties on harmonization matters a condition precedent to carrying out what Congress has mandated. Some comments alluded to the regulatory negotiation process that preceded the issuance of the original ACAA NPRM, complaining that there was not a similar process prior to the issuance of the November 2004 NPRM. Regulatory negotiation, is, of course, a wholly voluntary process on the Department’s part. There can be no implication that, because the Department chose to use such a process in the 1980s, the Department was in any sense required to do so again for this rulemaking. Nor is there any such requirement in the statutory amendment applying the ACAA to foreign carriers. It is worth noting, in any event, that the original ACAA NPRM was not the product of consensus resulting from the regulatory negotiation. That negotiation terminated short of consensus, because of intractable disagreements on some issues between carriers and disability groups. The original NPRM, like the 2004 NPRM, was wholly the Department’s proposal. The variety of disagreements among commenters concerning the November 2004 NPRM suggests, in retrospect, that the likelihood of achieving consensus on the application of the ACAA to foreign carriers in a manner consistent with the Department’s obligations under the ACAA would have been very low. Moreover, in the years since the original ACAA regulatory negotiation, disability groups have expressed some skepticism about the utility of the regulatory negotiation process for nondiscrimination rules of this kind, making it questionable whether they would have chosen to participate in such a venture. Accessibility of Airport Terminals and Facilities The Foreign Carriers NPRM (sec. 382.51) proposed that both U.S. and foreign carriers, at both U.S. and foreign airports, would be responsible for ensuring the accessibility of terminal facilities they own, lease, or control. The responsibility of foreign carriers at foreign airports would extend only to facilities involved with flights to or from the U.S. U.S. airports must meet applicable accessibility requirements (e.g., the ADAAG) under the ADA and section 504. The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed a performance standard for foreign airports, since U.S. accessibility standards do not apply there. This performance standard would require carriers to ensure that passengers with disabilities could readily move through terminal facilities to get to or from boarding areas. Carriers could meet this performance standard by a variety of means. A related provision (sec. 382.91) proposed that, at both U.S. and foreign airports, both U.S. and foreign carriers would have to provide assistance to passengers with disabilities in moving through the terminal and making connections between gates. 11 Some comments appear to have misunderstood the Foreign Carriers NPRM to propose that DOT wished U.S. accessibility standards, like the ADAAG, to apply to foreign airports. The Foreign Carriers NPRM did not make such a proposal. Those comments aside, the most frequent comment made by foreign carriers and their organizations on this subject was that the Foreign Carriers NPRM’s proposals for airport facility accessibility did not sufficiently take into account the fact that foreign governments or airport operators, not airlines, controlled matters relating to accessibility at many foreign airports. For example, it was pointed out that under recent European Union regulations, airport operators are given most of the responsibility for accommodating passengers with disabilities in airports. The Department recognizes that this may often be the case, and the final rule should not be understood to require carriers to duplicate the accommodations made by airport operators at foreign airports. Where foreign airport operators provide accessibility services or accessible facilities, foreign carriers may rely on the airport operators’ efforts, to the extent that those efforts fully meet the requirements of this Part. What happens, though, if the foreign airport operators’ efforts do not fully provide the accessibility that this rule requires (e.g., the airport operator is responsible for providing wheelchair assistance to passengers within the terminal, but does not provide connecting service between gates for wheelchair users who are changing planes on flights covered by the rule)? In such a case, this rule requires air carriers to supplement the services provided by the airport operator, by providing the supplemental services themselves or hiring a contractor to do so. If the carrier cannot legally do so (e.g., the airline is legally prohibited from supplementing the airport’s services to passengers with disabilities), the carrier could seek a conflict of laws waiver. The Foreign Carriers NPRM asked whether the final rule should require automated kiosks operated by carriers in airports or other locations (e.g., for ticketing and dispensing of boarding passes) to be accessible, and, if so, what accessibility standards should apply to them. Disability community commenters generally expressed support for this proposal; carriers and their organizations generally expressed concern about the cost and technical feasibility of accessible kiosks. The Department believes that all services available to the general public should be accessible to people with disabilities. Nevertheless, the comments concerning kiosks were not sufficient to answer our questions about cost and technical issues. Consequently, the Department plans to seek further comment about kiosks in a forthcoming supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). The preamble to the SNPRM will discuss this issue in more detail. On this subject, the Department intends to coordinate with the Access Board, which also has work under way that could affect kiosks. As an interim measure, the final rule will require a carrier whose kiosks are not accessible to provide equivalent service to passengers with disabilities who cannot use the kiosks. For example, suppose a passenger with a disability having only carry-on luggage wants to use a kiosk to get a boarding pass without standing in line with passengers checking baggage. If, because the kiosk is not accessible, the passenger cannot use it, the carrier would have to provide equivalent service, such as by having carrier personnel operate the kiosk for the passenger or allowing the passenger to use the first class boarding pass line. We recognize that some disability community commenters have expressed concern about the latter approach, thinking that it might call undue attention to the individuals receiving the accommodation. We agree that assisting the passenger at the kiosk is preferable. In our view, however, a potentially awkward accommodation is preferable to none at all (e.g., in a situation where personnel were not available to assist the passenger at the kiosk). We urge carriers to provide such an accommodation with sensitivity to passengers’ potential concerns about looking as though they have been singled out for special treatment. U.S. airports are governed, for disability nondiscrimination, by several Federal laws and rules, all of which coexist on the same airport real estate. The ACAA and DOT’s ACAA rules apply to terminal facilities owned, leased, or controlled by a carrier, specifically facilities that provide access to air transportation (e.g., ticket counters, baggage claim areas, gates). Title II of the ADA, and the Title II rules of the Department of Justice (DOJ) apply to terminal facilities owned by public entities like state and local airport authorities. DOT’s rules under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to those same facilities owned by public entities, if they receive DOT financial assistance (i.e., under the FAA’s airport 12 improvement program). In some cases, DOT’s 504 rules could apply to airport facilities of airlines (e.g., those air carriers who receive essential air service program funds from DOT). DOT’s Title II ADA rules apply to transportation services provided by public entities (e.g., a parking shuttle service run by the airport authority) or public transportation services that serve the airport (e.g. a public rail or bus transit link to the airport). DOT’s Title III ADA rules apply to private transportation serving the airport (e.g., private taxi, demand-responsive shuttle, or bus service). DOJ’s Title III ADA rules also apply to places of public accommodation on airport grounds that serve the general public (e.g., hotels, restaurants, news and gift stores). Fortunately, ascertaining the practical obligations of various parties at the airport is a good deal less confusing than this summary of overlapping authorities might make it seem. In a November 1996 amendment to its existing ACAA rule, the Department clarified these relationships, and this understanding of the relationship carries over into the new ACAA rule (see 61 FR 56417-56418, November 1, 1996). Basically, regardless of which statutory or regulatory authority or authorities apply to a particular facility or portion of a facility, Title II ADA requirements apply to public entity spaces and Title III ADA requirements apply to private entity spaces. The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) are the physical accessibility standards that apply throughout the airport (note, however, that until DOJ completes its adoption of the 2004 ADAAG, the 1991 ADAAG continues to apply spaces controlled by DOJ regulations). Enplaning, Deplaning, and Connecting Assistance The original Part 382, issued in 1990, required U.S. carriers to provide enplaning and deplaning assistance, and it assigned to the arriving carrier the responsibility for providing assistance in making connections and moving between gates. The Foreign Carriers NPRM built on this existing requirement, proposing to require carrier assistance between the terminal entrance and gate, as well with accessing ticket and baggage locations, rest rooms, and food service concessions. The Foreign Carriers NPRM asked whether carriers should be permitted to require advance notice for these accommodations, and it proposed that enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance be provided “promptly.” The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed requiring carriers, in the course of providing this assistance, to help passengers with disabilities with carry-on and gate-checked luggage. It also proposed requiring carriers to make a general announcement in the gate area offering preboarding to passengers with disabilities. Some carriers said that while they would voluntarily provide assistance to passengers with disabilities in moving through the terminal when practical and feasible, they opposed a regulatory requirement to provide this assistance. The Department does not believe that, under the ACAA, it is appropriate to tell passengers that they must learn to rely on the kindness of strangers. One of the purposes of Part 382 always has been, and remains, to create legally enforceable expectations upon which passengers with disabilities can consistently depend. Reliance on purely voluntary action by carriers does not achieve this objective. One of the issues discussed most often in comments concerned the proposed requirement that enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance be provided promptly. Many commenters, particularly people with disabilities and organizations representing them, thought that the rule should specify maximum times for assistance – 5, 10, or 15 minutes – rather than having a more general requirement for promptness. Some disability community comments also said that the rule should prohibit carriers from waiting until everyone else had left the plane before providing deplaning assistance to passengers with disabilities (e.g., to deplane a person needing assistance at the same time as persons in adjacent rows leave), or at least that the rule should require carriers to assist passengers with disabilities in deplaning no later than the time the aircraft aisle is free of other passengers. Carriers, on the other hand, opposed such specificity, saying that it was impractical and potentially costly. Some carriers wanted a less specific term than “promptly,” preferring a concept like “as soon as reasonably possible under the circumstances.” 13 The Department has decided to adopt the “promptly” language as proposed. The Department is concerned that, given the wide variety of situations in different airports and flights, adopting a specific time limit as some commenters advocated would be unrealistic. On the other hand, having no standard would have the effect of reducing the requirement, as a practical matter, to “whenever the carrier gets around to it.” We understand “promptly” to mean, in the case of deplaning, that personnel and boarding chairs should be available to deplane the passenger no later than as soon as other passengers have left the aircraft. We believe that halting the boarding process for everyone behind, for example, Row 15, until a wheelchair user in Row 15 was transferred to a boarding chair and assisted off the aircraft, could unduly inconvenience a considerably greater number of persons. The requirement for prompt service imposes a reasonable performance requirement on carriers without creating unnecessarily rigid timing requirements which, in some situations, carriers operating in the best of faith might be unable to meet. Many carriers suggested that they be allowed to require advance notice (e.g., of 24 or 48 hours) from passengers wanting enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance. This would make the logistics of providing the service easier for carriers to deal with, they said, and would ensure better service for passengers. We agree that it is highly advisable for passengers who want assistance to tell the airline about their needs in advance, and we urge passengers to communicate with carriers as soon as possible to set up assistance. We also noted comments from some carriers that, at some airports, particular locations have been established at which passengers arriving without prior notice can obtain assistance more easily and quickly than might otherwise be the case. This appears to be a good idea that carriers might consider using more widely. Nevertheless, being able to receive assistance in moving through the airport is so fundamental to access to the air travel system that the Department does not believe that allowing carriers to require – as distinct from recommending – advance notice would be consistent with the nondiscrimination objectives of the ACAA. Passengers with disabilities, like other passengers, sometimes must travel on short notice for business or personal reasons, and it would not be consistent with the ACAA to limit their access to needed assistance in moving through the terminal. Carrier comments also mentioned, in this context, the relationship between carriers and many foreign airports, where airports often have the major responsibility for providing assistance in the terminal. As noted elsewhere in the preamble, carriers can rely on airports’ efforts with respect to assistance in the terminal, supplementing the assistance that airports provide as necessary to meet fully the requirements of Part 382. If carriers are precluded by law from supplementing the airport-provided assistance, carriers can request a conflict of laws waiver. The Foreign Carriers NPRM, like the existing rule, assigns responsibility for connecting assistance to the carrier on which the passenger arrives. One foreign carrier mentioned that, per agreements with other carriers in at least some airports, its arriving passengers would be assisted to a connecting carrier’s gate by personnel of the connecting carrier. As noted elsewhere, the Department does not object to contractual agreements between carriers that would delegate the connecting assistance function to the connecting carrier. However, under the rule, the arriving carrier would retain responsibility for ensuring that the function was properly carried out. Many carriers objected to having to allow passengers they are assisting to stop at a restroom or food service location, saying that this would delay service and increase personnel costs. Passenger comments, to the contrary, suggested that it was unfair for assistance personnel to insist on wheeling a passenger who needed to go to the bathroom or who was hungry past a conveniently located restroom or food concession, at which ambulatory passengers could stop at their discretion. Their comments pointed out that eating and relieving oneself are basic life activities that people must do from time to time. This issue has become increasingly significant in recent years due to the need for early arrival at the airport for security screening and cutbacks in airline meal service. The final rule is structured to accommodate both sets of concerns. If an airline or contractor employee is assisting a passenger from, for example, the ticket counter to the gate, and they come to a restroom on the route they are taking, the employee is required to allow the passenger a brief stop, if the passenger self-identifies as a person with a disability needing this service. The employee is not required to detour to a different route, provide personal care attendant services to the passenger, or incur an 14 unreasonable delay. A delay which would result in the passenger not getting to a connecting flight would obviously be unreasonable. The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed that persons with disabilities who need assistance in boarding be provided an opportunity to preboard. It also proposed requiring a general preboarding announcement to this effect in the gate area. Disability community comments generally supported the proposed requirements. Carrier comments did not object to the proposed requirement to provide an opportunity for persons with disabilities to preboard, though some carriers did object to making the general announcement of the opportunity in the gate area, mostly out of concern that too many ineligible people would try to preboard, thereby slowing the boarding process. The Department believes that preboarding is an important way in which carriers can facilitate transportation by passengers with disabilities. Indeed, some portions of Part 382 (e.g., with respect to on-board stowage of accessibility equipment) are premised on the availability of preboarding. The final rule will include this requirement. However, we will not make final the proposed provision requiring a general announcement of this opportunity in the boarding area. Some carriers make such an announcement as a matter of policy. Even where this is not the case, carrier personnel are generally responsive to requests from passengers with disabilities to preboard and often scan the boarding area to determine if there are passengers for whom preboarding would be appropriate. Passengers who want to ensure that they can preboard should ask gate personnel for the opportunity. It is reasonable to expect passengers to take this step. The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed that carriers, in the course of providing assistance to passengers with a disability in moving through the terminal, would assist them in transporting carry-on and gate-checked baggage. A number of carrier comments opposed this proposal, saying that it would impose staffing and cost burdens on them. If a passenger wanted to have someone carry his or her bags, at least one comment suggested, the passenger should hire porter service. Other commenters said that such service should be limited to wheelchair users or persons with severe hearing or vision impairments. The Department notes that, in many cases, passengers with disabilities do not need extensive extra assistance in dealing with carry-on items. It is commonplace for wheelchair users to carry their briefcases or purses on their laps when being assisted through the terminal, for example. Proper-size carry-on and gate-checked items are, by definition, limited in size, and they are not the kind of items that passengers in general need to use a skycap and a cart to move through the airport. It would not be appropriate, in the context of a nondiscrimination rule, to effectively require passengers with disabilities to hire such service. We agree with commenters, however, that passengers who can carry their own items should do so, and we have added language saying that this service need be provided only to those passengers who cannot do so because of their disability. Carrier or contractor personnel can request credible verbal assurances from a passenger that he or she cannot transport the item in question or, in the absence of such credible assurances, require documentation as a condition of providing the service. Number Limits A number of foreign carriers commented that being able to limit the number of passengers with disabilities on board a given flight was important for safety, particularly in the context of an emergency evacuation. In some cases, carriers mentioned that laws or regulations of their governments either permitted or required them to impose limits on the numbers of either passengers with disabilities or assistive devices in the cabin. A number limit permits a carrier to say to a passenger, in effect “As a person with a disability, we will deny you transportation on this flight solely because some number of other persons with disabilities are on the flight.” Such a response to a passenger is intrinsically discriminatory. The Department discussed this issue in the preamble to the original ACAA rule (55 FR 8025-8028; March 6, 1990), and our view of the matter has not changed. If anything, our view of the matter has been strengthened by the fact that, during the 17 years since the original rule was issued, we are not aware of any instances of safety problems resulting from the existing rule’s prohibition on number limits. As mentioned elsewhere, a foreign carrier can apply for a conflict of laws waiver concerning number limits. The final rule also retains the existing provision permitting a carrier to require advance notice for a group of 10 or more passengers with 15 disabilities traveling together, so that the airline can make appropriate preparations for the group (e.g., a team traveling to a competition for wheelchair athletes). Safety Assistants/Attendants The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed retaining, with minor modifications, the existing Part 382 limitations on the ability of carriers to require passengers with disabilities to travel with attendants. One terminological change we proposed was to refer to attendants that airlines could require in certain specified situations for safety purposes as “safety assistants.” The use of this term is intended to emphasize that the only reason a carrier may require another person to travel with a passenger with a disability is safety. It would never be permitted for a carrier to require someone to travel with a passenger with a disability as a personal care attendant; that is, as someone who is present to assist the passenger with personal needs such as eating, drinking, and elimination. A number of foreign carriers asserted that they should retain the discretion to require attendants for passengers with disabilities. They gave several reasons for this desire. Some commenters did not want to have to rely on passengers’ self-assessments of their ability to travel independently. Some cited provisions of carrier manuals or government guidance that were contrary to the proposed regulation. Some feared that crew members might be pressed into performing personal care functions. Others argued that, on lengthy overseas flights, it was reasonable to require attendants for personal care purposes, since otherwise passengers with disabilities would be unable to perform personal functions for long periods, with harm possibly resulting to themselves or others. Some comments said that the requirement to allow a safety assistant to fly free if the carrier disagreed with the passenger’s self-assessment could lead to abuse by clever passengers trying to get free flights for someone. Some of these comments suggested providing discounted, rather than free, transportation for the attendant in these situations. Disability community commenters generally supported the Foreign Carriers NPRM proposals, and a number of comments were particularly supportive of the change to the “safety assistant” term, believing that it helped to clarify the meaning of the provision. Some comments from people with disabilities, however, objected to the provision to the extent that it would ever permit carriers to insist on an attendant over the passenger’s objections. These commenters did not trust the carriers’ judgments about passengers’ capabilities and were concerned that carriers would impose attendant requirements arbitrarily, increasing the costs and difficulty of flying for passengers with disabilities. The limits on carrier requirements for attendants were a significant issue in the original ACAA rulemaking, and the Department’s discussion of that issue in the preamble to the 1990 ACAA rule remains relevant (see 55 FR 8029-8032; March 6, 1990). Passengers with disabilities, for the most part, are the best judges of their capabilities, and providing broad discretion to carriers to override that judgment does carry with it a significant risk of arbitrary burdens being placed on passengers. On the other hand, carriers have ultimate responsibility for the safety of passengers, and we believe that the balance struck in the original ACAA rule is a sensible one. Passengers have the primary responsibility for making the determination if they can travel independently, but carriers can overrule that determination, in a carefully limited set of circumstances, and require a safety assistant. If it is really an overriding safety reason that compels a carrier to overrule a passenger’s decision and insist that he or she travel with a safety assistant, then it is appropriate for the carrier to bear the cost of the safety judgment that it makes. In the 17 years that the Department has implemented this provision under the existing ACAA rule, this requirement has not resulted, to the best of our knowledge, either in safety problems or frequent or significant abuse by passengers. Even on long flights, passengers with disabilities, under a nondiscrimination statute, have the right to determine whether they will incur the discomfort involved with not having someone available to assist them with personal functions. A passenger may choose to forego the airline’s food and beverage service. A passenger may dehydrate himself and avoid the need to urinate. The Foreign Carriers NPRM, like the present rule, emphasizes that flight attendants and other carrier personnel are never required to perform personal care functions for a passenger. To ensure that passengers who make the choice to fly unaccompanied have the opportunity to be fully informed of the implications of their decision, the 16 information to which passengers are entitled (see sec. 382.41(f)) includes a description of services that are or are not available on a flight. For these reasons, the Department is adopting the proposed provision and thereby retaining the substance of the existing provision of Part 382. The Department has made a few modifications in the rule text, however. In a situation where the carrier insists on a passenger traveling with a safety assistant, contrary to the passenger’s self-assessment, we are deleting the proposed language that would require the carrier to make a good-faith effort to find someone to perform the safety assistant function. This language was not part of the original 1990 rule, and we do not think it is essential to add it. As stated in the preamble to the 1990 rule (see 55 FR 8031), the carrier can play an important role in selecting a safety assistant (e.g., a deadheading crew member, a passenger volunteer), which can be useful from the carrier’s point of view if the carrier is worried about a passenger with a disability trying to abuse the system. If the carrier does not designate an employee or volunteer to be the safety assistant, the carrier cannot refuse to accept someone designated by the passenger (i.e., with the result that no one would be available to act as the safety assistant), as long as that person is capable of assisting the passenger in an evacuation. With respect to passengers who have mobility impairments, we have clarified the criterion relating to safety assistants to say that the passenger with a disability must be capable of “physically” assisting in his or her own evacuation. This clarification is made to avoid the possibility that someone could claim he is assisting in his own evacuation merely by calling for help. Finally, given that the rule will now apply to foreign carriers, we have added to the provisions concerning persons with mental disabilities and deaf-blind individuals a notation referring to briefings required by foreign government regulations, as well as those of the FAA. Consistent with the approach taken in the current rule and the Foreign Carriers NPRM, we proposed in the DHH NPRM to allow carriers to require any passenger who has severe hearing and vision impairment or is deaf-blind to travel with a safety assistant if communication adequate for transmission of the required safety briefing cannot be established. (We use the term “severe hearing and vision impairment” to include the entire spectrum of this disability, including the extreme of “deaf-blind,” unless we expressly indicate otherwise.) We proposed to require both the carrier’s personnel and the disabled passenger to make reasonable attempts to establish adequate communication, beginning with self- identification on the passenger’s part. We further proposed that if the carrier disagrees with the passenger’s assessment that he or she is capable of traveling independently, the carrier must transport the safety assistant free of charge and must also make reasonable efforts to locate such an assistant. We solicited comments on the proposed joint responsibility, on what might qualify as reasonable attempts to communicate, on whether our proposal is specific enough for all parties concerned to understand their responsibilities, and on whether a different standard might be more appropriate. We also solicited comments on the costs of compliance. The carriers and carrier associations that filed comments all supported the proposed requirement that passengers with severe hearing and vision impairment self-identify. Most opposed being required to find a voluntary safety assistant if they disagree with the disabled passenger’s self-assessment of being able to travel without one, and all opposed being required to transport the safety assistant without charge. They contend that not only would the requirement to transport the safety assistant without charge create incentives for fraudulent assertions of independence, but using voluntary safety assistants would raise serious insurance and liability issues, and requiring free transportation would saddle them with undue costs. Most sought clarification of carriers’ responsibility for making reasonable efforts to establish communication with passengers whose hearing and vision are severely impaired. For flights of twelve hours or more, some carriers said, inexperienced passengers may not be aware of what needs may arise for them during their flight. Of the disability organizations that filed comments, one supported joint responsibility for reasonable efforts to establish communication to determine the need for a safety assistant. Others maintained that the rule should ensure that persons with severe hearing and vision impairment are not denied travel because a carrier’s employees lack adequate training in or knowledge of basic communication techniques. 17 In response to the comments we received, we are modifying the proposed rule in some respects. In so doing, we are maintaining the basic principle that has worked effectively in the domestic airline industry since the original 1990 rule: if a passenger is able to establish adequate communication with the carrier for purposes of receiving the safety briefing, and the carrier nonetheless decides to overrule the passenger’s assessment that he or she can travel independently, the carrier cannot charge for the transportation of the safety assistant that the carrier requires. To allow the carrier an opportunity to confirm that the passenger had such a means of communication available, the final rule provides that the carrier can require the passenger to self-identify 48 hours before the flight. As part of this notification, the passenger would explain to the carrier how communication can be established (e.g., via tactile speech-reading by touching the speaker’s lips, cheek and throat). If the passenger does not notify the carrier 48 hours before the flight, the rule nonetheless requires the carrier to accommodate the passenger as far as is practicable. For example, if a passenger with severe hearing and vision impairments does not notify the carrier 48 hours before the flight of his or her intent to travel alone and of his or her ability to communicate adequately for transmission of the safety briefing, the carrier could refuse to transport the passenger without a safety assistant. If, however, the same passenger does not provide advance notice but is taking a nonstop flight, brings an interpreter to the airport, and is able to establish communication (in the gate area) adequate for the transmission of the safety briefing and to receive instruction during an emergency evacuation, the carrier must allow the passenger to travel without a safety assistant.. The FAA requires that the safety briefing be provided before each takeoff, so communication to permit transmission of this briefing must be established for each flight segment of the passenger’s itinerary. Passengers can use a variety of means to establish the needed communication. A passenger could, for example, bring a companion to the airport to serve as a go-between with carrier personnel there. That individual can interpret for the passenger during the safety briefing and can help the passenger agree with carrier personnel on physical signals—touching the passenger’s hand in a specific manner, for example— for use during evacuation or other emergencies. Another means by which the passenger may establish communication is to give carrier personnel an instruction sheet for communicating with him or her. While we are not requiring carriers to make safety briefing information available on Braille cards, they are free to do so. The carrier may not require the passenger to demonstrate his or her ability to communicate or that he or she has understood the safety briefing. For example, there could not be a quiz on the contents of the safety briefing or a demonstration of lip reading or finger spelling ability. In the case of codeshare flights, the carrier whose code is used must inform the operating carrier that a passenger with severe hearing and vision impairment has provided notice 48 hours in advance of his or her intent to travel without a safety assistant. If there is sufficient time before the 48-hour deadline for the passenger to directly contact the operating carrier, the carrier whose code is being used could, as an alternative, provide the passenger a number where he or she could contact the operating carrier to impart this information. Consistent with the treatment of this issue in the rest of the rule, in cases where carriers disagree with a passenger’s self-assessment that he or she can travel alone, we will continue to require that they transport the safety assistant without charge. Of course, any carrier that wishes to accommodate a passenger with severely impaired vision and hearing by designating a safety assistant from among, say, non-revenue passengers, its airport personnel, ticketed passengers on the same flight who volunteer to serve in that capacity, or a person accompanying the disabled passenger to the airport is free to do so. This requirement of free transportation for the safety assistant also applies in cases when the disabled passenger who believes that he or she does not need a safety assistant proposes to establish communication by means of tactile signing or finger spelling, but no member of the carrier’s flight crew can communicate using these methods. Carriers may decide as a practical matter that providing free transportation for a safety assistant in these cases is less costly than training personnel to communicate using such methods. 18 Finally, with respect to a passenger with a mental impairment (e.g., someone with Alzheimer’s disease), the Department wants carriers and passengers to understand that it is the passenger himself, not someone accompanying the passenger to the airport, who must be able to understand safety instructions from the crew. Medical Certificates/Communicable Diseases The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to continue, and apply to covered flights of foreign carriers, the existing Part 382 limits on the extent to which carriers can exclude or restrict passengers with communicable diseases and the situations in which carriers can require a passenger to get a medical certificate from a physician before traveling. Many air carrier comments asked for greater guidance on how to apply the provisions of these sections. Some of these suggested incorporating past DOT guidance that spelled out that a combination of severity of health consequences and easy transmission of a disease in the aircraft cabin environment would create an appropriate situation for restrictions on an individual’s travel and/or a requirement for a medical certificate. Commenters asked whether such conditions as the common cold, SARS, tuberculosis, or AIDS would meet the requirements of the proposed rule for permitting restrictions on travel or the requirement for a medical certificate. Some comments also asked how directives or recommendations from public health authorities would play into carrier decisions under the rule. There were a number of comments about the concept of “direct threat,” which is defined as a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of polices, practices, or procedures or eliminated by the provision of auxiliary aids or services. Disability community commenters expressed the concern that use of this term -- derived from the Americans with Disabilities Act – would make it too easy for carriers to use their discretion to exclude passengers, perhaps in a discriminatory fashion. Some carriers believed, to the contrary, that it would make it too difficult to exercise the discretion they need to protect the health of travelers or that it would be too burdensome for their personnel to make judgments on this basis. A medical group suggested that a direct threat be defined as a condition that would be seriously exacerbated by the flight itself or a serious communicable disease that could be transmitted to another person in flight. Some carriers questioned the objectivity or qualifications of a passenger’s physician to make a sound determination of whether it was safe for a passenger to travel. Some carriers preferred that their own medical staffs make these determinations, or at least have the ability to evaluate and override medical certificates provided by passengers’ physicians. Generally, carriers preferred to have wider discretion to restrict passengers’ travel than they perceived the provisions of the Foreign Carriers NPRM as giving them. In response to comments, the Department has made some modifications in the final rule provisions on these subjects. We have included the substance of the DOT guidance. Under this provision, carriers would have the ability to impose travel restrictions and/or require a medical certificate if a passenger presented with a communicable disease that was both readily transmitted in the course of a flight and which had serious health consequences (e.g., SARS, but not AIDS or a cold). In addition, carriers could conduct additional medical reviews of a passenger and, notwithstanding a medical certificate, restrict travel under some conditions. This additional review would have to be conducted by medical personnel (e.g., members of the carrier’s medical staff or medical personnel to whom the carrier referred the passenger), and this provision is not a license for non-medically trained carrier staff to disregard medical certificates presented by passengers from their own physicians. Nor would it be appropriate for carrier staff to exclude or discriminate against passengers because the passengers’ appearance might disturb or upset other persons (see also sec. 382.19(b)). Existing language of the regulation, which will be carried forward, permits a carrier to require a medical certificate from a passenger when there is reasonable doubt that the individual can complete the flight safely without requiring extraordinary medical assistance. This language accommodates the comment that one aspect of a direct threat is a passenger’s having a condition that would be seriously exacerbated by the flight itself. We disagree with a commenter’s assertion that a carrier should be able to 19 ask for a medical certificate if any medical attention might be needed. This suggestion goes too far in the direction of granting carriers discretion to demand medical documentation for potentially minor medical conditions or for disabilities that do not entail any acute medical condition. We have added language permitting carriers to rely on instructions issued by public health authorities (e.g., the U.S. Centers for Disease Control or Public Health Service; comparable agencies in other countries; the World Health Organization) in making decisions about carrying passengers with communicable diseases. For example, if CDC or WHO issues an alert or directive telling airlines not to carry a particular individual who poses a serious health risk (e.g., an individual with multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis), or persons exhibiting symptoms of a serious health condition (e.g., SARS), we would expect carriers to follow the public health agency’s instructions. Carriers could do so without contradicting the requirements of this Part. Aircraft Accessibility Features The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed extending to foreign carriers requirements for aircraft accessibility features based, with some modifications, on provisions in the existing ACAA rule. These features include accessible lavatories, movable aisle armrests, provision of on-board wheelchairs, and space to store wheelchairs and other mobility aids in the cabin. A few commenters apparently misunderstood the proposal as requiring retrofit of existing aircraft. This is not the case; no such requirement has ever existed or been proposed. 1. Movable aisle armrests The current rule requires U.S. carriers using aircraft with 30 or more seats to have movable aisle armrests on at least half the passenger aisle seats. Such armrests need not be provided on emergency exit row seats or on seats on which movable aisle armrests are not feasible. The carrier is required to provide a means to ensure that individuals with mobility impairments or other passengers with disabilities can readily obtain seating in rows having movable aisle armrests. The requirement applies to new aircraft ordered or delivered after the rule went into effect (retrofitting was not required) or to situations in which existing seats are replaced by newly manufactured seats. The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed retaining these requirements and applying them to foreign carriers, with some modifications and clarifications. The exception for seats on which movable aisle armrests are not feasible was not included in the Foreign Carriers NPRM regulatory text, and a new requirement was proposed that would call on U.S. and foreign carriers to ensure that movable aisle armrests were proportionately provided in all classes of service. The information provided by carriers about the location of movable aisle armrests would have to be specified by row and seat number. A number of carriers and aircraft manufacturers commented that the proposed deletion of the feasibility exception and the requirement to have movable aisle armrests in each class of service were problematic. They said that some seats and seat console designs for first and business class seats in fact did make movable armrests infeasible or too costly. Moreover, they said, the wider seat pitches in first and business class cabins often permitted horizontal transfers of passengers from boarding chairs to aircraft seats, making movable armrests unnecessary in these cases. The Department agrees that, if in a given aircraft, seats and seat pitches are configured so as to permit a horizontal transfer of a passenger from a boarding wheelchair to the aircraft seat (i.e., a transfer that can be accomplished without lifting the passenger over the aisle armrest), it would not be necessary to have a movable aisle armrest at that location. Consequently, if a carrier can show, through an equivalent alternative request, that such transfers are feasible with a given cabin configuration, the Department would grant the request for the carrier’s aircraft using that configuration. The underlying rule, however, will be adopted as proposed, because without a means of making a horizontal transfer into aircraft seats, passengers who board using boarding wheelchairs will have to use the less comfortable, safe, and dignified method of being lifted over the armrest. Carriers that are unable to demonstrate an equivalent alternative would have to provide movable aisle armrests even in first and business class. 20 Some commenters also said that putting seats with movable armrests into existing aircraft should be required only when newly designed or developed types of seats are installed, as distinct from newly manufactured seats of the same type that formerly occupied the space. Consistent with other provisions of the ACAA, ADA, and section 504, when a feature of a vehicle or facility is replaced, it must be replaced with an accessible item. (We note that, according to information referred to in the regulatory evaluation, movable aisle armrests are now standard features of at least some seat manufacturers’ products.) This obligation is not limited to new models of a feature placed into a space where older models formerly were used. Indeed, adopting the commenters’ suggestion would create a means for carriers to avoid providing movable aisle armrests on existing aircraft when newly manufactured armrests are installed, since carriers could simply order older seat models whenever they replaced the seats. When carriers remove any of the old seats on existing aircraft and replace them with newly manufactured seats, half of the replacement aisle seats must have movable armrests. Disability community commenters generally favored the Foreign Carriers NPRM proposal, but suggested some modifications. Some comments said that emergency exit rows should be made part of the base from which the 50 percent calculation should be made. The Department believes, however, that the existing formula, which excludes those rows from the calculation, will result in sufficient rows being equipped with movable aisle armrests. Other comments suggested requiring some rows (presumably, in economy as well as business or first-class sections) to have wider seat pitches, the better to accommodate service animals or assistive devices, or to remove some rows entirely and provide securement devices so that passengers could sit in their own wheelchairs. The Department regards these suggestions as impractical and potentially too costly to airlines, as they would reduce seating capacity on the aircraft. The latter suggestion, in addition, would be inconsistent with FAA safety rules concerning passenger seats on aircraft, since aircraft seats must be certified to withstand specified g-forces. One comment suggested requiring that in new aircraft or those subject to a cabin refit, the bulkhead row always have a movable aisle armrest. While we do not believe it is necessary to be this specific in the regulatory text, we believe that this is a good idea that carriers and manufacturers should consider, except when a bulkhead row is unavailable to passengers with disabilities because of FAA safety rules (e.g., a bulkhead row that is also an exit row). Bulkhead rows are often used by people with disabilities (see the seating accommodations section of this Part). 2. Accessible lavatories The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to retain the existing requirement that cabins of aircraft with more than one aisle (e.g., a twin-aisle aircraft like a 747) have an accessible lavatory. As under the existing rule, this requirement would apply to new aircraft (i.e., aircraft ordered/delivered after the effective date of the rule). If a carrier replaced an inaccessible lavatory on an existing twin-aisle aircraft, it would have to do so with an accessible lavatory. The Foreign Carriers NPRM also proposed to clarify that if a carrier replaced a component of an existing, inaccessible lavatory on a twin-aisle aircraft (e.g., a sink) without replacing the entire lavatory, the new component would have to be accessible. Many disability community commenters believed the existing and proposed requirements concerning accessible lavatories were inadequate. They said that accessible lavatories should be required in all aircraft, including the much more common single-aisle aircraft. The absence of accessible lavatories makes travel uncomfortable and difficult for passengers with disabilities, they said. Airline industry commenters, on the other hand, said that adding a requirement for accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft would be overly costly and burdensome. Particularly given that single-aisle aircraft often make lengthy flights (e.g., across North America, some trans-oceanic flights), it is clear that providing accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft would be a significant improvement in airline service for passengers with disabilities. One of the organizations that commented on the Foreign Carriers NPRM is in the process of working with carriers and manufacturers to develop an accessible lavatory design for single-aisle aircraft that would minimize seat loss. At the present time, however, the Department is concerned that the revenue loss and other cost impacts of requiring accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft could be too great. Consequently, we are not imposing such a 21 requirement at this time. Providing accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft remains a matter of interest to the Department, and we will look carefully at ongoing developments in this area to determine if future rulemaking proposals may be warranted. Some comments objected to the proposed requirement to use accessible components (e.g., a sink) when replacing a component of a lavatory on a twin-aisle aircraft. Cost concerns aside, the main point of these comments was that lavatories typically are sold and installed as a unit, and that it is unusual to replace a single component of a lavatory. Even when this happens, because the lavatory is an integrated unit, only a given component that is dimensionally consistent with its original design is likely to fit. The Department believes that this comment has merit, and we are deleting the sentence in question. Several foreign carriers objected to the application to them of the existing rule’s requirement that when an inaccessible lavatory unit was being replaced on a twin-aisle aircraft, it must be replaced with an accessible lavatory. Their main concern was that since the accessible lavatory unit would require more space than its inaccessible predecessor, they would have to remove or forego seats, causing revenue loss. One carrier made very high estimates of seat loss from such a change (e.g., eight seats on some aircraft) and suggested that alternative means (e.g., a curtain) could provide as adequate restroom facilities as an accessible lavatory. Consequently, these commenters urged, the rule should require an inaccessible lavatory to be replaced with an accessible lavatory only in the context of a change in cabin layout. Since the original ACAA rule (see 55 FR 8020-8021; March 6, 1990), the Department has drawn a distinction between single-aisle and twin-aisle aircraft for purposes of accessible lavatory requirements. While the Department has acknowledged since the time of the original rule that requiring accessible lavatories in twin-aisle aircraft involves direct costs and revenue losses (though some seat loss estimates, like the one referred to above, appear overstated), the Department determined then and continues to believe now that the requirement is justified in twin-aisle aircraft. The cabins of these aircraft are physically larger, affording somewhat greater flexibility than single-aisle aircraft in placing accessible lavatory units. They tend to be used on longer-distance flights and carry more people, making the presence of accessible lavatories all the more important to passengers. U.S. carriers have been subject to the same requirement for many years, and it is important to maintain a level playing field between U.S. carriers and their foreign carrier competitors in terms of such a requirement. Contrary to one foreign carrier comment, requiring accessible lavatories on twin-aisle aircraft does not discriminate against foreign carriers; U.S. carriers, no less than their foreign counterparts, use twin-aisle aircraft on long-distance international routes. Several commenters requested a clarification with respect to the accessible lavatory requirement in a twin-aisle airplane, to the effect that only one accessible lavatory need be installed. For example, if a carrier was refitting a cabin, and replacing all its old inaccessible lavatories, it would only have to install one accessible lavatory unit. We believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of the requirement, and we will use this interpretation as we implement and enforce the rule. However, we do not believe that additional regulatory language is necessary. 3. Stowage Space for Wheelchairs The Foreign Carriers NPRM proposed to retain with some modifications, and to apply to foreign carriers’ aircraft, the existing requirement that aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats have a priority space to stow at least one passenger wheelchair. The modifications proposed from the existing rule were to add dimensions of a wheelchair that would fit without disassembly into the priority space and to delete the application of this section to electric wheelchairs. As with other aircraft accessibility provisions of the Foreign Carriers NPRM, the proposed requirement concerning on-board stowage of wheelchairs would apply to new aircraft. Contrary to concerns expressed by a number of carriers, the Foreign Carriers NPRM did not propose a retrofit requirement. Nor would the requirement apply to “all types of aircraft,” as several comments asserted. It would apply only to aircraft with 100 or more seats. 22 Comments from disability community commenters generally supported the proposed requirement, though several of these comments said that the dimensions proposed for wheelchairs to be carried in the cabin should be enlarged, given the size of many current types of mobility devices. Many foreign carrier comments said either that all wheelchairs should be carried in the cargo compartment or that carriers should have discretion concerning whether or not to carry a wheelchair in the cabin. Some comments expressed the concern that carriers could not fit a space for a folding wheelchair into their cabin configurations without losing seating capacity. One foreign carrier added that crew luggage should have priority over a passenger’s wheelchair. The reasons for storing a wheelchair in the cabin are twofold. First, it can often be more convenient for a passenger to have the wheelchair close at hand when he or she leaves the aircraft and to be able to get as close as possible to the aircraft door on boarding before having to transfer. Second, as pointed out in the preamble to the original ACAA rule (55 FR 8035; March 6, 1990), passengers with disabilities have the same concerns as other passengers about loss of or damage to their property when it is checked. While, as some comments pointed out, requiring space for one wheelchair does not completely solve this problem for all passengers with disabilities, doing so does help at least one such passenger per flight. A bit of added inconvenience to non-disabled passengers or crew who might have to stow their carry-on items elsewhere seems an acceptable price to pay, in the context of a nondiscrimination rule, for this service to passengers with respect to their means of mobility. For these reasons, the Department is adopting the proposed requirement. We recognize that some foreign carriers are used to exercising their discretion about where to carry passengers’ wheelchairs, as were U.S. carriers prior to the adoption of the original ACAA rule. U.S. carriers, with appropriate oversight from DOT, have successfully adapted to this requirement, and foreign carrier comments did not contain any compelling reasons why they could not do so as well. It is important to remember that foreign carriers will not be required to modify existing cabins just for the purpose of creating a space for passengers’ wheelchairs. There is a wide variety of wheelchairs and mobility devices on the market. It would not be practical to require spaces that can handle every sort of device. The rule’s requirement is now limited to spaces for folding manual wheelchairs, the present and proposed language concerning cabin stowage of power wheelchairs having been deleted in response to comments expressing concern about the adequacy of space, problems arising from the disassembly and reassembly of wheelchairs in the context of transportation in the cabin, and potential issues concerning stowage of batteries. Of course, since only folding manual wheelchairs are permitted in the cabin, large, motorized mobility-assistive devices of any type – not just power wheelchairs, as such – would not have to be carried in the cabin. Based on the Department’s experience, the dimensions in the Foreign Carriers NPRM should be sufficient to handle a considerable majority of models of folding wheelchairs. Consequently, while we agree that this required space will not be sufficient for all models, we believe it is a reasonable compromise between the needs of passengers and the space constraints of carriers. We note that, under the final rule, carriers are not required to carry electric wheelchairs in the cabin. One matter that some comments raised was the so-called “seat-strapping” method of carrying wheelchairs in cabins. This involves strapping down a wheelchair across a row of seats in an aircraft that does not have the required space for stowing a folding wheelchair in the cabin. While nowhere mentioned or authorized in the current Part 382, this practice has been permitted by DOT enforcement policy in some cases. Some comments supported allowing this approach as an alternative to providing a stowage space in the cabin. The Department does not believe that this is an appropriate alternative to endorse in the rule, because it is a more awkward way of carrying a wheelchair and because it can, on a given flight, reduce seating capacity for other passengers. This is a more important consideration than ever, given frequently high load factors on many flights. However, because DOT practice has allowed this measure in the past, we do not believe it is fair to ban the practice altogether. Consequently, seat-strapping will not be permitted as an alternative to designated stowage spaces on new aircraft ordered by or delivered to carriers after two years from the rule’s effective date. The Department’s policy will not change with respect to existing aircraft. 23 4. On-board wheelchairs The existing rule requires that, on aircraft with more than 60 seats, the carrier must provide an on- board wheelchair in any case if the aircraft has an accessible lavatory, and on a passenger’s advance request even if the aircraft does not have an accessible lavatory. The rationale for the latter requirement is that some passengers with limited mobility may