Rule2024-29731
Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers With Disabilities Using Wheelchairs
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 17, 2024
Effective
January 16, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation Department
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department) is issuing a final rule to strengthen its regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and to address the serious problems that individuals with disabilities using wheelchairs and scooters face when traveling by air that impact their safety and dignity, including mishandled wheelchairs and scooters and improper transfers to and from aircraft seats, aisle chairs, and personal wheelchairs. This final rule also carries out certain rulemaking provisions required by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 102398-102445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29731]
[[Page 102397]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 242
December 17, 2024
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 382
Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers With Disabilities Using
Wheelchairs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 102398]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 382
[Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0144]
RIN 2105-AF14
Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers With Disabilities
Using Wheelchairs
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department)
is issuing a final rule to strengthen its regulation implementing the
Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and to address the serious problems that
individuals with disabilities using wheelchairs and scooters face when
traveling by air that impact their safety and dignity, including
mishandled wheelchairs and scooters and improper transfers to and from
aircraft seats, aisle chairs, and personal wheelchairs. This final rule
also carries out certain rulemaking provisions required by the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2024.
DATES: This rule is effective January 16, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Miller, Vinh Nguyen,
Robert Gorman, or Blane Workie, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington,
DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax),
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d3e352f342e29322d35382f7330343131382f6c1d393229733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7949f859e848398879f9285d99a9e9b9b9285c6b7939883d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bedf2f5f3b5f5fceee2fef5dbfff4efb5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72041b1c1a5c1c15070b171c32161d065c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acdec3cec9ded882cbc3dec1cdc2ecc8c3d882cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6b4a9a4a3b4b2e8a1a9b4aba7a886a2a9b2e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d1dfd2ddd69dc4dcc1d8dad6f3d7dcc79dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3e303d3239722b332e3735391c383328723b332a">[email protected]</span></a> (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The purpose of this final rule is to increase access to safe and
dignified air travel for individuals with disabilities. The Department
is committed to ensuring that our air transportation system is safe and
accessible for all. Air travel connects individuals to family and
friends, jobs, and vital services, and it opens the door to
opportunity. However, air travel can be especially difficult for
individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters and rely on disability-
related physical assistance and services provided by U.S. and foreign
air carriers \1\ (``carriers'' or ``airlines'') and their contractors.
Damaged and delayed personal wheelchairs and assistive devices and
untimely and unsafe assistance provided by airlines can lead to serious
life disruptions such as loss of mobility independence, personal
injury, lost opportunities and wages, and other significant harms. Some
wheelchair users even avoid flying altogether because of these risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Carrier'' is defined as ``a U.S. citizen (``U.S.
carrier'') or foreign citizen (``foreign carrier'') that undertakes,
directly or indirectly, or by a lease or any other arrangement, to
engage in air transportation.'' 14 CFR 382.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Statutory Authority
The Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 41705, prohibits
discrimination because of disability in airline service by U.S. and
foreign air carriers. When it enacted the ACAA, Congress directed the
Department ``to promulgate regulations to ensure non-discriminatory
treatment of qualified handicapped individuals consistent with safe
carriage of all passengers on air carriers.'' Public Law 99-435,
section 3, 100 Stat. 1080, 1080 (1986). The Department responded by
issuing a final rule that required carriers to provide
nondiscriminatory service to individuals with disabilities.\2\ The
Department has continually updated these regulations pursuant to the
ACAA, Congressional mandate,\3\ and with the Department's rulemaking
authority under 49 U.S.C. 40113, which states that the Department may
take action that it considers necessary to carry out its statutory
duties, including prescribing regulations.\4\ The Department considers
the mishandling of wheelchairs, scooters, and assistive devices, and
unsafe, undignified, and untimely wheelchair assistance, to constitute
discrimination on the basis of disability.\5\ Those actions impose
burdens on passengers with disabilities that they do not impose on
passengers without disabilities. Those actions also deny passengers
full and equal access to carriers' services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 55 FR 8008 (Mar. 6, 1990).
\3\ See, e.g., Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in
Air Travel, 73 FR 27614 (May 13, 2008) (revised part 382 to comply
with Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century, which, among other things, amended the ACAA to include
foreign carriers in the prohibition against discriminating against
qualified individuals with disabilities).
\4\ See, e.g., Accessible Lavatories on Single Aisle Aircraft,
88 FR 50020 (Aug. 1, 2023); Traveling by Air with Service Animals,
85 FR 79742 (Dec. 10, 2020); and Accessibility of websites and
Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013).
\5\ See e.g., United Airlines, Inc., Order 2016-1-3 (Jan. 15,
2016); US Airways, Inc., Order 2013-11-4 (Nov. 4, 2013); American
Airlines, Inc, Order 2003-3-1 (Mar. 4, 2003); and Northwest
Airlines, Inc., Order 2002-2-11 (Feb. 11, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that violations of the ACAA and part 382 occur in
interstate air transportation, the incidents are also violations of 49
U.S.C. 41702, which requires air carriers to provide safe and adequate
interstate air transportation. The Department has long recognized
section 41702 may be used to ensure ``safe and adequate'' service in a
civil rights context.\6\ The Department has also previously found that
violations of the ACAA and 14 CFR part 382 are unfair practices under
49 U.S.C. 41712.\7\ A practice is unfair if it (1) causes or is likely
to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) cannot be reasonably
avoided by consumers, and (3) is not outweighed by countervailing
benefits to consumers or to competition.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See e.g., Frontier Airlines, Inc., Order 2017-7-8 (July 21,
2017); United Airlines, Inc., Order 2016-1-3 (Jan. 15, 2016); U.S.
Airways, Inc., Order 2003-3-19 (Mar. 26, 2003); American Airlines,
Inc., Order 2003-3-1 (Mar. 4, 2003).
\7\ See e.g., American Airlines, Inc., Order 2024-10-15 (Oct.
23, 2024); Allegiant Air, LLC, Order 2018-4-8 (Apr. 13, 2018);
American Airlines, Inc., Order 2013-12-4 (Dec. 6, 2013); JetBlue
Airways Corp., Order 2010-12-17 (Dec. 13, 2010).
\8\ 14 CFR 399.79(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, section 440 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
\9\ (``2018 FAA Act'') directs the Department to review, and if
necessary revise, applicable regulations to ensure that passengers with
disabilities receive dignified, timely, and effective assistance at
airports and onboard aircraft from trained personnel. It also directs
the Department to ensure that airline personnel who provide physical
assistance to passengers with disabilities receive annual training that
includes, as appropriate, hands-on instructions and the appropriate use
of relevant equipment.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-254,
Sec. 440 (Oct. 5. 2018).
\10\ The Department notes that the 2018 FAA Act also increased
the civil penalties related to harm to passengers with disabilities
and required the Department to develop the Airline Passengers with
Disabilities Bill of Rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 \11\ (``2024 FAA Act'')
contains multiple accessibility measures to improve travel for
passengers who use wheelchairs. Section 542 of the 2024 FAA Act directs
the Department to issue a rulemaking to develop requirements for
minimum training standards for airline personnel or contractors who
assist wheelchair users who board or deplane using an aisle chair or
other boarding devices. Section 543 directs the Department to issue a
rulemaking to develop requirements for minimum training standards for
airline personnel or contractors related to stowage of wheelchairs and
scooters used by passengers with disabilities on aircraft.
[[Page 102399]]
Section 544 directs the Department to issue a rule directing carriers
to publish information relating to aircraft cargo hold dimensions, in
order to better inform passengers about the limitations of an
aircraft's ability to accommodate assistive devices. This section of
the Act also requires carriers to offer a refund to individuals for
fares, fees, and taxes paid for a flight that cannot accommodate the
passenger's assistive device.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Public Law 118-63,
Sec. 544 (May 16, 2024).
\12\ The Department's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection has
for many years interpreted 49 U.S.C. 41712 and 41705 as requiring
carriers provide prompt refunds when a passenger does not take a
flight because the flight does not accommodate the passenger's
assistive device such as a wheelchair. The 2024 FAA Act codifies the
Department's longstanding interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Background
The Department has long been concerned about the safe and dignified
treatment of passengers with disabilities, including passengers who use
wheelchairs, scooters, and other assistive devices. Disability rights
advocates have raised concerns to the Department regarding unsafe,
inadequate, and undignified assistance that individuals with mobility
disabilities receive from airlines when flying. These concerns have
primarily focused on delayed and damaged personal wheelchairs or
scooters, unsafe transfers to and from wheelchairs and aircraft seats,
and lack of prompt wheelchair assistance at the airport. Advocates have
also maintained that damage to passengers' personal wheelchairs or
scooters can result from insufficient training.
Today, passengers who use wheelchair cannot travel in their own
wheelchairs and must surrender their wheelchairs to an airline for
stowage prior to travel. This means passengers must rely on airline
staff and contractors to properly handle a wheelchair or scooter and
return it in a timely manner in the condition it was received. The
advocates have stressed to the Department that, when an individual's
wheelchair or scooter is delayed or damaged by an airline, the
individual's mobility, health, and freedom are impacted until the
device can be returned, repaired, or replaced. Advocates note that
wheelchairs are often custom fitted to meet the needs and shape of each
user. Spending time in an ill-fitting chair can cause serious injury,
such as pressure sores, and even death because of a subsequent
infection. Further, loaner devices may lack the customized assistive
technology that helps the individual communicate or breathe and have
inadequate functions that limit mobility. A disability organization
also asserted that, according to its survey, the top reason individuals
with mobility disabilities avoid travel is because of concerns about
wheelchair damage.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Paralyzed Veterans of America's (PVA) informal online
survey, titled The ACAA Survey, and its results were published in
September 2022 and can be accessed online at <a href="https://pva.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-ACAA-Survey-Results-FINAL.pdf">https://pva.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-ACAA-Survey-Results-FINAL.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2022, the Department held a Public Meeting on Air
Travel by Persons Who Use Wheelchairs. Hundreds of individuals
participated in the meeting and submitted written comments to the
meeting's docket. The Department heard firsthand stories from
passengers whose lives and health were seriously impacted by unsafe
assistance and mishandling of their wheelchairs or scooters.\14\
Commenters also discussed the need for enhanced training for personnel
and contractors providing physical assistance to individuals with
disabilities and handling wheelchairs. The Department addressed these
issues in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Ensuring Safe
Accommodations for Air Travelers with Disabilities Using Wheelchairs,
which was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2024.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Many of the participants expressed concern about the
October 2021 death of disability activist Engracia Figueroa, several
months after an incident involving damage to her wheelchair.
Following this incident, in September 2023, the Department entered
into an agreement with United Airlines. Under the Agreement, United
will: (1) roll out a flight filter on its booking engine to make it
easier for passengers who use wheelchairs to find flights where
their wheelchairs can fit and be safely transported; (2) refund the
fare difference for passengers using the flight filter when the
passenger's preferred flight cannot accommodate their wheelchair and
the flight that they travel on with their wheelchair is more
expensive; (3) conduct a pilot program to explore whether additional
equipment, such as a medical wheelchair or other form of moveable or
non-moveable chair, can be utilized to safely accommodate passengers
waiting for loaner wheelchairs; and (4) seek feedback from each
passenger who checks a wheelchair for transport in the aircraft
cargo compartment. See <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/DOT-United-Airlines-Agreement-Improve-Wheelchair-Access-PDF">https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/DOT-United-Airlines-Agreement-Improve-Wheelchair-Access-PDF</a>.
\15\ Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers With
Disabilities Using Wheelchairs, 89 FR 17766 (Mar. 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, in the NPRM, the Department proposed various
measures to improve the air travel environment for individuals with
disabilities. First, we proposed to codify our longstanding
interpretation of the ACAA that assistance to individuals with
disabilities must be provided in a safe and dignified manner. Second,
we proposed that assistance must be prompt, with promptness to be
determined based on the totality of the circumstances except when
physical assistance is needed to disembark the aircraft. Third, we
proposed that any mishandling of passengers' wheelchairs or other
assistive devices is a per se violation of the ACAA, subjecting an
airline to a separate penalty. Fourth, we proposed to define
``mishandling'' as ``lost, delayed, damaged, or pilfered,'' consistent
with existing DOT rules on baggage mishandling.\16\ Fifth, we proposed
that when a wheelchair or scooter is mishandled, airlines must
immediately notify a passenger of the right to file a claim with the
airline, to receive a loaner wheelchair, to choose a preferred vendor
for repairs or replacement, and to discuss with a Complaints Resolution
Official (CRO). Sixth, we proposed to require airlines to timely notify
passengers when wheelchairs or scooters are loaded and unloaded, and
when the wheelchair does not fit on an aircraft. Seventh, we proposed
to require airlines to transport a delayed wheelchair to a passenger's
final destination within 24 hours by whatever means possible. Eighth,
we proposed that if a wheelchair or scooter is mishandled, airlines
must provide the choice of repairing/replacing the device itself or
allowing the passenger to arrange for repairs/replacements through the
passenger's preferred vendor. Ninth, we proposed that airlines must
provide and pay for loaner wheelchairs after airline mishandlings, and
that airlines must consult with the passenger to ensure that the loaner
wheelchair meets the passenger's functional and safety-related needs to
the maximum extent possible. Tenth, we proposed that airlines provide
annual training, including hands-on training, of airline employees and
contractors who physically assist passengers with mobility disabilities
or handle passengers' wheelchairs or scooters. We also included a
proposed definition of ``hands-on training,'' and proposed to require
that airlines consult with disability advocacy organizations when
developing and changing their training programs. Finally, we proposed
an expanded rollout of on-board wheelchairs (OBWs) with improved safety
and accessibility features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 14 CFR 234.6 (requiring airlines to annually report
mishandling of wheelchairs and scooters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also sought comment on additional topics, including but not
limited to: (1) whether other types of status notifications about
checked wheelchairs and scooters should be required of airlines (e.g.,
notification regarding stowage location of the passenger's wheelchair
or scooter on the
[[Page 102400]]
flight); (2) whether airlines should be required to provide dimensions
of their cargo compartments prior to travel for passengers with
wheelchairs or scooters; (3) whether airlines should be required to
provide safe and adequate seating accommodations at the airport while
passengers wait for delayed wheelchairs or loaner wheelchairs; (4)
whether airlines should be required to reimburse passengers for
consequential costs from delayed wheelchairs; (5) whether airlines
should be required to use durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers to
carry out repairs; (6) whether airlines should be required to provide
passengers a specified period to ensure that the repairs to wheelchairs
or scooters carried out by the airline are adequate; (7) whether
airlines should be required to offer minor/temporary wheelchair repairs
at the airport to enable passengers to leave the airport with their
personal wheelchair and seek a full repair at a more convenient date;
(8) whether airlines should be required to reimburse passengers for
consequential costs due to inadequate loaners that restrict their
mobility or independence; (9) whether airlines should be required to
designate wheelchair experts and transfer experts to be consulted in
the event that a complex issue or problem arises while handling a
passenger's personal wheelchair or while physically assisting a
passenger with a disability; (10) whether to require airlines to expand
the size of lavatories on twin-aisle aircraft; and (11) whether
airlines should be required to reimburse the difference between the
fare on a flight a wheelchair user took, and the fare on a flight that
the wheelchair or scooter user would have taken if his or her
wheelchair or scooter had been able to fit in the cabin or cargo
compartment of the aircraft.
The comment period for the NPRM was originally scheduled to close
on May 13, 2024. Airlines for America (A4A), the International Air
Transport Association (IATA), the National Air Carriers Association
(NACA), the Regional Airline Association (RAA), and the Airline Service
Providers Association (ASPA) (collectively, the Associations) asked for
a 90-day extension of time to file comments. The Department extended
the comment period for 30 days, to June 12, 2024.\17\ The Department
also responded to a series of questions posed by the Associations and
placed those responses in the rulemaking docket.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 89 FR 38852 (May 8, 2024).
\18\ The questions and the Department's responses are available
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-0144-1318">https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-0144-1318</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received 1,897 comments from individuals \19\ and 73
comments from stakeholder organizations. Of the stakeholder
organization comments, 40 were from disability rights organizations, 14
were from airlines and airline associations, and 19 were from other
organizations representing airports, flight attendants, aircraft
manufacturers, labor unions, medical personnel, and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ This total includes approximately 1,055 form letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To broadly summarize, disability rights organizations generally
supported the rulemaking and welcomed DOT's action in this area. On
some topics, advocates were split on whether DOT's proposals were
appropriate or whether they should be strengthened, particularly on the
topic of training. Airlines often indicated that they supported the
underlying goals of the Department's proposal but argued that DOT's
underlying assumptions may be flawed and that its economic analysis may
not fully capture the costs of the rule. Airlines often suggested
amendments stating that they were necessary to prevent passengers from
having unrealistic expectations about the services and accommodations
that airlines can offer and provide. Individual commenters
overwhelmingly supported the rulemaking. A fuller analysis of the
comments received is set forth in the discussion of each topic below.
D. Summary of Major Provisions
The compliance date for these provisions is January 16, 2025,
unless otherwise stated.
BILLING CODE P
[[Page 102401]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.068
[[Page 102402]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.069
[[Page 102403]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.070
[[Page 102404]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.071
[[Page 102405]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE24.072
E. Costs and Benefits
The final rule will increase access to safe and dignified air
travel for individuals with disabilities, particularly individuals who
use a wheelchair or scooter. Expected benefits, which are not
quantified, include: reducing fatal and non-fatal injuries sustained by
individuals with disabilities and reducing embarrassing and demeaning
experiences from inadequate assistance. Expected costs to industry,
which are also not quantified, may include increasing staffing levels
and administrative costs, among other things.
The final rule will also reduce the frequency and severity of
mishandled wheelchairs and scooters and the harmful impacts that result
from the mishandling of wheelchairs and scooters. The quantified
benefits to individuals with disabilities are estimated to be
approximately $11.1 million annually (discounted at 2%). The quantified
cost to industry of the provisions involving the handling of
wheelchairs and scooters, including enhanced training requirements, are
estimated to be approximately $14.7 million annually (discounted at
2%).
In addition, the final rule expands the use of OBWs with improved
safety and accessibility features. Expected benefits, which are not
quantified, include increasing the safety and comfort of individuals
with disabilities. The quantified cost to carriers of the enhanced OBW
provisions are expected to be approximately $900,000 annually
(discounted at 2%).
II. Discussion
A. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities
1. Safe and Dignified Assistance
The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department proposed to explicitly
include in the rule text that any assistance or accommodation required
by the Department's disability regulation must be provided to
individuals with disabilities in a safe and dignified manner. The
Department also sought comment on whether the terms ``safe'' and
``dignified'' were easily understood by carriers and the public. The
Department also asked whether part 382 should include definitions for
``safe'' and ``dignified'' and if so, what should the Department
consider when drafting definitions for those terms.
Comments Received: Individuals with disabilities and disability
rights organizations generally supported the Department's proposal. At
the same time, many disability rights organizations commented that the
terms ``safe'' and ``dignified'' are not clearly understood by airlines
and public. Most of the disability rights organizations that commented
on this issue agreed that part 382 should include a definition for the
term ``safe.'' Multiple disability rights organizations, including
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA),\20\ the Christopher and Dana
Reeves Foundation, the Amputee Coalition, and the National Multiple
Sclerosis Society, stated that ``safe assistance'' be defined as ``free
from the risk of bodily injury or
[[Page 102406]]
death and the freedom from the risk of loss or damage to any assistive
device.'' The United States Gender and Disability Justice Alliance and
the Ability Center of Greater Toledo stated that the Department should
collaborate and work with the disability community and individuals who
use wheelchairs in developing a definition of ``safe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ PVA's comment was co-signed by more than fifty other
disability rights organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, disability rights organizations split on whether the term
``dignified'' should be defined in part 382. Some disability rights
organizations, such as PVA, the Christopher and Dana Reeves Foundation,
the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Arc, commented that
``dignified'' should not be defined in part 382. PVA asserted that
dignity is not a singular concept, but includes civil rights, human
rights, recognition, and non-discrimination, that any definition would
fail to capture the breadth of what dignity encompasses, and that
specifically defining dignity would only result in narrowing the
carrier's obligations and passenger protections.
A number of other disability rights organizations, such as the
American Association of People with Disabilities, the Rare Disease
Diversity Coalition, the Amputee Coalition, and the United States
Gender and Disability Justice Alliance, commented that the Department
should define the term ``dignified.'' The Amputee Coalition stated that
failing to define dignity, or at the very least provide guidance on
what it means to treat someone in a dignified manner, leaves it to case
law to determine what dignity is or is not. Disability Rights Maryland
commented that the definition of ``dignified'' should include the
following: highlighting and respecting the personhood and privacy of
passengers with disabilities; listening and following the instructions
of passengers with disabilities; and treating passengers' equipment,
such as medical equipment, mobility aids, and assistive technology,
with the same level of care as the crew would give to passengers. North
Dakota Protection & Advocacy Project stated that ``dignified'' could be
defined as ``assistance that follows protocols and procedures to ensure
that passengers are assisted in a respectful manner that meets their
needs in the least intrusive way possible.'' The Rare Disease Diversity
Coalition commented that ``dignified'' means: respecting the inherent
worth and autonomy of passengers with disabilities throughout their
travel experience; providing assistance in a manner that preserves the
individual's privacy and independence; communicating, understanding,
and responding to the unique needs of passengers with disabilities
without condescension or undue attention; and creating an environment
where passengers feel respected and valued.
Alternatively, Disability Rights California commented that the
phrase ``safe and dignified'' should be a combination definition that
includes the following: every human being has the right to be treated
humanely, and respectfully, without the risk of harming physical and
mental health; airlines must provide equitable, protected, physical and
mental wellbeing in all aspects of air travel; and passengers with
disabilities should have freedom from uncertainty, instability, or risk
of harm to self or property.
A majority of airline industry stakeholders generally supported the
Department's proposal. A4A and IATA commented that they agree with the
premise that airlines should provide safe and dignified assistance to
passengers with disabilities and the general intent and objective of
the Department's proposal. However, similar to disability advocates,
there is a split amongst the airline industry stakeholders on whether
the terms ``safe'' and ``dignified'' should be defined in part 382. A
majority of the airline industry stakeholders that commented on this
issue, including A4A, IATA, NACA, and RAA, stated that it is not
necessary or prudent for the Department to further define what
constitutes ``safe'' or ``dignified'' in part 382. NACA explained that
given the variability of passengers, their disabilities, and the
operating environment, a more prescriptive definition of ``safe and
dignified'' would be difficult to preemptively define. A4A and IATA
asserted that leaving the definitions open and flexible allows airlines
to better accommodate each individual and their unique disability.
A4A and IATA argued further that the Department should explicitly
recognize that the requirement for safe and dignified assistance is
based on the totality of circumstances. They also commented that the
regulation should state that a carrier's refusal to provide assistance
because the airline believes such assistance cannot be performed in a
safe and dignified manner does not constitute a violation of part 382.
They explained that airlines have responsibility for and are the
experts in flight safety, including the safety of passengers with
disabilities, and therefore, it is an airline's proper safety
determination as to whether it can safely carry the passenger and/or
their mobility aid. A4A and IATA asserted that passengers do not have
the knowledge or expertise to override an airline's safety-based
decision and that an airline's determination of appropriate flight
safety requirements takes precedence over a passenger's non-expert
opinion on such safety requirements. A4A and IATA argued further that
an airline's flight safety determination that may prevent a service or
accommodation from being provided cannot be considered a failure to
provide a service in a dignified manner and should be presumed to be
dignified because the airline put the safety of the passenger with
disabilities first.
A few airline industry stakeholders, such as Spirit Airlines
(Spirit), Allegiant Air (Allegiant), Transportes A[eacute]reos
Portugueses, S.A. (TAP) and Neos S.P.A., commented that the Department
should define the terms ``safe'' and ``dignified.'' TAP stated that
these terms are currently not defined, vague, and could lead to
unwarranted liability for airlines. Allegiant asserted that without
clearly actionable standards, frontline representatives and customers
are placed in an untenable position. Spirit stated that the Department
should clarify the term ``dignified'' or remove the term altogether.
Neos S.P.A. suggested that ``safe'' should encompass all actions that
prevent physical harm to passengers, and ``dignified'' should ensure
that interactions respect the individual's autonomy and privacy.
DOT Response: After carefully considering the comments, the
Department has decided to explicitly include in the rule text, as
proposed, that any assistance or accommodation required by the
Department's disability regulation must be provided to individuals with
disabilities in a safe and dignified manner. Including this language in
part 382 clarifies and emphasizes the importance of passengers with
disabilities receiving assistance in a safe and dignified manner.
In addition, the Department has determined that it is appropriate
to provide definitions of ``safe'' and ``dignified'' in part 382. We
agree with the commenters that stated that these terms may not be
clearly understood by airlines and public and that providing
definitions in part 382 will help passengers with disabilities to
better understand their rights and airlines to better understand their
obligation to passengers with disabilities. This final rule defines
``safe'' as assistance provided to individuals with disabilities that
does not put them at heightened risk of bodily injury, which may
include loss or damage to wheelchairs and other assistive devices that
result in bodily
[[Page 102407]]
injury. In other words, disability-related assistance would be
considered unsafe, and therefore a violation of part 382 and the ACAA,
if the assistance is provided in a manner that increases the likelihood
of bodily injury to the passenger with a disability. It would also be
considered unsafe if a passenger with a disability experiences bodily
injury due to the airline losing or damaging the passenger's wheelchair
or other assistive device. For example, an airline is providing unsafe
assistance if an airline returns a damaged wheelchair and the
wheelchair malfunctions and as a result the passenger is injured.\21\
The Department notes that airlines are already required to inform
passengers with a disability of the right to contact a CRO and how to
contact a CRO if they complain or raise a concern with airline
personnel about disability accommodations or services and the airline
personnel do not immediately resolve the issue to the customer's
satisfaction or provide a requested accommodation.\22\ This includes
complaints or concerns raised about inadequate disability accommodation
or service resulting in bodily injury due to improper wheelchair
assistance or mishandled wheelchairs. Passengers with disabilities do
not need to specifically request a CRO; airlines must provide this
information to passengers with disabilities any time they express
dissatisfaction with a disability-related service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See American Airlines, Inc., Order 2013-12-4 (Dec. 6,
2024).
\22\ See 14 CFR 382.151(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule defines ``dignified'' as assistance provided in a
manner that respects a passenger's independence, autonomy, and privacy,
which includes but is not limited to: airline personnel providing
transfer assistance in a manner that ensures the passenger's clothing
is not removed; airline personnel not unduly delaying requests for
access to a restroom such that the individual soils himself or herself;
and, to the maximum extent possible, airline personnel communicating
with the individual with a disability rather than his or her companion
when the individual with a disability is interacting with them. The
Department recognizes that some commenters are concerned that defining
``dignity'' may result in narrowing airlines' obligations and
passengers' protections. However, we agree with the commenters that
asserted that leaving the term undefined will result in confusion and
different interpretation by the public and airlines. The final rule's
definition of ``dignity'' highlights that airlines should respect a
passenger's independence, autonomy, and privacy, which numerous
commenters stated are essential civil and human rights. The Department
is also including in the definition of ``dignity'' a few illustrative
examples to further assist the public and airlines to understand what
it means to assist in a manner that respects a passenger's
independence, autonomy, and privacy. The Department notes that
dignified assistance is not limited to only these examples and that
there are many different situations and scenarios that can qualify as
dignified assistance. The definition of dignity is intended to provide
a general framework of the meaning of dignity while still leaving the
term broad and flexible.
The Department has concerns with A4A and IATA's suggestion that
part 382 should be amended to state that a carrier's refusal to assist
a person with a disability because the airline believes such assistance
cannot be performed in a safe and dignified manner does not constitute
a violation of part 382. The inclusion of this type of language in part
382 would make it significantly easier for airlines to deny services
and accommodations to any passenger with a disability under the pretext
of ``safety.'' It would also make it much harder for the Department to
hold airlines accountable for denying services and accommodations to
passengers with disabilities. We note further that part 382 already
provides instances in which airlines may limit or deny services and
accommodations due to safety and security concerns. These safety and
security concerns must be reasonable and specific. For example, Sec.
382.19 states that carriers may refuse to provide transportation to any
passenger on the basis of safety, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 44902 or 14
CFR 121.533, or to any passenger whose carriage would violate FAA or
TSA requirements or applicable requirements of a foreign government.
Airlines may not limit or deny services and accommodations based on a
general unsupported belief that the assistance cannot be provided in a
safe and dignified manner.
2. Prompt Enplaning, Deplaning, and Connecting Assistance
The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to clarify that all boarding,
deplaning, and connecting assistance provided, including moving within
the airport terminal (e.g., moving from the terminal entrance through
the airport to the gate for a departing flight, or from the gate to the
terminal entrance, or moving between gates to make a connection), must
be carried out by airlines in a ``prompt'' manner. The Department also
proposed to codify its longstanding practice of considering the
totality of circumstances when evaluating whether assistance was
provided in a prompt manner except when deplaning assistance by aisle
chair is needed. In addition, the Department proposed to codify the
Department's longstanding interpretation that for deplaning assistance
by aisle chair, ``prompt'' means that personnel and boarding chairs
must be available to deplane the passenger no later than as soon as
other passengers have left the aircraft except where this practice
would be inconsistent with Federal regulations or when the passenger
requests the wheelchair be returned at a location other than the door
of the aircraft. In situations where the exceptions do apply, the
Department's proposed definition of prompt requires an airport
wheelchair be available as close as possible to the door of the
aircraft. The Department noted that airlines are already required to
timely return the passenger's personal wheelchair as close as possible
to the door of the aircraft, to the maximum extent possible, so that
passengers may use their own equipment except: where this practice
would be inconsistent with Federal regulations governing transportation
security or the transportation of hazardous materials; or when the
passenger requests the wheelchair be returned at a location other than
the door of the aircraft.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 14 CFR 382.125(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received: Disability rights organizations, individuals
with disabilities, and airline industry stakeholders generally support
the concept that boarding, deplaning, and connecting assistance should
be carried out by airlines in a ``prompt'' manner. However,
stakeholders who commented on this proposal split on how ``prompt''
should be defined.
With respect to assistance with enplaning, moving through the
airport, connecting, and deplaning without an aisle chair, a number of
disability rights organizations, such as PVA, the Christopher & Dana
Reeve Foundation, and the Arc, supported the Department codifying its
longstanding practice of considering the totality of circumstances when
evaluating whether assistance was provided in a prompt manner when
deplaning assistance by aisle chair is not needed. However, they also
believed that the Department must clarify that prompt assistance
extends to those who wish to preboard and need aisle chair assistance
to do so. PVA stated that passengers who wish to preboard have
[[Page 102408]]
been required to wait at the gate or on the jetbridge while other
passengers boarded because the equipment or the proper number of
trained attendants were not available. PVA explained further that these
passengers were then boarded, transferred, and dropped in front of
other passengers. PVA suggested that for enplaning assistance by aisle
chair, ``prompt'' should mean that the requested enplaning equipment is
in working order and a sufficient number of attendants (i.e., two or
more) are available at the time the flight begins the preboarding
process.
Several disability rights organizations, such as the Colorado
Cross-Disability Coalition, the Ability Center of Greater Toledo, and
Disability Rights Maryland, disagreed with the Department's proposal to
consider ``the totality of the circumstances'' when evaluating whether
assistance was provided in a prompt manner and asserted that the
Department should establish specific timelines in which assistance
should be provided to passengers with disabilities. Disability Rights
Maryland commented that the ``totality of the circumstances'' standard
is too vague and makes it difficult to enforce the regulations when a
passenger is harmed by an airline. Indiana Disability Rights stated
that airlines will use the ``totality of the circumstances'' standard
as a broad loophole to avoid providing prompt assistance. Colorado
Cross-Disability Coalition and Disability Rights Maryland commented
that assistance with moving from terminal entrance through airport
should be available within 5 minutes of request, if pre-arranged, and
within 15 minutes, if not pre-arranged, assistance to make a connection
should be available within 10 minutes of landing or more quickly if
there is a tight connection or late arrival of the first plane, and
assistance with deplaning should be available immediately after the
last person without a disability has exited, meaning the aisle chair
and staff are waiting and the personal wheelchair is at the door
without damage. American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
stated that ``prompt'' should be defined as airline or third-party
contractors who assist passengers who use wheelchairs must be available
to assist said passengers within 15 minutes of check-in at the ticket
counter.
All the airline industry stakeholders who commented on this issue
supported the Department codifying its longstanding practice of
considering the totality of circumstances when evaluating whether
assistance was provided in a prompt manner. A4A and IATA pointed out
that the Department's ACAA Advisory Committee, which included experts
selected from the disability community and industry stakeholders,
recommended that the Department continue to use the totality of the
circumstances standard to determine if enplaning, deplaning, and
connecting assistance is prompt.\24\ A4A and IATA strongly urged the
Department to give significant weight to the Advisory Committee's
recommendation. In addition, the International Airlines Group (IAG)
stated that there are many factors beyond the control of the airline
which can impact the provision of this assistance including late
notification of a change in parking stand by the airport operator, mass
disruption events affecting a whole airport as well as high levels of
un-notified requests for assistance by customers. A4A, IATA, and NACA
explained further that air transportation occurs in a complex
environment in which airlines face significant operational and
technical challenges, that this environment can make it extremely
difficult to meet specific time standards, and that it would be
patently unfair to hold the airline liable for failing to meet a
specific time standard when the cause is beyond the airline's control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act Committee
Recommendation'' (February 4, 2022), available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0204-0040">https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0204-0040</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to deplaning assistance by aisle chair, several
disability rights organizations, such as PVA, the Christopher & Dana
Reeve Foundation, and the Arc, generally agreed with the Department's
proposal that ``prompt'' should mean that personnel and boarding chairs
must be available to deplane the passenger no later than as soon as
other passengers have left the aircraft. However, they suggested that
the Department should specifically require airlines to have at least
two trained employees or contractors available to provide transfer
assistance. A few disability rights organizations disagreed with the
Department's proposed definition of ``prompt'' for deplaning assistance
by aisle chair. Disability Rights Maryland commented that personal and
boarding chairs should be available as soon as the first passengers are
exiting the plane and that passengers who use aisle chairs should be
asked whether they prefer to exit the plane first or last.
Additionally, Fat Legal Advocacy, Rights, and Education commented that
passengers with disabilities should be able to deplane in row order in
the same way that able-bodied passengers deplane.
Several airline industry stakeholders, such as Allegiant, IAG, TAP,
Neos S.P.A, and Japan Airlines, supported the Department's proposal
that ``prompt'' for deplaning assistance by aisle chair means that
personnel and boarding chairs must be available to deplane the
passenger no later than as soon as other passengers have left the
aircraft. However, other airline industry stakeholders, such as A4A,
IATA, and NACA, asserted the proposed meaning of ``prompt'' for
deplaning assistance by aisle chair should only apply to instances in
which passengers have given advance notice to airlines that they need
deplaning assistance by aisle chair. NACA stated that an airline cannot
be expected to have personnel and equipment positioned in accordance
with the proposed standard if a passenger does not inform the airline
that they need deplaning assistance by aisle chair. A4A and IATA
suggested that the regulatory text should be revised to state the
following: ``Prompt assistance for a person who uses a boarding chair
(i.e., aisle chair) in deplaning means personnel and boarding chair
must be available to deplane the passenger, who has given advance
notice of such need consistent with applicable regulation or no later
than boarding the aircraft, when the last passenger who did not request
deplaning assistance departs the aircraft.'' A4A and IATA asserted that
if the Department does not incorporate the language related to
passenger advance notification, then airlines would be in the difficult
and costly position of pre-staging personnel and equipment at every
flight they operate and for multiple passengers onboard the aircraft,
often with no need or purpose and at an increased indirect cost to all
customers, including passengers with disabilities who do not require
such services.
In addition, A4A and IATA disagreed with the Department's proposal
that ``prompt'' for deplaning assistance by aisle chair also means that
the passenger's personal wheelchair must be ready and available as
close as possible to the door of the aircraft, to the maximum extent
possible. They asserted that this proposal improperly prioritizes rapid
handling of personal mobility aids for immediate availability at the
aircraft cabin door over ensuring proper handling of the mobility aid
to prevent damage and avoid injury of airline employees. They further
argued that this proposal does not consider real and unavoidable
scenarios that prevent or significantly impede compliance.
DOT Response: The Department has decided to codify as proposed its
[[Page 102409]]
practice of considering the ``totality of circumstances'' when
evaluating whether assistance, except for deplaning assistance by aisle
chair, was provided in a prompt manner. Requiring assistance to be
provided within a specific time frame, as suggested by some commenters,
rather than having a more general requirement for promptness based on
the totality of circumstances, is impractical given the wide variety of
factors that could affect when the assistance is provided such as the
number of assistance requests for a given flight, the airport layout,
and whether advance notice was provided to the airline by the
passenger. By using the ``totality of circumstances'' standard to
determine if the assistance is prompt, the Department is imposing a
reasonable performance standard on carriers without creating
unnecessarily rigid timing requirements which, in some situations,
carriers operating in the best of faith are unable to meet. The
Department also notes that the throughout the years, the use of this
standard has proven to be sensible and workable; it has supported the
goals of ensuring timely assistance for passengers with disabilities
while also providing airlines flexibility given the different factors
and circumstances that may impact assistance. Additionally, as we noted
in the NPRM, the ACAA Advisory Committee which included disability
rights advocates, airlines, and interested parties recommended that the
Department continue to use the totality of the circumstances standard
to determine if enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance is
prompt.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is not adopting a separate definition of ``prompt''
for preboarding with an aisle chair, as suggested by PVA and other
disability rights organizations, because part 382 already requires
airlines to provide prompt enplaning assistance to passengers with
disabilities upon request. This assistance must include, as needed, the
services of personnel and the use of ground wheelchairs, accessible
motorized carts, boarding wheelchairs (i.e., aisle chairs), and/or on-
board wheelchairs, and ramps or mechanical lifts.\26\ Furthermore,
airlines are already required to offer preboarding to passengers with a
disability who self-identify at the gate as needing additional time or
assistance to board and to permit these passengers to board the plane
before all other passengers, including first class passengers, elite-
level passengers, members of the military, passengers with small
children, etc.\27\ This means that when a passenger who needs enplaning
assistance requests preboarding, the airline must have the proper
equipment and an adequate number of personnel prepared to assist the
passenger onto the aircraft when preboarding begins, and the enplaning
assistance must be provided before all other passengers begin boarding
the flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 14 CFR 382.95.
\27\ See 14 CFR 382.93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to deplaning assistance by aisle chair, the Department
is codifying its longstanding interpretation that ``prompt'' means that
personnel and boarding chairs must be available to deplane the
passenger no later than as soon as other passengers who did not request
deplaning assistance have left the aircraft. To be prompt, the
passenger's personal wheelchair must also be ready and available as
close as possible to the door of the aircraft, to the maximum extent
possible, except where this practice would be inconsistent with Federal
regulations governing transportation security or the transportation of
hazardous materials or when the passenger requests the wheelchair be
returned at a location other than the door of the aircraft. This is
consistent with the existing requirement in 14 CFR 382.125(c) for
airlines to timely return the passenger's personal wheelchair as close
as possible to the door of the aircraft, to the maximum extent
possible, so that passengers may use their own equipment except: where
this practice would be inconsistent with Federal regulations governing
security or the transportation of hazardous materials or when the
passenger requests the wheelchair be returned at a location other than
the door of the aircraft. The Department believes this standard for
determining ``prompt'' deplaning assistance by aisle chair balances the
safety and dignity of passengers who require deplaning assistance and
airlines' operational considerations. We also note that the ACAA
Advisory Committee recommended that the Department codify this
timeliness standard,\28\ which was described in the Preamble of the
2008 final rule.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act Committee
Recommendation'' at 13.
\29\ See 73 FR 27614, 27620 (May 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is not adopting in this final rule the suggestion by
airline associations to amend the regulation to require prompt
deplaning by aisle chair only for those passengers who provide advance
notice to airlines. The Department disagrees with comments that if
passengers do not inform airlines that they need deplaning assistance
by aisle chair, then airlines cannot have necessary personnel and
equipment positioned to provide the assistance. Practically speaking,
in nearly all situations, a passenger who requires deplaning by aisle
chair will have received enplaning assistance with an aisle chair at
the origination airport. Therefore, the airline will have known well
before the flight arrives at the destination airport that there is a
passenger onboard the flight that requires deplaning assistance by
aisle chair, and the airline should be able to deploy the necessary
equipment and personnel to meet that flight when it arrives at its
destination.
The Department also disagrees with A4A's and IATA's comment that
``prompt'' for deplaning assistance by aisle chair should not include
the requirement that the passenger's personal wheelchair be ready and
available as close as possible to the door of the aircraft, to the
maximum extent possible. As we explained in the NPRM, the inclusion of
``to the maximum extent possible'' is intended to address situations
where it may not be possible to bring passengers' wheelchairs to the
door of the aircraft. For example, depending on the connection time and
the airport layout, it may be necessary to transfer the wheelchair
directly to the next flight. However, this does not mean that airlines
can simply decide that it is too much work to provide passengers their
own wheelchairs at the gate. The Department believes that this
requirement, as written, maximizes passengers' autonomy, safety, and
independence while also providing sufficient flexibility to airlines.
B. Handling Requirements for Assistive Devices
1. Rebuttable Presumption of a Violation
The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to define ``mishandled'' as it relates
to wheelchairs or other assistive devices to mean lost, delayed,
damaged, or pilfered (i.e., stolen). The NPRM also proposed to clarify
that any mishandling of a passenger's checked wheelchair or other
assistive device is a per se \30\ violation of the ACAA. Under the
proposal, any checked wheelchair or other assistive device that is
lost, delayed, damaged, or pilfered (i.e., stolen) while under the
custody and control of an airline would be considered a violation of
the ACAA and part 382 regardless of the circumstances surrounding the
event. The Department sought comments on whether it is reasonable to
consider any
[[Page 102410]]
mishandling of a wheelchair or other assistive device a per se
violation of the ACAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``Per se'' is a Latin phrase that means ``by itself'' or
``inherently.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Received: With respect to defining the term ``mishandled''
as it relates to wheelchairs or other assistive devices, most
disability rights organizations who commented on this issue agree with
the Department's proposal to define ``mishandled'' to mean lost,
delayed, damaged, or pilfered (i.e., stolen). Some disability rights
organizations, such as PVA, the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation,
and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, stated that the Department
should also make the terms ``lost,'' ``delayed,'' and ``in the custody
of the carrier'' consistent with the Department's 2018 technical
guidance for reporting mishandled wheelchairs and scooters.\31\
Similarly, the airline industry stakeholders that commented on this
issue generally support the Department's proposed definition of
``mishandled.'' However, A4A and IATA suggested that mishandled should
mean ``lost, delayed, damaged or pilfered by a direct act of the
airline or its agents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office
of Airline Information (OAI), Technical Reporting Directive #30--
Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs and Scooters (October 31, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the proposal to clarify that any mishandling of a
passenger's checked wheelchair or other assistive device is a per se
violation, all disability rights organizations and individuals with
disabilities that commented on this issue strongly supported adopting
this proposal as written. PVA and the Christopher & Dana Reeve
Foundation commented that this clarification is consistent with
airlines' current practices because airlines already regularly
acknowledge an ACAA violation when a mobility device was not returned
to the passenger in the same condition in which it was surrendered.
Indiana Disability Rights asserted that the common law principle res
ipsa loquitur \32\ suggests that any mishandling of passengers'
assistive devices, while in the airlines' custody, involves negligence
by airline staff; but for airline staff negligence, passenger devices
would not be mishandled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``Res ipsa loquitur'' is a Latin phrase that means ``the
thing speaks for itself.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the airline industry stakeholders who commented on this issue
strongly oppose the Department's proposal to clarify that any
mishandling of a passenger's checked wheelchair or other assistive
device is a per se violation of the ACAA. NACA commented that imposing
strict liability on airlines would be inappropriate for all mobility
aid handling circumstances, particularly in those circumstances that
are beyond the control of the airline. NACA stated that airlines should
not be held liable for mobility aids that were damaged or experiencing
operational problems prior to the airline receiving them or for
mobility aids that were damaged by ``acts of God.'' NACA further
asserted that some passengers will inevitably take advantage of the
Department's strict liability and submit claims for damage that
occurred before the airline received the mobility aid for stowage.
Avianca Carriers commented that finding a per se violation of part
382 without regard to the circumstances surrounding the mishandling or
the contributing factors of entities outside of the carrier's control
is punitive and, ultimately, will increase costs for passengers and
carriers.
Multiple airline industry stakeholders, such as Neos S.P.A.,
Finnair, and NACA, asserted that the Department should evaluate the
mishandlings of passengers' checked wheelchairs or other assistive
devices on a case-by-case basis to allow airlines to defend themselves.
Finnair explained that imposing a strict liability standard on airlines
for the mishandling of wheelchairs and assistive devices seems
inequitable as there are many reasons beyond the airline's control that
could damage a passenger's wheelchair. Finnair asserted that the
Department should consider the facts and circumstances surrounding each
situation and weigh the factors that contributed to the mishandling
that were within the carrier's control against those that were not.
A4A and IATA asserted that the Department lacks the authority to
impose per se liability for any mishandling of a passenger checked
wheelchair or other assistive devices because it would violate
airlines' constitutional due process rights. A4A and IATA stated that
the irrebuttable presumption that the airline is responsible for all
mishandling of a checked wheelchair or other devices under all
circumstances is unfounded and violates the airlines' rights to defend
themselves against false allegations or acts that occurred due to
events beyond their control. A4A and IATA explained that under both
constitutional and Administrative Procedure Act principles, a Federal
agency cannot override the fundamental rights of airlines to defend
themselves from liability for events and circumstances that are beyond
their control. A4A and IATA suggested that the liability for
mishandling should be a rebuttable violation of the ACAA and limited to
acts that are within the airline's direct control.
DOT Response: The Department has carefully considered this issue
and is adopting the proposed definition of ``mishandled'' as it relates
to wheelchairs and other assistive devices. The Department agrees with
comments suggesting that the definition of ``mishandled'' should be
consistent with how the Department defines ``mishandled'' in another
aviation regulation related to checked baggage.\33\ We believe making
the definition consistent with aviation regulation related to checked
luggage will reduce confusion since airlines are already applying this
definition to checked luggage. As such, we will not include ``by a
direct act of the airline or its agents'' in the definition, as
suggested by A4A and IATA. We note that further discussion related to
custody of wheelchair and other assistive devices can be found below.
Accordingly, this final rule defines ''mishandled'' as ``lost, delayed,
damaged, or pilfered (i.e., stolen).''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 14 CFR 234.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the proposal that any mishandling of a passenger's
checked wheelchair or other assistive device is a per se violation of
the ACAA, we find persuasive the comments from airline industry
stakeholders that it would be unreasonable to impose on airlines a
strict liability standard for wheelchairs or other assistive devices
that are not timely returned in the same condition in which they were
received. We agree with the comments from airline industry stakeholders
that airlines should be provided an opportunity to defend themselves.
We also share these commenters' view that airlines should not be found
liable for mishandling wheelchairs based on false allegations and in
situations where the mobility aids were damaged or experiencing
operational problems prior to the airline receiving them. Negligence of
the person with a disability due to improper labeling, instructions, or
other factors could also be a defense to a presumption of a mishandling
violation. However, we do not find persuasive the comments from airline
industry stakeholders stating that airlines should not be liable for
damages to wheelchairs that are due to ``acts of God'' or a third-
party.\34\ While ``acts of God'' or actions
[[Page 102411]]
of a third-party are beyond the control of an airline, we believe that
imposing responsibility on the airline is proper when the mishandling
occurs when the device is in the airline's custody and the mishandling
is through no fault of the passenger. The airline in the best position
to monitor the handling of wheelchairs and other assistive devices and
to adjust practices and procedures to better protect wheelchairs and
other assistive devices, and imposing responsibility on the carrier is
an effective method to advance the goals of the ACAA and part 382 to
reduce mishandlings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Refunds and Other Consumer Protections, 89 FR 32760
(Apr. 26, 2024) (Department concluded that ``[b]ag delays due to
third-party actions (e.g., security authority or Customs holding
bags, airport baggage processing system failure, or recovery bag
delays due to carriers' compliance with the positive passenger-bag
match requirement) are not permissible grounds for exempting the
carriers from the baggage fee refund obligation because the affected
bags are under carriers' custody.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We define ``custody'' as the time period when a passenger has
checked a wheelchair, scooter, or other assistive device with a carrier
and the carrier has control of a passenger's wheelchair, scooter, or
other assistive device. An airline's custody begins when the passenger
hands the device to an airline's representative or agent or leaves the
wheelchair, scooter, or other assistive device at a location as
instructed by the airline. An airline's custody ends when the
passenger, or someone acting on behalf of the passenger, or another
airline takes physical possession of the wheelchair, scooter, or other
assistive device. This is consistent with the Department's policy for
reporting mishandled baggage and wheelchairs and scooters.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office
of Airline Information (OAI), Technical Reporting Directive #30A--
Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs and Scooters (December 21, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As suggested by A4A and IATA, the final rule specifies that not
timely returning a wheelchair or other assistive device in the
condition that it was received is a rebuttable violation of the ACAA.
However, the Department is not adopting the suggestion by these airline
associations to limit liability to acts that are within the airline's
direct control. Under this final rule, the presumption of a mishandling
violation cannot be overcome by an airline asserting that the cause of
the mishandling is an ``act of God'' or otherwise outside its control
if the mishandling occurred while in its custody. The Department
believes that this standard ensures that airlines are held accountable
for mishandling assistive devices, particularly personal wheelchairs
and scooters, which are essential to the user's independence and
mobility, while ensuring that airlines can defend themselves.
2. Passenger Notifications
The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department proposed notification
requirements for airlines to ensure that passengers with disabilities
are aware of their rights in the event of a mishandling. More
specifically, the Department proposed adding a requirement that when
carriers mishandle wheelchairs or scooters, they must immediately
notify passengers of their rights to: (1) file a claim with the
airline; (2) receive a loaner wheelchair from the airline with
customizations; (3) choose a preferred vendor, if desired, for repairs
or replacement of a damaged device; and (4) to have a CRO available and
be provided information on how to contact the CRO.
The Department also sought to mitigate the resulting harms on
passengers with disabilities when an airline has failed to transport a
wheelchair or scooter on a passenger's flight. It is for this reason
that the Department proposed requiring airlines to provide timely
notifications to passengers with disabilities when their wheelchairs or
scooters have been loaded on and off the cargo compartment of their
flights and to immediately notify the passenger upon learning that his
or her wheelchair or scooter does not fit on the aircraft. The
Department did not propose a particular communication method for the
notification(s), leaving the airlines with the flexibility to determine
what would work best for them.
In the NPRM, the Department also requested comment on airlines
ensuring consumers have accurate and up-to-date information regarding
their checked wheelchairs and scooters. The Department asked whether
airlines should be required to provide status updates to passengers
with disabilities about their checked wheelchairs and scooters (e.g.,
the stowage location of the passenger's wheelchair or scooter on the
flight) and whether the proposed requirements should be extended beyond
wheelchairs and scooters to apply to other types of checked assistive
devices.
Comments Received: Disability rights organizations agree with the
Department's proposal that carriers notify passengers of their rights
and options when checked wheelchairs or scooters are mishandled. Some
disability rights organizations, such as PVA, the Amputee Coalition,
and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, suggested that the
Department should also include requirements that the passenger may file
a claim, and carriers must accept a claim, within fifteen days after
the passenger's arrival or return of the assistive device, whichever is
later. Furthermore, a few disability rights organizations, such as PVA,
the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, and the Amputee Coalition,
commented that the Department should require airlines to provide an
option for a passenger to file a claim in an accessible manner that
does not require the passenger to return to the airport.
Disability rights organizations also expressed support for the
Department's proposal on required notifications to passengers with
disabilities when their wheelchairs or scooters are loaded onto and off
their flights. These organizations stated that they believe that
passengers with disabilities need to know if, and when, their mobility
aids have been loaded and offloaded from aircraft so they can track
these devices that are critical to their health and independence. They
also stressed that these notifications must be timely and accurate and
provided in an accessible format, otherwise the notifications would be
useless.
Disability rights organizations had mixed opinions on communication
methods for providing the stowage notifications (e.g., via text
message, mobile app notification, email, or verbal confirmation). PVA
stated that the Department should not give carriers complete autonomy
for passenger notifications and that all notifications should occur in
the most prompt method that is accessible for the passenger. PVA's
comment continued on to state that for loading and offloading of the
passenger's mobility device, the carrier should default to a real-time
accessible method of communication, such as text messages and updates
on the carrier's website or mobile app. Others, including Indiana
Disability Rights, recommended that airlines update passengers about
the status of their wheelchairs in-person rather than through a mobile
app because passengers with disabilities may not have their phones on
them or available during boarding and deplaning. Some stated that the
notifications should only be done by using the passenger's preferred
method of communication.
Disability rights organizations' comments also urged the Department
to go further than the requirements of the NPRM's proposal. For
example, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation recommended that
airlines provide status updates for passengers' wheelchairs and
scooters throughout the entire air travel experience. This would
include updates each time the status changes, such as during the
loading and
[[Page 102412]]
offloading for all flight legs and for availability at connections. PVA
and Cure SMA noted that stowage notifications and stowage location
information need to be provided to relevant airline personnel as well
so that they also know where the passenger's wheelchair is at all
times.
Airline industry stakeholders had mixed opinions on the NPRM's
notification proposals. A4A and IATA commented that they generally
agree with the premise that passengers should be notified of a mobility
aid mishandling and their rights when it happens. However, they
suggested that the Department should clarify that the timing of the
notification should occur upon the airline becoming aware of the
mishandling. They further suggested that the Department should permit
airlines to also include restrictions in the notification, such as
limitations of rights when a passenger knowingly agrees to travel
separately from their mobility aid because of late gate arrival;
limitations of rights for pre-existing damage; and limitations of
rights when the mishandling was not caused by an act of the airline.
A4A also generally agreed that passengers should be informed of the
stowage status of their wheelchairs and scooters but requested
amendments to the Department's proposed rule. A4A provided several
scenarios where it believes compliance with the notification
requirements would not be possible, such as if the airline is not
provided correct contact information for the passenger or the passenger
does not have access to electronic communications. A4A commented that
they do not believe the Department should impose regulatory liability
for these scenarios as it could result in unreasonable actions taken by
airlines to avoid regulatory violations. A4A did support the proposal's
standard of ``timely'' notifications because this flexibility will
avoid imposing unfair liability on airlines for unrealistic timelines.
A4A also stated that the Department's proposed regulatory language is
redundant and should be limited to notifications when the wheelchair or
scooter is ``loaded'' and ``unloaded.'' Southwest Airlines Co.
(Southwest) agreed with A4A's stance and asserted that the Department's
requirements must account for operational realities, limitations of the
airline's ability to communicate with its customers, and different
airline business models. Southwest supported a ``prompt'' and ``to the
extent possible'' standard for notifications that would allow for
flexibility in differing circumstances, avoid imposing unfair
regulatory liability, and appropriately set the expectations of
passengers with disabilities.
A4A also supported flexibility for airlines regarding the
communication method(s) used to provide stowage notifications to
passengers. A4A's comment suggests that some airlines will opt to use
automated and electronic notifications, and in doing so will need to
ensure that their systems, procedures, and training are updated
appropriately. As such, A4A recommended that the Department give
airlines a minimum of 18 months to implement the notification
requirements. Southwest called for even more time for implementation
and requested a minimum of 24 months to comply. For passengers who need
verbal notifications, A4A stated that such requests should be made in
advance or at the airport on the day of travel. Southwest on the other
hand stated that verbal notifications could be problematic for the
carrier due to its open seating model. Southwest asserted that
discreetly informing a customer of the status of their device once
onboard the aircraft will be a concern and likely impossible without at
least announcing the customer's name in order to determine where they
are on the aircraft.
NACA had a slightly different position. NACA stated that there is
no added benefit to passengers with disabilities by knowing exactly
when their wheelchairs or scooters are loaded and unloaded. NACA
commented that the absence of a notice that a device was not loaded
should be enough for the passenger to know that their mobility aid has
been loaded on their flight. NACA asserted that costs for technology
purchases and implementation and handler time will outweigh any related
benefits to passengers with disabilities and will unduly burden the
ultra low-cost carriers (ULCCs). Allegiant and Spirit provided similar
comments and view this as an unnecessary additional requirement that
will disproportionately impact smaller carriers that do not utilize
sophisticated baggage tracking systems with a customer interface.
Allegiant stated that carriers may choose to use in-person verbal
notifications for passengers to reduce costs, which could cause
embarrassment to these passengers in a public setting. Spirit noted
that these notifications may cause more worry and anxiety for travelers
because wheelchairs and scooters are typically loaded last.
RAA noted that its fee-for-service carriers do not have the means
to directly contact their passengers and passengers would need to be
notified by the mainline partners. RAA also stated that automated
communications are preferred because it can be the timeliest form of
notification and most airlines already utilize technology that tracks
checked baggage where passengers can follow the location.
Foreign airlines shared similar opposing views as NACA, Allegiant,
and Spirit. TAP, Neos S.P.A., Japan Airlines Co., Ltd. (JAL), Finnair
OYJ, and Avianca Carriers noted concerns with logistical challenges and
high technology development costs associated with compliance with the
NPRM's proposed requirement. Avianca Carriers also stated that the
Department needs to define what is meant by ``timely'' notifications
and that notifications should not be required if providing the
notification would delay the aircraft.
Other stakeholders, including Open Doors Organization (Open Doors),
were generally supportive of the requirement for airlines to provide
stowage notifications to passengers with disabilities when their
wheelchairs or scooters are loaded onto and unloaded from their
flights. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospitality North American Volunteers
suggested that airlines go beyond text notifications by also providing
passengers with pictures of their stowed wheelchairs and scooters to
further reduce stress for passengers.
As for the proposed requirement for airlines to immediately notify
the passenger upon learning that the passenger's wheelchair or scooter
does not fit on the aircraft, comments received from airlines,
disability rights organizations, and others all generally support this
proposal. Some disability rights organizations noted that ideally this
notification should be provided to the passenger before boarding the
aircraft. This way, the passenger could avoid any unnecessary transfers
if he or she ultimately decides not to travel without their wheelchair
or scooter. A disability organization commenter added that if the
notification is provided after the passenger has boarded, then he or
she must be given the option to exit the plane and have the device
returned.
A4A and airline industry stakeholders noted that ``immediate''
notifications may not be realistic or possible in all situations. As
such, they suggested using ``prompt'' or other standards that provide
more flexibility for the airlines. A4A stated that the notification
should be provided no later than when the passenger boards the aircraft
or before the aircraft cabin door closes, if the passenger has already
boarded the aircraft when the airline attempts to load the wheelchair
or scooter in the cargo compartment. Some airlines also
[[Page 102413]]
stated that they may choose to give these notifications to passengers
verbally, which could alleviate the need for significant technology
development.
In response to the question in the NPRM on whether airlines should
be required to provide other status updates to passengers with
disabilities about their checked wheelchairs or scooters, disability
rights organizations had various suggestions. For example, PVA's
comment mentioned more frequent updates about the wheelchair's or
scooter's location throughout the entire travel experience, status
updates when a wheelchair or scooter is damaged, and status updates
when a delayed wheelchair or scooter is returned after the passenger's
arrival at his or her destination. United Spinal suggested passenger
alerts when policy changes are made that affect passenger safety.
Liberty Resources asked for notifications to inform passengers with
short connections whether their wheelchairs or scooters will be
available to them at their connecting gate. North Dakota Protection and
Advocacy Project noted that knowing the exact location and status of an
assistive device would be beneficial for passengers and carriers as
they could be more easily located. Disability rights organizations also
generally supported the idea of extending any notification requirements
to cover other types of assistive devices beyond wheelchairs and
scooters that passengers check in as cargo.
On the other hand, airline industry stakeholders opposed extending
the scope of the status notification requirements beyond the NPRM's
proposal. A4A noted that the loading and unloading of wheelchairs and
scooters is an appropriate scope for passenger notifications. They
stated that it would be extremely difficult and unnecessary to provide
additional granularity on the loading and unloading process, especially
considering variability in airline and aircraft manufacturers' loading
and securement procedures, mobility aids, and cargo compartment
configurations. A4A stated that this level of detail would also be more
confusing for passengers than helpful without additional explanation by
personnel with specialized cargo loading expertise. They also contended
that the NPRM's question was overly broad and did not allow for
meaningful comment on alternative requirements. They also stated that
they are unaware of material stowage issues for other assistive devices
and noted that airlines generally have little to no information when
passengers transport other assistive devices in their checked baggage.
RAA, Southwest, and Spirit voiced similar arguments in their comments.
DOT Response: After careful review of the comments on this subject
area, the Department is adopting modified notification requirements
that airlines must provide to passengers before departure, upon
arrival, and in the event a passenger's wheelchair or scooter is
mishandled. These notifications must be timely, accurate, and provided
in a readily accessible format for passengers with disabilities.
(i) Required Information Prior to Departure
The final rule requires airlines to provide certain notifications
prior to departure to passengers who travel with their own wheelchair
or scooter. The Department is declining to extend the scope of the pre-
departure notification requirements to other types of checked assistive
devices. Under this final rule, when passengers check their wheelchairs
or scooters, airlines are required to notify passengers of their
rights, including their right to file a claim with the airline and to
contact a CRO should their wheelchair be mishandled. In addition, prior
to the flight's departure, an airline must notify a passenger who uses
a wheelchair or scooter whether his or her checked wheelchair or
scooter was loaded onto the flight and if the size, weight, or other
attribute of the device prevented the carrier from loading the
wheelchair or scooter onto the flight. The Department continues to
believe that these passenger notifications are most relevant for
wheelchairs and scooters, as these larger and heavier devices are more
likely to encounter stowage issues with aircraft cargo doors and cargo
holds than other types of assistive devices. The Department also
acknowledges that there could be significant logistical difficulties
for airlines in tracking and updating passengers on other types of
assistive devices that are contained in passengers' checked luggage.
The Department is requiring that the notification provided to
passengers with disabilities when they check their wheelchair or
scooter be in writing. However, we are providing flexibility to
airlines on how to notify passengers whether their wheelchairs or
scooters have been loaded onto aircraft prior to departure and if it
has not been loaded, whether the wheelchair or scooter did not fit in
the cargo compartment. The Department received mixed feedback from
commenters on preferred communication methods (e.g., text, email,
mobile app notification, or verbal confirmation) for stowage
notifications. Airline comments suggested that some major airlines will
invest time and money into implementing automated tracking and
messaging systems. However, airlines with smaller budgets and
blueprints may choose to go a different route. By not specifying how
the notification is provided to passengers, the Department is enabling
airlines to develop practices and procedures that are appropriate for
their business models. If an airline offers multiple methods for
providing such notifications, then the airline should allow for the
passenger to choose his or her preferred method and should honor that
choice.
The Department acknowledges the comments from airline industry
stakeholders asserting that there are scenarios where airlines should
not be held responsible for passengers not being notified as to whether
their wheelchairs or scooters have been loaded on and off the cargo
compartment of their flights. The Department agrees that, in certain
limited circumstances, the lack of passenger notification is not a
failure of the airline and is not a violation. For example, the
Department would not find a violation if a timely notification was sent
but not received because the passenger's cell phone was powered off or
the passenger did not provide the airline with accurate contact
information. The Department may also not find a violation if the
airline provides in-person notifications but was unable locate a
passenger in the airport terminal or on the aircraft to provide the
notification despite making a good faith effort. The Department's
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection will consider these situations
on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances,
like how the Department generally analyzes other disability-related
matters to determine if the law was violated.
The Department also agrees with airline industry commenters in that
it is not always possible to provide immediate notifications when a
passenger's wheelchair or scooter cannot be transported on a flight.
Ideally, as noted by some of the comments from disability rights
organizations, passengers would be informed that a wheelchair cannot
fit in the aircraft cargo due to its size or weight prior to boarding
the flight so passengers who use wheelchairs can avoid any unnecessary
aisle chair and transfer assistance in enplaning and deplaning the
aircraft. However, passengers who use wheelchairs often board a flight
before other passengers, and wheelchairs and scooters are often
[[Page 102414]]
loaded into the cargo compartment towards the end of the loading
process. Loading the wheelchairs at the end makes it easier for
airlines to comply with the requirement of 14 CFR 382.125(d), which
states that airlines must ensure that passengers' wheelchairs, other
mobility aids, and other assistive devices are among the first items
retrieved from the baggage compartment. In A4A's comment, the
association recommended using the following regulatory language: ``. .
. you must promptly notify the impacted passenger no later than when
the passenger boards the aircraft or before the aircraft cabin door
closes, if the passenger has already boarded the aircraft when the
airline attempts to load the wheelchair or scooter in the cargo
compartment.'' The Department believes that the standard recommended by
A4A strikes an appropriate balance for when individuals with
disabilities should be notified because it still provides passengers
sufficient time to decide whether to deplane or continue with their
original flight without their wheelchair or scooter.
However, the Department is not convinced that implementing the
notification requirements regarding the stowage of wheelchair or
scooters will take airlines 18 months up to two years as suggested by
airline industry commenters. As stated earlier, the final rule provides
airlines flexibility regarding the method used to provide notification
to passengers. This means that airlines are not required to invest in
technology such as a baggage tracking system with a customer interface
to comply with the notification requirement though they may choose to
do so. Nevertheless, in recognition of the fact that airlines will need
some time to develop procedures and technology and train appropriate
staff, the Department is providing airlines one year from the date of
the final rule's publication in the Federal Register to implement the
notification requirement relating to stowage of wheelchairs and
scooters.
(ii) Required Information Upon Arrival
The final rule requires airlines to notify passengers upon arrival
when their wheelchairs or scooters have been unloaded from the
aircraft's cargo compartment. The Department is not extending the scope
of this notification requirements to other types of checked assistive
devices as some commenters have suggested as the Department is not
aware of material stowage issues for other assistive devices. Also, the
Department is providing flexibility to airlines on how to notify
passengers when their wheelchairs or scooters have been unloaded from
the aircraft's cargo compartment. This is consistent with the approach
that the Department is taking for pre-departure notification
requirements.
Under this final rule, the notification provided to passengers
regarding the unloading of a wheelchair or scooter from the cargo
compartment of the aircraft must be prompt. In this situation, prompt
means the notification is provided to the passenger before he or she
deplanes the aircraft. The Department made this determination for
several reasons. First, in another part of this final rule, the
Department is codifying its longstanding interpretation that prompt
deplaning assistance for individuals who use wheelchairs includes the
passenger's personal wheelchair being ready and available as close as
possible to the door of the aircraft except where this practice would
be inconsistent with Federal regulations or when the passenger requests
the wheelchair be returned at a location other than the door of the
aircraft. Often, passengers who use wheelchairs do not want to deplane
the aircraft until their personal wheelchair has been unloaded and they
can be assured that it is waiting for them at the door of the aircraft.
Second, as mentioned by Liberty Resources, PVA, and others, spending
extended periods of time waiting in aisle chairs, airport wheelchairs,
or airport seats may be uncomfortable or even harmful to many
individuals with customized wheelchairs. Third, the Department already
requires airlines to ensure that passengers' wheelchairs, other
mobility aids, and other assistive devices are among the first items
retrieved from the baggage compartment and wheelchairs and scooters are
often the last items loaded onto the cargo compartment so they can
quickly be retrieved. We note that, while this rule requires
notification of the unloading of wheelchairs or scooters to be provided
to passengers while they are still on the aircraft and the failure to
provide such notification would subject airlines to administrative
penalties, other Federal law regarding passenger behavior still
requires passengers with disabilities to follow crew member
instructions, including instructions to disembark an aircraft, even if
an airline has failed to provide a required notification.\36\ As for
the compliance period, the Department is providing airlines one year to
implement notification of the unloading of wheelchairs or scooters
similar to the implementation period for notification on whether a
passenger's wheelchair or scooter has or has not been loaded onto the
aircraft. The Department believes that one year strikes a balance
between giving airlines time to develop procedures and technology and
train appropriate staff and ensuring these vital notifications are
provided to passengers with disabilities as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Federal law prohibits passengers from interfering with
crewmembers in the performance of their duties onboard aircraft and
failing to obey crewmembers' directions. See 14 CFR 121.580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Required Information After Wheelchairs or Scooters Are Mishandled
The Department is adopting, as proposed, the requirement for
airlines, when wheelchair or scooters are mishandled, to notify
passengers in writing of their right to: (1) file a claim with the
airline, (2) receive a loaner wheelchair from the airline with certain
customizations, (3) choose a preferred vendor, if desired, for device
repairs or replacement, and (4) have a CRO available and be provided
information on how to contact the CRO. The final rule also requires
airlines to provide updates to passengers who have filed claims for a
delayed wheelchair or scooter when there are changes to the status of
the delayed wheelch air or scooter. The Department has decided not to
extend these notification requirements to other types of checked
assistive devices considering these notifications are generally not
relevant or beneficial to those traveling with checked assistive
devices that are not wheelchairs or scooters.
Regarding the timing of the notification to passengers of their
rights when a wheelchair or scooter is mishandled, the Department
agrees with A4A's suggestion that the notification should occur upon
the airline becoming aware of the mishandling, which can happen when an
airline employee or contractor notices that the wheelchair or assistive
device has been mishandled or when the passenger notifies airline
personnel that his or her wheelchair or scooter has been mishandled,
whichever occurs first. The Department is of the view that an extended
implementation period to notify passengers of their rights when a
wheelchair or scooter is mishandled is not warranted. However,
[[Page 102415]]
the Department sees benefit in aligning the time allotted for airlines
to comply with the requirement to allow passengers to choose a
preferred vendor for wheelchair repairs and replacements (discussed
below in section II.B(6)) to this notification requirement given
airlines would be notifying passengers of this right. For this reason,
the Department has decided to provide airlines until March 17, 2025, to
comply with this requirement.
As for the status updates to passengers who have filed mishandled
wheelchair or scooter claims for delays, the Department is persuaded
that status updates are necessary because passengers need transparency
and accurate information on their wheelchairs and scooters when they
are separated from them. As Cure SMA stated in its comment on the NPRM,
``Given the importance of wheelchairs in maximizing independence and
health for people living with [a neuromuscular disease], passengers
must receive prompt, frequent notifications on the transport or
availability of their devices, if returned after arrival. Having an
estimated time of arrival (whether at the airport or another requested
location) would provide peace of mind to people living with [a
neuromuscular disease] who are separated from their wheelchairs and
allow for advance planning.'' The importance of these updates was
echoed by several others, including the National Multiple Sclerosis
Society, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and the
North Dakota Protection and Advocacy Project. Given the importance of
these status update notifications for individuals with disabilities,
airlines must provide updates whenever there are changes for delayed
wheelchairs and scooters, including changes to the estimated time of
delivery.
3. Publication of Information Related to Aircraft Cargo Holds
The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department solicited comment on whether
airlines should be required to provide the dimensions of aircraft cargo
compartments prior to travel to any passenger who shares that he or she
will be traveling with a personal wheelchair or scooter. The Department
noted that airlines are already required to notify passengers, on
request, of any limitations on the availability of storage facilities,
in the cabin or in the cargo bay, for mobility aids or other assistive
devices commonly used by passengers with a disability.
Comments Received: Many disability rights organizations who
commented on this issue, including AARP, Cure SMA, and Muscular
Dystrophy Association (MDA), stated that airlines should be required to
disclose cargo dimensions (including the door) upfront for flights so
that passengers can determine whether their wheelchairs will fit and
can plan accordingly before travel. AARP asserted that airlines should
be required to publish in a prominent and easily accessible place on
their public website any size restrictions that could cause a
wheelchair not to fit on the plane. North Dakota Protection and
Advocacy Project suggested that a possible solution would be for
passengers to provide information about their assistive devices when
booking flights, so the carrier can independently determine if adequate
space is available to transport devices. Disability Rights Maryland
stated that airlines should be required to provide cargo dimensions on
any web page where passengers can book tickets, or when a passenger
books a flight over the telephone.
While A4A did not object to the intent of providing information
about aircraft cargo dimensions, it argued that the Department must
follow a notice-and-comment rulemaking process to fully examine scope,
costs, benefits, and limitations of such notifications. Southwest
stated that the company already provides information to passengers
regarding the dimensions of aircraft cargo bins and openings on its
website, giving them the opportunity to make an informed decision prior
to arriving at the airport. Allegiant endorsed ensuring passengers are
made aware of cargo limitations prior to the loading stage.
Other stakeholder commenters, including Open Doors, mostly
supported a requirement for airlines to provide dimensions of their
cargo bins and cargo hold doors to passengers traveling with larger
wheelchairs or scooters that could be subject to stowage issues.
DOT Response: Section 544(a) of the 2024 FAA Act directs the
Department to require air carriers to publish in a prominent and easily
accessible place on the carrier's public website information describing
the dimensions and characteristics of the cargo holds of all aircraft
types operated by the carrier. Section 544(a) further states that this
information must include the dimensions of the cargo hold entry and
allowable type of cargo and that air carriers are allowed to protect
the confidentiality of any trade secret or proprietary information, as
appropriate.
In this final rule, the Department is codifying section 544(a) of
the 2024 FAA Act. Airlines are required to publish in a prominent and
easily accessible place on the public website of the carrier
information describing the relevant dimensions and other
characteristics of the cargo holds of all aircraft types operated by
the air carrier, including the dimensions of the cargo hold entry, that
would limit the size, weight, and allowable type of cargo. Commenters
have largely supported airlines disclosing cargo dimensions to enable
passengers to determine whether their wheelchairs will fit on aircraft.
The Department does not believe that compliance with this aspect of the
final rule will require much time or effort by the airlines. The
requirement simply calls for airlines to publish data and information
on their websites regarding the cargo compartments of the aircraft that
they operate, and some airlines indicated that they already post this
information on their public-facing websites. This important information
will allow for passengers with disabilities to better assess whether
their wheelchairs or scooters can be accommodated when searching for
and booking flights, which in turn will prevent passengers with
disabilities from being turned away at the airport on their day of
travel and experiencing significant life disruptions.
4. Return of Delayed Wheelchairs and Scooters
The NPRM: The Department proposed that when an airline delays the
return of a passenger's wheelchair or scooter, the airline would be
required to transport the delayed device to the passenger's final
destination within twenty-four (24) hours of the passenger's arrival at
that destination by whatever means possible and to pay the associated
cost. The Department explained that the 24-hour requirement was meant
to strike a balance between the time required for logistical
coordination by airlines and the need for passengers with disabilities
to have their wheelchairs and scooters returned to them as promptly as
possible. The Department also explained that ``by whatever means
possible'' could include the carrier seeking out other commercial
passenger flights or freight flights that could accommodate the device
and other ground shipping options that would result in prompt delivery
to the passenger. In addition, under the NPRM's proposal, the carrier
would have to provide the passenger the choice of either (1) picking up
the wheelchair or scooter at their final destination airport or (2)
having the wheelchair or scooter delivered by the airline to another
location, such as the passenger's home or hotel, based on a reasonable
request. We stated that we would
[[Page 102416]]
consider the wheelchair or scooter to be provided to the passenger (1)
when the wheelchair or scooter has arrived at the destination airport,
is available for pickup, and the carrier has provided notice to the
passenger of the location and availability of the wheelchair or scooter
for pickup; or (2) when the wheelchair or scooter is transported to the
location requested by the passenger, regardless of whether the
passenger is present to take possession of the wheelchair or scooter.
Comments Received: The Department received many comments on its
proposed requirement for the prompt return of delayed wheelchairs and
scooters by airlines. Feedback was generally mixed, with some comments
supporting the NPRM's proposal, some opposing the proposal, and others
urging the Department to enhance or expand the proposal.
Disability rights organizations either supported the 24-hour
timeline for returning wheelchairs and scooters or asked for even
stricter standards. AARP asserted that personal wheelchairs are
essential to safe mobility for those who use them, and no one should
have to wait longer than necessary for their return. Some
organizations, such as the United States Gender and Disability Justice
Alliance, and some individuals with disabilities believe that 24 hours
is still too long to go without their personal wheelchair or scooter.
As such, these commenters recommended stricter timelines and modified
standards for airlines to follow. For example, Cure SMA suggested
implementing a standard that airlines be required to return a misplaced
wheelchair on the next available flight, and no later than 24 hours,
even if it requires the use of a different carrier.
Disability rights organizations also generally supported giving
options to passengers to either pick up their delayed wheelchairs or
scooters at their destination airports or have them delivered by the
airline to a different location based on a reasonable request made by
the passenger. Many reiterated that passengers with disabilities should
never be required to travel back to the airport to pick up their
delayed wheelchairs or scooters for several reasons, including limited
accessible transportation options. There was also one common concern
raised regarding when the Department would consider ``delivery'' to be
completed by the airline. Specifically, several organizations including
PVA and the Amputee Coalition asserted that ``delivery'' of the device
should only be considered complete when the passenger, or an authorized
party, takes physical possession of the device from the airline. They
believed that the airline's regulatory obligations should not terminate
until this point because wheelchairs and scooters should not be left at
a designated location without acceptance by an authorized individual.
Airline industry stakeholders believed it will be difficult to meet
the 24-hour timeline proposed in the NPRM, especially for smaller
airlines, remote locations, and global destinations. A4A and domestic
airlines argued that even if they have a daily-service schedule to a
given location with one daily flight, that flight will likely land 24
hours apart from when the passenger landed, meaning that the airline is
automatically non-compliant with the proposed regulation. They added
that the proposed 24-hour period doesn't consider the fact that the
airline may have to deliver the wheelchair or scooter to another
location off the airport requested by the passenger, and in certain
markets, airlines may operate less than daily service and alternative
transportation by air may be unavailable. As such, they asserted that
the regulation would be unfair and unreasonable.
In lieu of the NPRM's proposal, these airline industry stakeholders
recommended several different standards that they claim will allow
airlines necessary flexibility in returning delayed devices to impacted
passengers. Recommended standards greatly varied. A4A suggests 48 hours
for delivery to the passenger's destination airport and 72 hours for
delivery to a separate final location as requested by the passenger.
NACA urged the Department to consider a six-day delivery standard for
ULCCs since these carriers will be disproportionately impacted by the
requirement because of their flight schedules. Spirit suggested that
the 24-hour timeline of the NPRM's proposal should be satisfied if the
airline starts the delivery process before the 24-hour period elapses
and is completed in a reasonable amount of time.
Foreign airlines called for a separate standard for delayed devices
on international flights. IAG requested a minimum of 48 hours. Multiple
foreign airlines suggested a more lenient 96-hour standard that aligns
with the regulatory approach taken by Canada. On the other hand, IATA
indicated that it does not want any sort of set time standard and
instead suggested that foreign airlines should be required to
demonstrate that they made best efforts to deliver the delayed
wheelchair or scooter in a timely manner.
Airline industry stakeholders also argued that they should not be
held liable for delays and extended delays caused by circumstances
outside of the airlines' control. Examples provided by A4A and IATA
included: late arrival at the passenger's gate that does not give
airlines adequate time to load the mobility aid safely; weather or
delays caused by the Department's own air traffic control decision; and
when a passenger knowingly elects to have a short connection time and
has been notified that such time is inadequate for the unloading,
transfer, and loading of the mobility aid. Some also took issue with
the NPRM's requirement that airlines deliver delayed wheelchairs and
scooters to passengers ``by whatever means possible.'' A4A claimed that
the requirement lacks consideration of safety and dignity, putting
airlines in an unfair situation, conflicts with the idea of passengers
making ``reasonable requests'' for delivery, and fails to consider the
lead-time that it will take airlines to arrange for safe transport. A4A
also claimed that if there are no safe transportation options available
or even possible, then the airline cannot be held liable for the
delivery to the passenger's requested location. RAA shared the same
concerns as A4A. A4A asserted that this could include situations when
the only available transport is by off-road vehicle where navigating
rough terrain may result in damage to the device or where passengers on
intercontinental sea voyages cannot be reached by any other mode of
transport.
Lastly, airline industry stakeholders raised some concerns with the
details of the two delivery options for impacted passengers.
Specifically, some commenters called for clarity and limitations on
what may constitute a ``reasonable request by the passenger.'' A4A and
IATA also stated that for delivery to the passenger's destination
airport, the airline's obligation should be considered complete after
making a reasonable attempt to notify the passenger that his or her
wheelchair or scooter is available for pick up. They stated that
airlines should not be kept on the hook longer if the passenger is
unavailable to receive notification because of the passenger's own
actions or circumstances (e.g., a passenger does not have cell service
or has not configured a voicemail box).
DOT Response: After carefully reviewing and considering the
comments received, the Department is requiring carriers to transport
delayed wheelchairs and scooters to impacted passengers within 24 hours
of the passenger's arrival for domestic flights
[[Page 102417]]
and short haul international flights (12 hours or less) and within 30
hours of the passenger's arrival for long haul international flights
(more than 12 hours). Under both standards, the delivery time period
starts when the passenger is given the opportunity to deplane from a
flight at the passenger's final destination and the passenger's
personal wheelchair does not arrive with the passenger. The delay ends
when the passenger either picks up the delayed wheelchair or scooter at
his or her destination airport or the delayed wheelchair or scooter is
delivered by the carrier to a reasonable location such as the
passenger's home or hotel. Under this rule, the passenger chooses
whether to pick up the wheelchair or scooter from the airport or to
have wheelchair or scooter delivered to a reasonable location like his
or her home or hotel. By reasonable location, the Department means a
location that is near the passenger's origination or destination
airport. Also, to ensure that an airline is aware that a wheelchair has
been delayed and knows where to return the wheelchair, an individual
with a disability should file a mishandled bag report (MBR) when their
wheelchair or scooter is delayed. Through the filing of an MBR, the
airline can obtain information such as the passenger's contact
information and where the passenger wishes to have the wheelchair or
scooter returned.
The final rule requires carriers to carry out their obligation to
promptly return delayed wheelchairs or scooters to individuals with
disabilities by using whatever means are available to the carriers to
transport the delayed wheelchairs or scooters safely. Ideally, the
delayed wheelchair or scooter would be transported on the carrier's
next available flight if the wheelchair or scooter can safely fit and
it would satisfy the timing requirements of the rule. However, if that
is not an option carriers must ensure the prompt transport of the
delayed wheelchairs or scooters through other ways, including other
commercial passenger flights or freight flights that could accommodate
the device and/or ground shipping options.
The Department appreciates the disability rights organizations'
comments that urge the Department to take a stricter approach than the
24-hour standard proposed in the NPRM for the return of delayed
wheelchairs or scooters. We understand that it is incredibly important
for these delayed devices to be returned by the airlines as quickly as
possible to restore the passenger's health, independence, and mobility.
We also recognize the industry comments that note potential
difficulties in meeting the proposed standard for smaller airlines,
remote locations, and global destinations. However, while it is true
that certain carriers may not have a daily flight to a passenger's
final destination, the proposed regulation intentionally provided
flexibility for airlines to consider alternative options that could be
used to transport the wheelchair or scooter to the passenger in a
timely manner (e.g., commercial flights on partner and subsidiary
airlines and freight flights). For example, airlines could utilize
overnight couriers to meet the deadline rather than waiting for their
next available flight. For this same reason, the Department does not
believe that a separate standard is needed for ULCCs even if they have
lesser flight frequencies and smaller flight networks compared to the
legacy carriers.
We note that under the Department's Final Rule on Refunds and Other
Consumer Protections, regardless of size, airlines are required to
return a checked delayed bag within 12 hours to passengers who were on
domestic flights and within 15 hours to passengers who were on short
haul international flights (12 hours or less). For several reasons, in
this rule, the Department is instead requiring airlines deliver delayed
wheelchairs and scooters within 24 hours to passengers traveling on
domestic and short haul international flights. As mentioned in
comments, wheelchairs and scooters can be more difficult to ship than
regular checked bags and can require careful packing and loading.
Wheelchairs and scooters can also be large, weigh several hundred
pounds, and contain fragile parts. Additionally, as discussed in the
NPRM, a given wheelchair or scooter (unlike a regular checked bag) may
not fit on any flight offered by a carrier if that carrier operates a
limited fleet of aircraft types. In cases where an airline has
transported a passenger without his or her wheelchair or scooter, the
airline must reunite that passenger with his wheelchair or scooter
through any safe means including reaching outside of its own network to
secure a transportation option for the wheelchair or scooter. Finally,
in this rule, airlines are required to offer delivery of the wheelchair
or scooter to a reasonable location requested by the passenger such as
the passenger's home or hotel. This additional requirement could add
time and effort for airlines when returning these delayed devices.
With respect to returning wheelchairs or scooters for passengers on
long haul international flights (more than 12 hours in duration), the
Department is requiring carriers to return them to passengers within 30
hours, similar to the timeframe required of carriers returning delayed
checked bag. The Department is allowing airlines more time than the
proposed 24-hours to return wheelchairs or scooter for passengers on
long-haul flights because choices to transport wheelchairs or scooters
by other means such as on another carrier's flight or via courier
services may be more limited.
The Department is not persuaded by arguments from airline industry
stakeholders that they should not have responsibility for delays that
are outside their control. As explained in section II(B)(1), we believe
that imposing responsibility on airlines is proper when the mishandling
occurs when the device is in the carrier's custody and the mishandling
is through no fault of the passenger. As we discussed above, airlines
are best positioned to monitor and change processes used to transport
wheelchairs and scooters while under the airline's custody. Assigning
responsibility to the carriers in these circumstances incentivizes them
to reduce instances of all types of mishandlings. Even in situations
where the passenger's actions contributed to the delay such as when a
passenger arrives at a gate late and thus not giving airlines adequate
time to load the wheelchair or scooter, while the delay itself may not
be deemed a violation, the airline still has a responsibility to return
the wheelchair or scooter promptly to the passenger.
Separately, the Department does not agree with airlines' concerns
over requiring airlines to use ``whatever means possible'' to deliver
the delayed wheelchair or scooter to the passenger. As mentioned in the
NPRM, the Department expected for ``whatever means possible'' to
include transportation options such as other commercial passenger
flights or freight flights that could accommodate the device and other
ground shipping options that would result in prompt delivery to the
passenger. It was never the Department's intention to require an
airline to undertake extreme measures, such as the examples of using an
all-terrain vehicle (ATV) to transport a wheelchair to a remote forest
in Alaska or flying a scooter via helicopter to a passenger that has
left land on an international sea cruise, as suggested by some industry
commenters. The Department agrees with A4A's comment in that safety is
key for whatever transportation option is ultimately utilized by the
airline to deliver the delayed wheelchair or scooter to the
[[Page 102418]]
passenger. As such, in the final rule, airlines are required to use
``whatever means are available to safely transport the delayed
wheelchair or scooter.''
After considering the comments from disability rights organizations
and other stakeholders, the Department has determined that the delay in
delivering a wheelchair or scooter to the passenger ends when either
(1) when the wheelchair or scooter is picked up by the passenger or
another person authorized to act on behalf of the passenger at the
destination airport, if the passenger elected for pick up; or (2) when
the wheelchair or scooter has been delivered to the passenger or
another person authorized to act on behalf of the passenger at a
reasonable location requested by the passenger, if the passenger
elected for delivery. The Department was persuaded by the many comments
that urged DOT to extend airlines' delivery obligations until the point
when the passenger takes back physical possession of the wheelchair or
scooter from the airline. As PVA noted, these devices are essential to
the passenger's health, mobility, safety, and freedom. They can also be
very expensive. As such, they should not be left at a designated
location without acceptance by an authorized individual. This notion
applies regardless of whether the passenger has chosen to pick up the
wheelchair or scooter at the airport or to have the device delivered to
a separate location. The Department did not find persuasive airlines'
comments that a delay should be considered to have ended if an airline
makes reasonable attempts to notify passengers of pick-up availability
for the delayed wheelchair or scooter.
Given that airlines will need time to establish policies,
procedures, and processes and to train staff to carry out the
requirement to return delayed wheelchairs and scooters within a
specified time, including how to best deliver wheelchairs or scooters
to passengers' requested locations, the Department is providing an
implementation period of 180 days after the final rule's publication in
the Federal Register. This 180-day timeframe also aligns with the
amount of time that was provided to airlines in the Refund Rule to
comply with the requirement to refund fees to passengers for
significantly delayed bags.
5. Reimbursement Requirements for Accessible Ground Transportation
The NPRM: The Department sought comments and data in the NPRM
regarding costs that an individual with a disability incurs because a
wheelchair or scooter is delayed and whether airlines should be
responsible for reimbursing individuals for those costs. The Department
also asked what documentation individuals should provide to airlines to
substantiate these costs and whether there should be a limit to the
airlines' liability.
Comments Received: Disability rights organizations urged the
Department to adopt a requirement for airlines to reimburse passengers
with disabilities for costs associated with delayed wheelchairs. They
stated that costs can include transportation to and from the airport,
overnight accommodations while waiting for their delayed device,
payment of a caregiver, lost wages, cost of a cancelled trip, rental
wheelchairs or scooters, and other medical and healthcare expenses.
Some of these commenters were fine with limiting passenger
reimbursement to a ``reasonable'' amount while others explicitly called
for no limitations on the recoverable amount. However, many mentioned
that it was important that reimbursement be promptly provided by the
airlines. PVA stated that the carrier must provide payment to the
passenger within seven business days, similar to the period associated
with the Department's recent final rule on air travel consumer refunds.
Airline industry stakeholders mostly oppose any sort of regulatory
requirement in this area. However, some airline industry stakeholders,
such as Allegiant and Spirit, stated that in practice they already
review claims for reimbursement for costs incurred due to the delay of
equipment on a case-by-case basis. Airline commenters stated that if a
requirement were to move forward, it is important to airlines that any
reimbursement be limited and directly connected to a delay caused by
the airline. In addition, airlines want passengers to submit receipts
to them for such costs and an explanation of why those costs were
incurred as a direct result of the delay. A4A and IATA also argued that
the Department's NPRM was unclear on what types of costs were being
considered as potentially reimbursable and lacked cost-benefit
analysis.
DOT Response: After reviewing the comments related to associated
costs incurred by passengers with disabilities impacted by wheelchair
or scooter delays, the Department is requiring carriers to reimburse
passengers with disabilities for the cost(s) of any transportation to
or from the airport that the individual incurred as a direct result of
the passenger's wheelchair or scooter being delayed by the airline. The
comments made clear that these transportation costs are foreseeable
consequences that passengers incur almost immediately when their
wheelchairs or scooters are delayed. It is the Department's
understanding that often passengers with disabilities prearrange for
accessible transportation to their homes and hotels upon arrival at the
airport, which may then have to be cancelled if their wheelchair is
significantly delayed. Passengers with disabilities may have also
driven to the airport but may now need to seek out accessible
transportation that can safely transport them to their final
destinations given their personal wheelchair is not available. Under
these circumstances, the passengers will also likely need to return to
the airport to pick up their car. The Department views the requirement
to reimburse these transportation costs to or from the airport incurred
as a direct result of the passenger's wheelchair or scooter being
delayed by the airline as a reasonable accommodation that airlines must
provide to individuals with disabilities when they have delayed the
return of their wheelchairs or scooters.
Under the final rule, airlines are permitted to require passengers
to submit documentation that substantiates the cost(s), such as
receipts or invoices, to receive the reimbursement from the airline.
Reimbursement for these cost(s) must be provided to passengers within
30 days of airlines receiving a request with documentation to support
the claim if documentation is required by the airline. The Department
believes that granting airlines 30 days to provide reimbursements for
transportation costs gives airlines a sufficient amount of time to
review and verify passengers' claims and to issue the reimbursements,
particularly since some airlines who already provide such
reimbursements indicated that that their current process is handled on
a case-by-case basis. The Department is not requiring direct payment to
vendors to avoid delay in the arrangement of any alternative
transportation. Also, the Department expects the cost of ground
transportation to be relatively low.
The Department acknowledges that disability advocates and others
strongly believe that airlines need to be held liable for all
consequential costs that passengers with disabilities incur as a result
of delayed wheelchairs or scooters by airlines. The commenters had
differing views on whether there needs to be a limit on reimbursement
requirements. At the present time, however, the Department is concerned
that it does not have sufficient information in this area beyond ground
transportation to or from the airport. Consequently, at this time, we
are not
[[Page 102419]]
imposing a requirement for airlines to reimburse passengers with
disabilities for all consequential costs associated with delayed
wheelchair or scooters. We will continue to review this issue to
determine if future rulemaking proposals may be warranted.
6. Repair or Replacement of Lost or Damaged Wheelchairs or Scooters
The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department proposed to require airlines
to provide two separate options to passengers who file claims with
airlines after their personal wheelchairs or scooters have been lost,
damaged, or destroyed: (1) passengers can elect for carriers to handle
the repair or replacement of the devices; or (2) passengers can elect
to use passengers' preferred vendors to repair or replace the device.
If passengers select the first option, the Department proposed to
require carriers to: repair or replace the devices, depending on the
severity of the damage; return the devices to passengers within a
reasonable timeframe; and pay the cost of the repairs or replacement
directly to the vendor(s). The Department did not define a specific
``reasonable'' timeframe in the NPRM. If passengers select the second
option, the Department proposed to require carriers to promptly
transport the wheelchairs or scooters to the passengers' preferred
vendor, unless the passengers have indicated that they will arrange for
the transport themselves. The carrier would be required to cover the
cost of this transport and pay the wheelchair vendor directly for the
cost of repairs or replacement. The Department sought comments on this
point and whether direct billing to the airline may cause any
unforeseen issues.
Under both proposed options, if a replacement is necessary due to
the severity of the damages or because the device was lost, the
replacement device must have equivalent or greater function and safety
as the individual's original device.
In addition, in the NPRM, the Department sought comments and data
on the following:
<bullet> Whether to use detailed timelines rather than a
reasonableness standard when airlines handle wheelchair and scooter
repairs and replacements;
<bullet> Whether the Department should require repairs made only by
DME suppliers in the rulemaking;
<bullet> Who should be responsible for ultimately determining
whether a wheelchair or scooter is ``fixable'';
<bullet> Whether an airline's cost for repairs and replacements
should be limited to whatever is not paid by the passenger's travel
insurance;
<bullet> Whether passengers need a ``testing period'' to confirm
whether wheelchair or scooter repairs made by the airline are adequate;
and
<bullet> How ``temporary wheelchair repairs'' offered by airlines
at the airport would work in practice.
Comments Received: Disability rights organizations' comments
generally supported greater flexibility and options for passengers with
disabilities in the repair and replacement process. MDA stated that
passengers with disabilities need options, including the ability to
choose their own preferred vendor for repairs, when their wheelchair or
device is damaged to reduce any safety risks to the passenger and
unnecessary delays. The ITEM Coalition commented that while delays may
sometimes be due to circumstances beyond the carriers' control, some
delays and the associated risks to passengers could be mitigated if
passengers have options when their mobility device is damaged or
destroyed. AARP supported the proposal's repair and replacement options
because many individuals with disabilities have existing relationships
with trusted providers and leveraging these existing relationships
should lead to more efficient and timely repairs.
However, several disability rights organizations also want
additional protections built into the final rule to improve and
streamline the current repair and replacement process. For example, MDA
asserted that due to a lack of standardization, the repair and
replacement process can be time-consuming and frustrating, leading to a
loss of independence, medical complications, and additional incurred
costs for passengers living with a neuromuscular disorder. Cure SMA
stated that the burden is placed solely on the passenger, who must
journey to the baggage claim office, wait in line, and report the
damage. Cure SMA explained that passengers who do not see damage at the
airport because they cannot examine the chair they are sitting in are
required to return to the airport to make a claim for repair.
Disability rights organizations offered a variety of suggestions to
address some of these noted issues. The most common suggestions
included extended filing periods for damage claims (e.g., 14 or 15 days
after the device is returned to the passenger), frequent and accurate
updates provided to passengers throughout the repair or replacement
process, increased airline policy transparency for repairs and
replacements, and accessible claim filing options. Cure SMA recommended
that passengers be given up to 14 days to file damage claims after
their flights land because, for example, electrical damage caused by a
pinched wire or water damage that occurred while inflight may not set
in for days.
Airline industry stakeholders' comments voiced concerns over the
options proposed in the NPRM. A4A stated that as an initial matter, the
Department should recognize that when airlines cause a mishandling,
they already repair or replace the wheelchair or scooter and work
diligently and closely with the passenger to ensure a timely remedy.
Second, A4A claimed that airlines' regulatory liability for repairs
and replacements must be limited to circumstances under the airlines'
control. They argued that circumstances beyond the airlines' control,
such as extreme turbulence that damages a properly secured wheelchair
in the cargo compartment, are not an act of discrimination for which
the Department can impose strict liability. A4A stated that imposing a
requirement to provide repairs and replacements in all circumstances
would exceed the Department's authority.
Lastly, A4A noted that even if a passenger has a preferred vendor,
airlines may have an equally qualified (or more qualified) vendor that
can repair or replace the device in a faster time and in an equal
manner, minimizing the costs to the airline. They also asserted that
airlines would not be able to vet the passenger's chosen vendor and its
work, potentially resulting in replacement of devices whenever they
could actually be repaired by the airline's qualified vendor instead.
A4A claimed it is unreasonable to require replacement of a device
because the passenger's preferred vendor is unqualified to make a
repair that others could make. They claimed that airlines' qualified
vendors are also best situated to make determinations as to whether
damage to a device was caused by handling during air transport or
whether it was pre-existing. For these reasons, A4A strongly
recommended that the Department allow airlines to select a qualified
vendor, and if the airline is unable to contract with one, then the
passenger may select the vendor for the repairs or replacement. NACA
and RAA shared views similar to A4A.
Foreign airlines and IATA noted that the Montreal Convention
already sets relevant limits on their liability for damages resulting
from the destruction, loss, damage, or delay of baggage, which includes
passengers' checked wheelchairs or scooters. They asserted
[[Page 102420]]
that the proposed rule would conflict with these limitations and should
not override them. As such, foreign airlines request that the
Department include a clear statement in any final rule to clarify that
the Montreal Convention applies to international travel.
Other stakeholder comments were minimal on these points. Of note,
Open Doors was generally fine with the repair and replacement options
for passengers so long as their chosen vendor was within the airline's
network or within Global Repair Group's system; however, the passenger
should not be able to use a ``friend or buddy'' that does repairs as
this could result in fraudulent billing to airlines.
Disability rights organizations also unanimously agreed that
wheelchair and scooter repairs and replacements need to be carried out
as quickly as possible to reduce any negative impacts on individuals
with disabilities, such as reduced independence, safety risks, medical
complications, and additional expenses. As such, several organizations
objected to the ``reasonable timeframe'' standard set forth in the NPRM
when the airline handles the device repair or replacement. These
organizations were concerned that the proposed standard is not strong
enough to ensure that repairs and replacements are completed promptly
and provides airlines with too much deference.
PVA recommended that the Department consider a ``prompt'' standard
for airline repairs and replacements, which means that the carrier must
ensure that its contractors have a sufficient number of vendors
available when needed by the passenger. PVA conceded that a strict and
detailed timeline requirement would not be feasible based on the many
factors that impact the timeline for a given repair or replacement. On
the other hand, some disability rights organizations called for clear
and set time frames. The Ability Center of Greater Toledo said that
repairs and replacements should be considered ``prompt'' if completed
within ten days. United Spinal went even further by offering standards
for detailed steps that must be taken by the airline within the first
72 hours following a wheelchair or scooter mishandling.
From the airlines' perspective, A4A and IATA wanted the Department
to retain the ``reasonable timeframe'' standard for repairs and
replacements. A4A stated that timely and proper repairs and
replacements is a shared interest of both passengers and airlines. A4A
and IATA stated that the ``reasonable timeframe'' standard is needed
because of ``the high variability and complexity of many mobility
aids.'' They commented that proper repair or replacement should be
prioritized over speed and that the more complex or unique the mobility
aid, the longer it legitimately takes to get repaired or replaced
properly. A4A and IATA asserted that these timeliness factors are
exacerbated by innumerable additional factors, many of which are beyond
the control of the airline and despite the significant efforts of the
airline to properly handle the mobility aid and remedy the mishandling.
A4A and IATA concluded that, depending on the circumstances, it will be
impossible and unfair to hold airlines to strict deadlines. All other
airline commenters echoed A4A and IATA's comments.
Other stakeholders had mixed opinions on the timing requirements
for airline repairs and replacements. Open Doors said that it does not
believe stricter, detailed timelines should be used in the regulation
given the current conditions of the industry. The American Association
for Homecare (AAHomecare) recommended that DOT adopt the proposed
``reasonableness'' standard because of the many potential issues that
could impact how quickly a repair or replacement can be carried out but
suggested that detailed timelines could be implemented around the
initiation process by the airline. On the other hand, the American
Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) called for the Department to
establish a timeline for carriers to adhere to when repairing,
replacing, or compensating passengers for damaged devices. Also, the
National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology (NCART) stated
that airlines need to take full responsibility during the process until
the damaged equipment is fully repaired and functional for the consumer
and to provide full transparency for consumers on tracking the progress
of repairs.
Under the second passenger option of the NPRM's proposal, where the
passenger uses his or her preferred vendor to carry out the repairs or
replacement, the proposal stated that the carrier would be required to
pay the wheelchair vendor directly for the cost of repairs or
replacement within a reasonable timeframe. Disability rights
organizations voiced support for such a requirement. These commenters
specifically appreciated that this would ease the burden on individuals
with disabilities impacted by mishandlings, would not force them to pay
the costs upfront out of their own pockets, and would expedite the
repair and replacement process. In the event of a dispute, PVA
recommended that disputes must be resolved between the carriers and the
vendors directly and individuals should not be required to submit
additional documents to the carrier.
Airline industry stakeholders generally opposed the direct billing
requirement. A4A stated that direct billing should only be required
when the vendor is under contract with the airline. A4A asserted that
if the vendor is not under contract with the airline, the airline may
have inadequate information from the vendor for the airline to
``properly ascribe the billing to a particular claim or satisfy the
requirements of the airline's insurance underwriter for sizable
claims,'' which could delay the payment and the repair or replacement.
A4A also argued that it is reasonable for vendors to bill customers for
repairs and replacements, who then can pass the bill on to the
airlines, similar to how customers are already reimbursed for hotels,
meals, and ground transportation following controllable flight delays.
Lastly, A4A argued that the Department should not prescribe the
contractual relationship between the involved parties, giving them the
flexibility to operate in a way that best suits everyone's needs and
preferences.
As for the other questions posed in the NPRM, most commenters
agreed that the Department should not address DME supplier requirements
in a final rule. Most agreed that wheelchair and scooter repairs and
replacements should be handled by qualified and certified technicians.
However, they also noted issues with a contracting requirement because
``right-to-repair'' laws fall outside the scope of the rulemaking, DME
suppliers may not always be readily available in all parts of the
country, and individuals may prefer to work with other local repair
shops or mechanics. Open Doors also noted that airlines are already
utilizing DME suppliers to handle all repair needs.
The Department also asked about disputes between passengers and
airlines over whether a repair or a full wheelchair or scooter
replacement is necessary based on the level of damage to the wheelchair
or scooter. Disability rights organization showed a strong preference
to leave the final determination up to the passenger or the passenger's
chosen vendor. They said that if the decision was to be left to the
airline, then the passenger must be given an opportunity to appeal the
airline's decision if they believe it is incorrect. PVA stated that a
passenger should be able to obtain a second opinion and have the
opportunity to submit any supporting documentation if he or she
believes that repairs would not
[[Page 102421]]
return the wheelchair to the same safe condition as before the
mishandling. On the other hand, airline industry stakeholders stated
that the airlines' vendors are in the best position to make this
determination and can also properly assess whether damage to the
mobility aid would have been caused by handling during air transport or
whether the damage was more likely than not to be pre-existing (e.g.,
defective part or poor battery life). Spirit asserted that the carrier
should be in control of the process because it has the motivation to
accurately determine whether a wheelchair or scooter is fixable as it
will ultimately impact the cost that the airline pays. Spirit also
stated that it would be in a better position to arrange for a prompt
assessment of any damage.
As for travel insurance coverage related to lost and damaged
wheelchairs and scooters, disability rights organizations opposed any
prerequisite or additional burden on individuals with disabilities. PVA
stated that most domestic travelers do not purchase travel insurance,
and even if they do, the policies may consider mobility aids to be
baggage and only subject to limited reimbursement. PVA commented that
insurance providers can also require extensive documentation, including
local authority reports to substantiate the loss. PVA also stated that
some policies totally exclude lost, delayed, and stolen wheelchairs
from coverage. Several disability rights organizations echoed similar
concerns over requiring individuals with disabilities to purchase and
use travel insurance. Airline industry stakeholders, such as A4A and
RAA, said that airlines' liability for mishandlings should be reduced
by any amount covered by a third-party, such as insurance. They stated
that if an airline assumes the full cost in the first instance, it must
be able to collect any insurance funds to offset the payment amount by
the airline to the passenger.
The Department also asked questions in the NPRM on a ``testing
period'' to give individuals with disabilities an opportunity to test
their wheelchairs and confirm whether repairs are indeed adequate once
the airline has returned the device to them. Disability rights
organizations unanimously supported the idea of a testing period. PVA
stated that the vendor should require a reasonable timeframe for the
passenger to ensure that their mobility device is in the same condition
it was prior to being damaged, that any further damage caused by the
carrier but discovered later can be covered by the carrier, and that
the repair was properly and safely completed. Colorado Cross-Disability
Coalition explained that sometimes individuals do not know if a repair
is truly completed when delivered and that a repaired wheelchair or
scooter may appear working at first but then parts may come loose
quickly. Commenters suggested a variety of lengths for the testing
period, including 48 hours, 15 days, 28 days, and 30 days from the date
the device was returned to the individual. Disability rights
organizations believe that if the repair is not adequate, the
individual should be able to request prompt service to fix any
outstanding defect(s). North Dakota Protection and Advocacy Project
explained that problems may not be immediately noticeable to the
passenger, problems could arise within a few weeks or at a later date,
or repairs may be adequate for only a short period of time. They
asserted that the passenger should be able to report problems as they
arise and require the carrier to pay for the repair if it is connected
to the damage caused by the carrier.
Airline industry stakeholders commented that they generally believe
that individuals should have a reasonable opportunity to inspect a
repaired wheelchair or scooter upon delivery but also voiced concerns
over the idea of a lengthy ``testing period.'' A4A and RAA said that
their primary concern is that airlines' liability and responsibility
should end once the device has been returned to the passenger because
at that point the airline no longer has custody or control over the
device. Both claim that airlines would then have no means to prevent
further damage or to validate whether the new issues with the device
are attributable to the airline's custody. IAG stated that they have
seen no trend of customers returning wheelchairs to airlines for
additional repairs and thus there is no need for a regulation on a
testing period. As for timing, Spirit suggested that a 72-hour testing
period would be enough to determine if a repair was properly completed.
Allegiant on the other hand requested that the Department not enact a
set time frame for a testing period as this could limit the timeliness
of resolution for the passenger and create a standard where carriers
may be forced to address damage that is incurred after delivery of
successfully repaired equipment.
Finally, the NPRM asked about minor ``temporary wheelchair
repairs'' that would be sufficient to get the passenger out the door of
the airport with their personal wheelchair so that they can continue on
with their journey as planned to the maximum extent possible and seek
out a ``full repair'' at a later time and date. Disability rights
organizations generally think that it would be reasonable for airlines
to offer these temporary repairs, either on-site at the airport or
through a local vendor. Cure SMA commented that this could be
accomplished by airport personnel equipped with basic supplies (e.g.,
standard tools, zip ties, etc.) or by on-call DME vendors for emergency
repairs. Others mentioned that minor repairs could include replacing
lost screws, inflating tires, tightening loose bolts, and straightening
out a bent component.
Airline industry stakeholders do not think that ``temporary
repairs'' should be required under the Department's regulations.
Similar to ``testing periods'' following repairs, some airline industry
stakeholders expressed concern that wheelchairs or scooters could
become further damaged after the airline has provided a minor temporary
repair and returned custody to the individual, placing unfair liability
on the airlines. Some commenters also mentioned that it is unreasonable
and very costly to require airlines to have qualified vendors at every
airport they serve that can carry out these temporary repairs at any
time. A4A and IATA stated it would be an unreasonable imposition of
costs for airlines to hire and have vendors staffed at every airport
that they serve in their networks and at all hours, despite the
relatively low numbers of damaged mobility aids and low likelihood that
temporary repairs would be possible given the high complexity and
variability of most mobility aids. A4A also argued that the NPRM did
not provide meaningful opportunity for comment because it was too vague
and lacked any impact analysis. Spirit did not find the proposal to be
unreasonable.
Other stakeholders, including Open Doors, Gillette Children's
Specialty Healthcare, and Able Americans of the National Center for
Public Policy Research shared similar conflicting views on this topic.
Open Doors asserted that it is not reasonable to ask airlines to do any
temporary repairs because airlines are not in the business of fixing
mobility devices and could never feasibly provide this service and
requiring them to provide repairs would open them up to more liability.
Open Doors added that requiring airlines to have an onsite vendor do
repairs would not be viable economically given the low incidence of
damage, even at a large hub airport. However, Gillette Children's
Specialty Healthcare and Able Americans of the National Center for
Public Policy Research stated that requiring airlines to provide
temporary repairs is reasonable.
DOT Response: The Department has decided to adopt the proposed
[[Page 102422]]
requirement for airlines to provide repair and replacement options to
passengers after passengers' personal wheelchairs or scooters are
damaged, destroyed, or lost. In other words, passengers can elect for
carriers to handle the repair or replacement of the devices, or
passenger can elect to use passengers' preferred vendors to repair or
replace the device. Many comments from disability rights organizations
and others expressed support for providing passengers these options.
The Department was not persuaded by airlines' comments asserting that
they already have their own expert vendors that are best suited to meet
passengers' needs. Airline commenters and others also did not provide
any evidence to support their stated belief that passengers may choose
illegitimate or unqualified vendors or that passengers' vendors may
significantly increase costs for airlines. The Department also did not
receive any evidence demonstrating that passengers and vendors are
likely to fraudulently overbill airlines for repairs or replacements,
as suggested by Open Doors. Rather, given the importance of having
their devices returned to them quickly and in proper condition, we
expect that passengers will carefully select vendors that they trust
and believe capable of providing quality services to them. The
Department continues to be of the view that passengers with
disabilities need options and flexibility following wheelchair or
scooter mishandlings to ensure that they do not endure unnecessary
delays, undesirable repair and replacement processes, and additional
resulting costs.
Under this final rule, when passengers elect to use their preferred
vendors to repair or replace their wheelchairs or scooters, airlines
must promptly transport them to the passengers' preferred vendor,
unless the passenger has indicated that he or she will arrange for the
transport themselves, and pay the wheelchair vendor directly for the
cost of repairs or replacement. If the carrier needs specific
information to properly ascribe the billing to a particular claim or
satisfy the requirements of the airline's insurance underwriter for
sizable claims, the carrier should work with the vendor and the
passenger, as needed, to obtain this information. The Department does
not expect this requirement to result in significant processing issues
based on the feedback received from both airlines and disability rights
organizations.
When passengers elect for carriers to handle the repair or
replacement of the wheelchairs or scooters, this rule requires airlines
to ensure prompt repairs and replacements of the devices. The
Department recognizes that for passengers with disabilities, it is
crucial that repairs and replacements, when needed, be completed as
quickly as possible to prevent serious life disruptions and at times
even health-related risks that occur when individuals with disabilities
are separated from their personal wheelchairs or scooters for extended
periods of time. The Department also recognizes that strict timelines
for airlines to repair or replace wheelchairs or scooters are not
workable given the many different factors that can impact the time
needed for repairs and replacements. Accordingly, the Department is
adopting a ``prompt'' standard for repairs and replacements when the
passenger elects for the carrier to handle the repair or replacement of
the wheelchair or scooter. Airlines should work directly with the
passenger to initiate the repair/replacement process as soon as
possible once a passenger has filed a claim. Airlines should also
remain active and responsive, to the maximum extent possible, once the
process has been initiated. The Department intends to look at the
totality of the circumstance in determining whether an airline's
actions are prompt.
The Department also clarifies that in the event a dispute arises
over whether a damaged wheelchair or scooter can be repaired or needs
to be fully replaced, a qualified vendor or technician needs to be the
one making the final determination. If the passenger has elected for
the carrier to handle the repair or replacement process, then the
airline's contracted vendor makes the determination. If the passenger
has instead elected to use his or her preferred vendor for the repair
or replacement process, then that vendor makes this decision.
Regarding filing damage claims with airlines, commenters have
persuaded the Department to require airlines to provide passengers a
reasonable period to file claims. Comments from disability rights
organizations assert that the process for filing damage claims for
wheelchairs or scooters with airlines is burdensome, sometimes
requiring the individual to journey to the baggage claim office, wait
in lengthy lines, and report the damage while still at the airport. In
addition, these organizations state that airlines often do not alert
passengers when damage has occurred and/or the passenger may not
realize that the wheelchair or scooter was damaged until after leaving
the airport. Under the final rule, airlines are required to allow
passengers a reasonable timeframe to examine their wheelchairs or
scooters for damage following flights and to file a claim with the
airline (if necessary). Depending on the circumstances, a reasonable
timeframe to file a claim could be at least 72 hours after the flight's
arrival. Airlines will have the flexibility to develop their own
specific policies and practices on this issue.
As for liability limits for mishandlings on international flights,
the Department agrees with the foreign airlines who commented that the
Department's proposed requirement would be subject to liability
limitations for international flights based on the Montreal Convention.
The Montreal Convention sets limits on the liability of carriers
arising from the destruction, loss, damage, or delay of baggage,
including wheelchairs or scooters, during international carriage. Under
the Montreal Convention, airlines must pay up to a limit of 1,288
Special Drawing Rights (SDR) \37\ for an assistive device that is lost,
damaged, or destroyed. The Department has clarified this point in the
final rule text to prevent any confusion for industry and for
travelers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The SDR was created by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and is defined as ``equivalent to the value of a basket of
world currencies. The SDR itself is not a currency but an asset that
holders can exchange for currency when needed. The SDR serves as the
unit of account of the IMF and other international organizations.''
See <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/special-drawing-rights-sdr">https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/special-drawing-rights-sdr</a>. As of September 30, 2024, one SDR was roughly
equivalent to $1.36 USD in value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule also addresses passenger claims for insufficient
repairs or replacement of wheelchairs and scooters by requiring
carriers review promptly claims received within a reasonable time of
the wheelchair or scooter being returned to the passenger. Most
commenters agree that individuals with disabilities should have a
reasonable time to inspect and test their repaired wheelchairs or
scooters once they've been delivered by the airline. However, there is
disagreement on how long this testing period should last. Disability
rights organizations want up to a month, while airlines want to limit
their liability once they have relinquished custody of the device and
fully turned it over to the individual. The Department understands
disability rights organizations' concern that an insufficient repair
may only be noticed after testing the wheelchair or scooter in a
variety of different settings or environments. As FLARE mentioned,
repairs may need to be tested both at home and off-road to ensure all
functionality has been restored. The
[[Page 102423]]
Department also appreciates the airlines' concerns over the possibility
that damage, unrelated to the initial mishandling, could occur during
this testing period and that they would have no way to control or
verify this. The Department believes that this rule strikes the right
balance by requiring carriers to promptly review claims received within
a reasonable time of the wheelchair/scooter being returned to the
passenger and if the repairs are found to be insufficient then promptly
repair or replace the device. Airlines have the flexibility to set the
reasonable timeframe for accepting claims alleging insufficient repairs
but cannot set a timeframe that is less than 72 hours of the
passenger's wheelchair or scooter being returned.
The Department is not imposing requirements in this rule in three
areas where comments were sought. First, on the issue of whether the
Department should require repairs made only by DME suppliers in the
rulemaking, this appears to not be a problem. Based on comments
received, it seems as if all repairs and replacements by airlines are
already being carried out by qualified DME suppliers. Second, on
whether an airline's cost for repairs and replacements should be
limited to whatever is not paid by the passenger's travel insurance,
the Department does not believe there is an issue that needs to be
addressed at this time based on the limited comments received and will
not take further action on this in the final rule. Finally, regarding
temporary wheelchair repairs at airports, while the Department
continues to believe that passengers with disabilities could benefit
from temporary wheelchair repairs offered by airlines at the airport,
we are declining to take any action on this in the final rule at this
time. The Department believes that additional data and research on
vendor costs, logistical issues, and scope are needed to accurately
gauge the potential costs and benefits of such a requirement.
As for A4A and airlines' argument that repair and replacement
liability should be limited to mishandlings due to circumstances under
the control of the airline, the Department disagrees. As noted in
section II (B)(1) and (4), the Department is of the view that imposing
responsibility on airlines is proper when the mishandling occurs when
the device is in the carrier's custody and the mishandling is through
no fault of the passenger. The airline in the best position to monitor
the handling of wheelchairs and other assistive device and to adjust
practices and procedures to better protect wheelchairs and other
assistive devices, and imposing responsibility on carriers is an
effective method to advance the goals of the ACAA and part 382 to
reduce mishandlings.
The Department notes that it is providing airlines a compliance
period of 90 days after the final rule's publication in the Federal
Register to offer passengers the two repair and replacement options,
discussed above. This period should give airlines enough time to
determine how to best offer and carry out these options in practice
(e.g., how to transport wheelchairs to passengers' vendors and how to
coordinate direct payments to vendors). We understand that airlines are
already providing repairs and replacements through the airlines'
contracted vendors today. All other regulatory requirements set forth
in this section become effective 30 days after the rule's publication.
7. Loaner Wheelchair or Scooter Accommodations
The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department proposed to require airlines
to secure and pay for loaner wheelchairs and scooters for passengers
with disabilities impacted by airline mishandlings. In doing so,
airlines would also be required to consult with the passenger to ensure
that the loaner wheelchair or scooter best meets the passenger's
physical and functional needs. This would include providing, upon
request, functional and safety-related customizations (e.g., changing
cushions; adding lumbar support seat attachment; adjusting the
headrest, armrest, or footrest) on loaner wheelchairs and scooters, to
the maximum extent possible.
The Department then asked a series of related questions on the
costs and logistics of such a requirement. The Department also asked
whether airlines should be responsible for reimbursing an individual
with a disability if he or she incurs additional costs because the
loaner wheelchair or scooter provided by the airline restricted his or
her mobility or independence.
Comments Received: Disability rights organizations mostly expressed
support for a requirement for airlines to provide loaner wheelchairs
and reiterated the importance of safety, mobility, and independence for
individuals with disabilities. MDA stated that to eliminate health and
safety risks to people living with a neuromuscular disorder, loaner
wheelchairs must be provided while carriers promptly and expeditiously
repair or replace the individual's personal wheelchair or mobility
device. The Amputee Coalition asserted that carriers should be required
to provide loaner wheelchairs that meet the functional needs of the
passenger to the greatest extent possible and work with passengers to
determine what customizations work best for them.
Regarding customizations for loaner wheelchairs, some disability
rights organizations opined on what they believe to be necessary
customization options. For example, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
suggested that at a minimum an airline should be able to provide a
power wheelchair that has sides, a back, charged batteries, and the
ability to be programmed to meet the needs of the individual. The
loaner company should also be willing to adjust footrests and program
and move the joystick as needed. Cure SMA had similar recommendations,
calling for Group 3 power wheelchairs with all four functionalities
(seat elevator, tilt, recline, foot elevator) and adjustments such as
seat pan, back rest, seat cushion, and arm and leg rests. However, PVA
commented that it would be impossible to estimate a complete list of
customizations because it will vary depending on the individual's
disability and their prescriptive mobility device. Some organizations
also noted that it may be difficult for airlines and their vendors to
locate and fully customize loaner wheelchairs for individuals with
disabilities.
Several disability rights organizations also stated that even with
certain customizations, loaner wheelchairs will still not be adequate
for all individuals with disabilities. PVA asserted that for power
wheelchair users, loaner wheelchairs will likely not be able to fully
provide all the same functional and safety needs as the passenger's
customized wheelchair prescribed to treat their health condition. As
such, these organizations called for a requirement to offer alternative
accommodation options in lieu of airline-provided loaner wheelchairs.
PVA stated that carriers should also have the option for the passenger
to elect another accommodation that better suits their functional
mobility needs and guarantees their safety, with the cost covered by
the carrier, if the loaner wheelchair offered is insufficient. MDA
stated that carriers should allow for passengers to rent temporary
wheelchairs or elect another accommodation that better suits the
person's needs. PIDS asserted that if an appropriate loaner mobility
aid is not available, then personal assistance services must be readily
available and provided by the airlines.
Airline industry stakeholders also voiced support for the NPRM's
proposed loaner wheelchair requirement and generally agreed with
[[Page 102424]]
the premise. A4A, NACA, and others asserted that airlines already make
efforts to work with passengers following airline mishandlings to find
and provide loaner wheelchairs that best meet the passengers' personal
needs. However, these commenters also strongly noted a need to limit
the customization requirements given the complexity and variability of
the types of customizations that may be requested by passengers. They
asserted that because of this, airlines may not always be able to find
an available loaner wheelchair that meets all the passenger's
functional and safety-related needs. A4A strongly agreed with the
Department's approach of limiting the customization requirement to
``the maximum extent possible'' and asked the Department to not
prescribe the types of customizations that are required or the time in
which such customizations be completed. Some carriers, including Spirit
and Allegiant, suggested addressing this same issue by limiting the
requirement to ``reasonable'' customization requests. Foreign carriers,
such as Neos S.P.A. and Finnair, also asserted that it will be
especially difficult for them to meet the customization requirements
given their small presence in the United States. In addition, airline
industry stakeholders argued that complying with the proposed
requirement could be costly. NACA estimated that the compliance costs
for one of its member airlines could be approximately $1 million per
year.
Other stakeholder commenters offered mixed feedback on the NPRM's
proposal. Open Doors believes that the NPRM's proposals are feasible
for airlines and necessary for passenger health and safety. On the
other hand, the NCART and AAHomecare mentioned concerns over logistical
difficulties. NCART stated that complex rehab technology (CRT)
wheelchairs should be offered as loaners but customization levels may
not be feasible in terms of cost and timing. NCART noted that it may
require more time for temporary replacement equipment to be configured
than the actual repair would take. NCART also noted that loaner
equipment appropriate to meet the individual user's medical needs will
be extremely limited and that CRT suppliers cannot be expected to
always have many options on-hand and available for passengers.
AAHomecare voiced similar concerns over associated costs, delays in
getting the loaner wheelchair to the passenger, and issues with
supplier inventory expectations. AAHomecare concluded that while
customization for available loaners (if they are available with a local
provider) is feasible for more standard wheelchairs, for medically
complex consumers the level of customization required may not be
possible or feasible from a cost/timing perspective and may take longer
than repairing the original equipment.
As for the Department's question on reimbursing passengers for
associated costs incurred due to inadequate loaner wheelchairs provided
by airlines, disability rights organizations were in favor of adding a
requirement on this. PVA stated that airlines must compensate
passengers for ``provable direct and consequential costs'' when the
provided loaner wheelchair restricts their independence or results in
additional medical issues. Disability rights organizations stated that
these costs could include medical services and supplies needed to
supplement the loaner wheelchair, lost wages due to functional
limitations, personal caregiving services (e.g., assistant to help with
activities of daily living), meal delivery services, accessible
transportation expenses if the individual is not able to use their
standard mode(s) of transportation, and other financial burdens while
waiting for their wheelchairs to be repaired or replaced. Most
disability rights organizations were fine with airlines requiring
individuals to submit documentation to them substantiating such costs,
such as receipts and invoices. Some were also fine with capping these
recoverable costs. PVA and MDA suggested a ``reasonable'' standard for
recoverable costs. However, others such as the United States Gender and
Disability Justice Alliance and IDR recommended no limit on airlines'
liability for reimbursement in these situations.
Airline industry stakeholders strongly oppose the Department
adopting a requirement on recoverable costs for various reasons. A4A
argues that the Department did not explain in the NPRM what would
constitute ``additional'' or ``associated'' costs, that the public was
not given a meaningful opportunity to comment on a potential proposal,
and that the costs and benefits of such a proposal were not considered.
Neos S.P.A. argued that the Department should not regulate this area so
airlines have flexibility in determining appropriate reimbursement on a
case-by-case basis based on the diverse needs of passengers. Spirit
expressed concern that this could open the door for fraud and abuse as
individuals could overstate the harms caused by ill-fitting loaner
wheelchairs and claims that the Department and airlines would not have
a way to determine if the requested costs were appropriate and not
excessive.
A4A argued if a requirement were to go forward, any reimbursement
of costs must be directly attributable to the difference between the
passenger's personal chair and the loaner chair. A4A asserted that
``associated'' costs are vague and will present challenges for airlines
regarding validation, potentially leading to issues of unjustified
claims or unwarranted liability. Airline commenters also stated that
airlines should be able to require documentation from passengers that
clearly sets forth these costs.
Other stakeholder commenters generally supported a requirement for
airlines to reimburse passengers for costs incurred due to inadequate
loaner wheelchairs provided by airlines. These commenters differed on
liability limitations though. Open Doors stated that there should be no
limit to the airlines' liability, but Gillette Children's Specialty
Healthcare supported a limit to ``reasonable'' costs.
DOT Response: The Department has considered the comments received
and has decided to adopt a rule requiring carriers to consult with
affected passengers on a loaner wheelchair or scooter that best meets
the passenger's physical and functional needs, and to pay for that
loaner wheelchair or scooter, so passengers are able to safely use the
loaner wheelchair or scooter while waiting for their mishandled
personal devices to be returned, repaired, or replaced by the carrier.
As proposed, carriers are required to provide, upon request, functional
and safety-related customizations (e.g., changing cushions; adding
lumbar support seat attachment; adjusting the headrest, armrest, or
footrest) on loaner wheelchairs and scooters, to the maximum extent
possible. Under this final rule, if the loaner wheelchair or scooter
offered by the carrier does not meet the specific needs of the
passenger, then the carrier must alternatively reimburse the passenger
for a different loaner wheelchair or scooter that has been found and
secured by the passenger and is necessary for the passenger's safety
and functionality in lieu of the loaner wheelchair or scooter offered
by the airline. Airlines are permitted to require passengers to
substantiate the cost to be reimbursed (e.g., by providing a receipt
copy).
Generally, the comments received all recognize that loaner
wheelchairs and scooters are vital for passengers whose wheelchairs or
scooters are delayed, damaged, or lost by airlines and provide
[[Page 102425]]
them the ability to continue their normal daily lives, to the maximum
extent possible. Airline commenters supported the NPRM's loaner
wheelchair proposal and noted that several airlines already take this
step in accommodating individuals after wheelchair and scooter
mishandlings. The Department agrees and is requiring that loaner
wheelchairs or scooters be provided when wheelchairs or scooters are
mishandled.
The Department also recognizes the concerns of airlines and
representatives of medical equipment suppliers and manufacturers over
loaner customizations. The Department believes that finding and
securing appropriate loaner wheelchairs and scooters with full
customizations may be challenging for passengers that utilize highly
complex and personalized powered devices. The Department acknowledged
this potential issue in the NPRM and addressed it in the proposed
regulatory text by stating that the passenger's functional and safety-
related needs must be met ``to the maximum extent possible.'' The
Department continues to believe that this standard is appropriate
because it emphasizes the importance of loaner device safety and
functionality while affording airlines leniency in circumstances that
may be impossible or outside of their control. The Department is also
declining to define a set list of required customizations as we
understand that this may vary greatly from passenger to passenger.
We recognize that airlines cannot control the availability or
actions of wheelchair repair vendors and suppliers for loaners;
however, following mishandlings, airlines must make best efforts to
find and secure an appropriate loaner wheelchair or scooter, even if
this involves reaching out to several vendors. This should also be a
collaborative process that involves the passenger so the parties can
find a mutually-agreeable solution that works best for the passenger's
specific needs and circumstances. For example, it could be that a
passenger chooses to forgo certain loaner wheelchair customizations
offered by the airline if it results in getting the loaner wheelchair
to the passenger faster. The passenger's preferences are crucial.
The Department is also persuaded by the comments from disability
rights organizations who explained that loaner wheelchairs and scooters
offered by airlines are not a uniform solution for all individuals with
varying types of disabilities. If a loaner wheelchair or scooter
offered by the airline is not going to be as safe and/or functional for
an individual with a disability as the passenger's existing wheelchair
or scooter, then he or she must be able to seek out reasonable
alternative options that work best for them without bearing the cost.
Under this rule, the carrier is responsible for the cost of a loaner
wheelchair or scooter that a passenger finds that better meets the
passenger's safety and functionality needs than the one offered by the
carrier. The Department believes this requirement is necessary for
passenger safety, dignity, and independence, and has built this into
the final rule. However, the Department is declining to extend this
requirement to other types of accommodations besides loaner wheelchairs
or scooters. Based on the comments received, it is not clear what other
accommodations would be sought out by individuals with disabilities in
lieu of a loaner wheelchair or scooter. Nor was any information on
associated costs provided. As such, the Department is focusing on
loaner wheelchairs or scooters. To be reimbursed for the costs of these
alternative loaners, airlines are permitted to require passengers to
submit receipts, invoices, or similar documentation that proves the
passengers' paid costs.
The Department is not requiring direct payment here by the airline
to the passenger's chosen loaner vendor for a few reasons. First, we
expect that the cost of loaner wheelchairs, on average, to be much less
than the cost of repairs or replacements for complex devices. This
means that the upfront costs incurred by individuals with disabilities
is likely not as substantial. In addition, it is vital that passengers
receive their loaners as quickly as possible. The Department does not
want to delay this process by having individuals with disabilities wait
for airlines to review and complete payment requests. The Department is
requiring airlines to reimburse the passengers for the cost of the
loaner wheelchair or scooter within 30 days of providing documentation
to support claim.
The Department is declining to move forward with a requirement for
reimbursement of costs to individuals with disabilities related to
inadequate loaner wheelchairs and scooters provided by airlines that
restrict mobility or independence. Commenters raised potential
consequential costs ranging from meal delivery services up to weeks-
worth of lost wages. The Department is unable to accurately analyze the
costs and benefits of such a solution at this time without additional
data. Instead, the Department has decided to address the root cause of
the issue in this final rule: inadequate loaner wheelchairs and
scooters. As mentioned above, this rule provides passengers with
disabilities with greater flexibility when seeking out appropriate
accommodations while waiting for their wheelchairs or scooters to be
returned, repaired, or replaced and will not have to bear the cost. We
believe that these final rule requirements will substantially mitigate
the types of associated costs discussed in disability rights
organizations' comments.
C. Reimbursement of Fare Difference and Rebooking
The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department solicited comment on whether
it should require U.S. and foreign air carriers to refund the
difference between the fare on a flight taken by a passenger who uses a
wheelchair and the fare on a flight that the passenger would have taken
if his or her wheelchair had been able to fit in the cabin or cargo
compartment of the aircraft. The Department also asked whether airlines
should be required to refund the fare difference only if the
passenger's preferred flight itinerary that cannot accommodate the
wheelchair and the more expensive flight itinerary that can accommodate
the wheelchair are on the same airline, have the same origin and
destination, are on the same day, and have the same number of legs,
stops, and connection points (if applicable). There were also questions
in the NPRM on whether airlines should be permitted to require
passengers to take certain steps to obtain a refund of the fare
difference and what types of proof or documentation passengers who use
wheelchairs should be required to submit to airlines when requesting a
lower fare or seeking a reimbursement of the fare difference.
Additionally, when examining whether the Department should require
carriers to refund the fare difference under these circumstances, the
Department solicited comment on airlines' rebooking practices.
Specifically, the Department asked whether airlines currently offer
individuals with disabilities rebooking on another flight on the same
airline at no additional cost when their wheelchairs or scooters cannot
be carried on their originally booked flights and whether the
Department should impose such a requirement. The Department also
referenced a regulation by the Canadian Transportation Agency requiring
carriers to advise passengers of alternative trips provided by the same
carrier to the same destination and offer booking for no additional
cost if a carrier is unable to transport a
[[Page 102426]]
passenger's mobility aid device on a flight.
Comments Received: All disability rights organizations and
individuals with disabilities that commented on this issue strongly
supported requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to refund the
difference between the fare on a flight taken by a passenger who uses a
wheelchair and the fare on a flight that the passenger would have taken
if his or her wheelchair had been able to fit in the cabin or cargo
compartment of the aircraft. Cure SMA stated that passengers with
disabilities frequently pay for more expensive flights on larger
aircrafts that can accommodate their large power wheelchairs, which
makes it very costly for individuals with disabilities to fly. PVA
asserted that forcing a passenger to book a more expensive flight
imposes an additional charge on the passenger for a service required by
the ACAA. The Arc commented that airlines should refund the fare
difference when the carrier is unable to transport a passenger with a
disability's mobility device to avoid any additional charges to the
passenger and to ensure the passenger has the same benefits as
passengers without disabilities, i.e., the option to choose a cheaper
flight. PVA also recommended that the Department require airlines to
prominently display on their websites all policies related to obtaining
a refund of the difference between the fare on a flight taken by a
passenger who uses a wheelchair and the fare on a flight that the
passenger would have taken if his or her wheelchair had been able to
fit in the cabin or cargo compartment of the aircraft. PVA stated
further that transparency of all policies is essential for travelers
with mobility disabilities to be notified of their rights.
Airline industry stakeholders who commented on this issue oppose
requiring airlines to refund the difference between the fare on a
flight taken by a passenger who uses a wheelchair and the fare on a
flight that the passenger would have taken if his or her wheelchair had
been able to fit in the cabin or cargo compartment of the aircraft. A4A
and IATA commented that while some flights may not be able to
accommodate some passengers with disabilities, an airline's operation
of those flights does not constitute discrimination on the basis of
disability. A4A and IATA explained that airlines provide those flights,
including selection of fares and the aircraft being used, based on a
myriad of other factors, including demand, frequency, capacity, and
other limitations and costs (e.g., fuel, crew, length of route, origin
and destination airport costs, etc.), but never based on a passenger's
disability. A4A and IATA asserted that regulation of flights and
applicable fares falls outside of the Department's limited authority
under the ACAA and that the Department's regulation of fares would
violate the Congressional deregulation of the airline industry and
would also likely violate bilateral air transport agreements that
prohibit the regulation of fares and require an open marketplace for
air travel.
With respect to the question of whether airlines should be required
to refund the fare difference only if the passenger's preferred flight
that cannot accommodate the wheelchair and the more expensive flight
itinerary that can accommodate the wheelchair are on the same airline,
have the same origin and destination, are on the same day, and have the
same number of legs, stops, and connection points (if applicable), PVA,
the Amputee Coalition, and the Arc stated further that refunds cannot
be limited to only when the new flight has the same origin and
destination, are on the same day, and have the same number of legs,
stops, and connection points. They asserted that the Department must
implement broad requirements for refunds of fare differences, such as
extending flight options to nearby airports. Disability Rights Maryland
commented that a refunds of fare differences should be applied to
flights with the same origin and destination region, regardless of
additional connecting flights but that when there is no other itinerary
that meets the passenger's needs, airlines should be required to
provide a refund for the fare difference even when the preferred flight
itinerary and more expensive flight itinerary have different dates,
number of stops, or connecting points.
A4A and IATA commented further that the airline should be allowed
to require documentation of the fare difference and proof of a booking
if the Department imposes a requirement to reimburse passengers the
fare difference. These airline associations added that unlike full
refunds, a requirement to reimburse fare difference the provision of a
partial refund requires material efforts by airlines to confirm the
prices and difference because it is not a system that can be easily
automated, especially with the continued adoption of dynamic fares.
Azores Airlines SATA stated that if the Department were to implement
such a requirement, the passenger must provide an invoice detailing the
transportation of the chairs and routes taken.
PVA, the Amputee Coalition, and the Arc asserted that to avoid
fraud, airlines can request reasonable documentation but must not
impose unreasonable barriers to obtaining a refund of the fare
difference. They suggested that airlines could request the passenger to
provide the dimensions of their mobility device and documentation of
the fare of the preferred flight they would have booked if their
mobility device could be accommodated on that flight. PVA commented
further that the type of documentation cannot be limited, for example,
by only accepting a screen shot of the fare price. PVA explained that
not all passengers book their tickets online or solely on the carrier's
website, and the ability to take a screenshot of the fare may not be
accessible for the passenger due to their disability or lack of
electronic devices with that technology. PVA recommended that
passengers should be able to submit any type of documentation to prove
the fare rate, e.g., providing the fare rate and the date of their
search or call; printed copies of the fare rates; photos of the rates,
that are not necessarily screenshots; correspondence with reservation
personnel with the fare rate; or any other type of documented evidence
showing the rate. PVA also recommended that the Department require
airlines to prominently display on their websites all policies related
to obtaining a refund of the fare difference. PVA explained that
transparency of all policies is essential for travelers with mobility
disabilities to be notified of their rights.
In response to the Department's request for comments on airlines'
rebooking practices when passengers' wheelchairs or scooters cannot be
carried on their originally booked flights, various commenters raised
concerns about the lack of travel options for passengers with
disabilities in these circumstances. Disability rights organizations
urged the Department to strengthen its proposal by requiring airlines
to offer alternative travel options to impacted passengers in these
situations. Disability Rights New York stated that DOT must create
guidelines for airlines to follow when wheelchairs do not fit on the
traveler's aircraft. PVA asserted that until aircraft can readily
accommodate power wheelchairs and scooters, carriers should be required
to provide additional options to passengers. AAPD stated that these
options can include deplaning and rebooking on another flight that will
accommodate their wheelchair or scooter free of charge or staying on
their scheduled flight with the provision of a
[[Page 102427]]
loaner wheelchair or scooter at the destination gate. AAPD added that
the airline should also transport the passenger's mobility device to
his or her destination on the next available flight that can
accommodate their device.
Organizations stated that at a bare minimum though, passengers need
to be given the opportunity to deplane and cancel their flight if their
wheelchairs or scooters do not make it onto their flights. PIDS
asserted that if the passenger is informed of the situation after
boarding, then they must be given the option to exit the plane and
return to their undamaged mobility device. PVA also noted that the
organization is unaware of any consistent policies and practices among
all carriers in these situations. MDA and the Amputee Coalition
reported the same. On the other hand, United States Gender and
Disability Justice Alliance asserted that passengers are currently
informed by airlines when there is an issue with stowage and are given
the option to continue the flight without their wheelchair or stay with
their wheelchair.
From the airlines' perspective, RAA commented that when a
passenger's wheelchair or scooter does not fit, the airline's customer
care personnel work with the passenger to be rebooked on the next
available flight on which the wheelchair or scooter would fit.
Allegiant noted similar views and stated that its current policy is for
a CRO to be contacted for assistance and to consult the passenger
regarding possible solutions. Allegiant also stated that these
instances are very rare and are more characteristic of regional
carriers operating smaller aircraft.
A4A and IATA argued that a requirement to rebook a customer on a
flight at a lower fare from an earlier or later flight raises serious
concerns about the potential for dishonest behavior, which may rise to
the level of fraud. They commented that if the Department implements
this requirement, airlines should be permitted to strictly limit and
condition the provision of alternative flights, as determined by the
airline, but made transparent to the passenger (e.g., the airline can
condition that the passenger must accept and fly on the immediately
previous or next flight that can accommodate the passenger's
wheelchair; the airline can condition that the passenger must takes an
alternative flight that minimizes the fare difference; the airline can
limit the alternative travel to the same origin and destination, the
same day of flight, the same number of legs, stops and connection
points, and any other reasonable condition to minimize the costs to the
airline, etc.).
DOT Response: After carefully considering the comments, the
Department has decided to adopt a final rule requiring airlines to
reimburse a passenger who uses a wheelchair or scooter the difference
between the fare on a flight taken by the passenger and the fare on a
flight that the passenger would have taken if his or her wheelchair had
been able to fit in the cabin or cargo compartment of the aircraft. The
ACAA provides that airlines may not discriminate against passengers
with a disability. Furthermore, 14 CFR 382.11 states that airlines must
not discriminate against any qualified individual with a disability, by
reason of such disability, in the provision of air transportation and
exclude a qualified individual with a disability from or deny the
person the benefit of any air transportation or related services that
are available to other persons, among other things.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 14 CFR 382.11(a)(1) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that in some instances, passengers who use larger
wheelchairs or scooters may only be able to select a more expensive
flight because a cheaper flight option uses an aircraft that cannot
accommodate their wheelchair or scooter. The Department believes that
when this occurs, passengers who use larger wheelchairs or scooters are
denied a benefit--the lower prices for air fare--that is available to
other persons, which is discriminatory. Passengers who use larger
wheelchairs or scooters should not have to pay higher prices for air
fares only because their wheelchairs or scooters cannot be transported
on certain flights. Accordingly, in situations where passengers who use
wheelchairs or scooters cannot book their preferred flight because
their wheelchairs or scooters cannot fit in the cabin or cargo
compartment of the aircraft of their preferred flights, and the
passengers must book more expensive flights that can accommodate their
wheelchairs or scooters, airlines are required to reimburse them the
difference between the more expensive flights the passengers purchased
and had to take and the preferred flights that the passengers would
have purchased and taken if their wheelchair or scooter had been able
to fit. The Department is limiting the requirement to provide a fare
reimbursement to flights that occur on the same day, on the same
airline, and between the same origin and destination.
In addition, we agree with A4A and IATA that airlines should be
allowed to require certain documentation to obtain the fare
reimbursement. We also agree with comments from disability rights
organizations that the documentation requirement should not impose
unreasonable barriers to passengers seeking the fare reimbursement and
that airlines should display on their websites policies related to
obtaining a refund of the fare difference. Therefore, the final rule
permits airlines to require reasonable documentation from the passenger
to verify: the dimensions of the passenger's wheelchair or scooter; the
cost of the passenger's preferred flight that could not accommodate the
passenger's wheelchair or scooter; and the cost of the more expensive
flight the passenger purchased and had to take. Under this rule, an
airline must provide reimbursements to passengers for fare difference
occurring on the types of flights within 30 days of receiving a request
and documentation that substantiates the cost(s), if such documentation
is required by the airline. In addition, an airline must disclose on
their website the documentation the airline requires from the passenger
to support a reimbursement claim.
A4A and IATA asserted that the proposed rule would ``likely violate
bilateral air transport agreements that prohibit the regulation of
fares and require an open marketplace for air travel.'' However, the
commenters did not provide a rationale for this assertion, and the
Department has been unable to independently identify any potential
violation. We also note that no other commenter, including any U.S. air
transport partner, submitted a comment making a similar assertion.
The Department believes this rule strikes a balance between
providing passengers who use wheelchairs or scooters equal access to
lower air fare options and not imposing unduly burdensome requirements
on airlines. Providing fare reimbursements is a reasonable
accommodation and less burdensome to airlines than only operating
aircraft large enough to accommodate larger wheelchairs or scooters or
reconfiguring aircraft to have doors and cargo space large enough to
fit larger wheelchairs or scooters.
Further, this final rule requires airlines to offer passengers
whose wheelchairs or scooters have not been loaded onto their scheduled
flights, for whatever reason, an opportunity to disembark the aircraft
and the choice of rebooking at no additional cost on the next available
flight of the same carrier or on a partner carrier. In addition,
airlines must offer free rebooking on the next available flight of the
same carrier
[[Page 102428]]
or on a partner carrier, if the passenger's wheelchair or scooter can
fit on the aircraft, when an airline becomes aware that a passenger's
wheelchair or scooter does not fit on the passenger's scheduled flight.
We note that an airline may become aware of this issue in advance of
travel, such as at the time of flight booking, or not until at the
airport on the passenger's day of travel. The rebooking requirement
applies in both scenarios, and the airline should reach out to the
passenger as early as possible to start the process.
The Department was persuaded by the comme
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on December 17, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.