Ensuring Safe Accommodations for Air Travelers With Disabilities Using Wheelchairs

Federal RegisterDec 17, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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),

christopher.miller1@dot.gov, vinh.nguyen@dot.gov, robert.gorman@dot.gov,

blane.workie@dot.gov

(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

(“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.

“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.

The Department has continually updated these regulations pursuant to the ACAA, Congressional mandate,

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.

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.

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.

See

55 FR 8008 (Mar. 6, 1990).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

14 CFR 399.79(b).

Additionally, section 440 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018

(“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.

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

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

(“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.

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.

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

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.

Paralyzed Veterans of America's (PVA) informal online survey, titled

The ACAA Survey,

and its results were published in September 2022 and can be accessed online at

https://pva.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-ACAA-Survey-Results-FINAL.pdf.

On March 24, 2022, the Department held a Public Meeting on Air Travel by Persons Who Use Wheelchairs. Hundreds of individuals participated in the meeting and submitted written comments to the meeting's docket. The Department heard firsthand stories from passengers whose lives and health were seriously impacted by unsafe assistance and mishandling of their wheelchairs or scooters.

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.

Many of the participants expressed concern about the October 2021 death of disability activist Engracia Figueroa, several months after an incident involving damage to her wheelchair. Following this incident, in September 2023, the Department entered into an agreement with United Airlines. Under the Agreement, United will: (1) roll out a flight filter on its booking engine to make it easier for passengers who use wheelchairs to find flights where their wheelchairs can fit and be safely transported; (2) refund the fare difference for passengers using the flight filter when the passenger's preferred flight cannot accommodate their wheelchair and the flight that they travel on with their wheelchair is more expensive; (3) conduct a pilot program to explore whether additional equipment, such as a medical wheelchair or other form of moveable or non-moveable chair, can be utilized to safely accommodate passengers waiting for loaner wheelchairs; and (4) seek feedback from each passenger who checks a wheelchair for transport in the aircraft cargo compartment. See

https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/DOT-United-Airlines-Agreement-Improve-Wheelchair-Access-PDF.

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.

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.

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

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.

The Department also responded to a series of questions posed by the Associations and placed those responses in the rulemaking docket.

See 89 FR 38852 (May 8, 2024).

The questions and the Department's responses are available at

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-0144-1318.

The Department received 1,897 comments from individuals

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.

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

ER17DE24.068

ER17DE24.069

ER17DE24.070

ER17DE24.071

ER17DE24.072

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),

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

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.”

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 Aéreos 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

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.

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.

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.

See American Airlines, Inc., Order 2013-12-4 (Dec. 6, 2024).

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, § 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.

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

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.

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.

“Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act Committee Recommendation” (February 4, 2022), available at

https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0204-0040.

With respect to deplaning assistance by aisle chair, several disability rights organizations, such as PVA, the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, and the Arc, generally agreed with the Department's proposal that “prompt” should mean that personnel and boarding chairs must be available to deplane the passenger no later than as soon as other passengers have left the aircraft. However, they suggested that the Department should specifically require airlines to have at least two trained employees or contractors available to provide transfer assistance. A few disability rights organizations disagreed with the Department's proposed definition of “prompt” for deplaning assistance by aisle chair. Disability Rights Maryland commented that personal and boarding chairs should be available as soon as the first passengers are exiting the plane and that passengers who use aisle chairs should be asked whether they prefer to exit the plane first or last. Additionally, Fat Legal Advocacy, Rights, and Education commented that passengers with disabilities should be able to deplane in row order in the same way that able-bodied passengers deplane.

Several airline industry stakeholders, such as Allegiant, IAG, TAP, Neos S.P.A, and Japan Airlines, supported the Department's proposal that “prompt” for deplaning assistance by aisle chair means that personnel and boarding chairs must be available to deplane the passenger no later than as soon as other passengers have left the aircraft. However, other airline industry stakeholders, such as A4A, IATA, and NACA, asserted the proposed meaning of “prompt” for deplaning assistance by aisle chair should only apply to instances in which passengers have given advance notice to airlines that they need deplaning assistance by aisle chair. NACA stated that an airline cannot be expected to have personnel and equipment positioned in accordance with the proposed standard if a passenger does not inform the airline that they need deplaning assistance by aisle chair. A4A and IATA suggested that the regulatory text should be revised to state the following: “Prompt assistance for a person who uses a boarding chair (

i.e.,

aisle chair) in deplaning means personnel and boarding chair must be available to deplane the passenger, who has given advance notice of such need consistent with applicable regulation or no later than boarding the aircraft, when the last passenger who did not request deplaning assistance departs the aircraft.” A4A and IATA asserted that if the Department does not incorporate the language related to passenger advance notification, then airlines would be in the difficult and costly position of pre-staging personnel and equipment at every flight they operate and for multiple passengers onboard the aircraft, often with no need or purpose and at an increased indirect cost to all customers, including passengers with disabilities who do not require such services.

In addition, A4A and IATA disagreed with the Department's proposal that “prompt” for deplaning assistance by aisle chair also means that the passenger's personal wheelchair must be ready and available as close as possible to the door of the aircraft, to the maximum extent possible. They asserted that this proposal improperly prioritizes rapid handling of personal mobility aids for immediate availability at the aircraft cabin door over ensuring proper handling of the mobility aid to prevent damage and avoid injury of airline employees. They further argued that this proposal does not consider real and unavoidable scenarios that prevent or significantly impede compliance.

DOT Response:

The Department has decided to codify as proposed its

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.

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.

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.

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.

See 14 CFR 382.95.

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,

which was described in the Preamble of the 2008 final rule.

“Final Report: Air Carrier Access Act Committee Recommendation” at 13.

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

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

mishandling of a wheelchair or other assistive device a

per se

violation of the ACAA.

“

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.

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.”

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

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.

“

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.

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).”.

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.

While “acts of God” or actions

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

imposing a requirement for airlines to reimburse passengers with disabilities for all consequential costs associated with delayed wheelchair or scooters. We will continue to review this issue to determine if future rulemaking proposals may be warranted.

6. Repair or Replacement of Lost or Damaged Wheelchairs or Scooters

The NPRM:

In the NPRM, the Department proposed to require airlines to provide two separate options to passengers who file claims with airlines after their personal wheelchairs or scooters have been lost, damaged, or destroyed: (1) passengers can elect for carriers to handle the repair or replacement of the devices; or (2) passengers can elect to use passengers' preferred vendors to repair or replace the device. If passengers select the first option, the Department proposed to require carriers to: repair or replace the devices, depending on the severity of the damage; return the devices to passengers within a reasonable timeframe; and pay the cost of the repairs or replacement directly to the vendor(s). The Department did not define a specific “reasonable” timeframe in the NPRM. If passengers select the second option, the Department proposed to require carriers to promptly transport the wheelchairs or scooters to the passengers' preferred vendor, unless the passengers have indicated that they will arrange for the transport themselves. The carrier would be required to cover the cost of this transport and pay the wheelchair vendor directly for the cost of repairs or replacement. The Department sought comments on this point and whether direct billing to the airline may cause any unforeseen issues.

Under both proposed options, if a replacement is necessary due to the severity of the damages or because the device was lost, the replacement device must have equivalent or greater function and safety as the individual's original device.

In addition, in the NPRM, the Department sought comments and data on the following:

• Whether to use detailed timelines rather than a reasonableness standard when airlines handle wheelchair and scooter repairs and replacements;

• Whether the Department should require repairs made only by DME suppliers in the rulemaking;

• Who should be responsible for ultimately determining whether a wheelchair or scooter is “fixable”;

• Whether an airline's cost for repairs and replacements should be limited to whatever is not paid by the passenger's travel insurance;

• Whether passengers need a “testing period” to confirm whether wheelchair or scooter repairs made by the airline are adequate; and

• How “temporary wheelchair repairs” offered by airlines at the airport would work in practice.

Comments Received:

Disability rights organizations' comments generally supported greater flexibility and options for passengers with disabilities in the repair and replacement process. MDA stated that passengers with disabilities need options, including the ability to choose their own preferred vendor for repairs, when their wheelchair or device is damaged to reduce any safety risks to the passenger and unnecessary delays. The ITEM Coalition commented that while delays may sometimes be due to circumstances beyond the carriers' control, some delays and the associated risks to passengers could be mitigated if passengers have options when their mobility device is damaged or destroyed. AARP supported the proposal's repair and replacement options because many individuals with disabilities have existing relationships with trusted providers and leveraging these existing relationships should lead to more efficient and timely repairs.

However, several disability rights organizations also want additional protections built into the final rule to improve and streamline the current repair and replacement process. For example, MDA asserted that due to a lack of standardization, the repair and replacement process can be time-consuming and frustrating, leading to a loss of independence, medical complications, and additional incurred costs for passengers living with a neuromuscular disorder. Cure SMA stated that the burden is placed solely on the passenger, who must journey to the baggage claim office, wait in line, and report the damage. Cure SMA explained that passengers who do not see damage at the airport because they cannot examine the chair they are sitting in are required to return to the airport to make a claim for repair.

Disability rights organizations offered a variety of suggestions to address some of these noted issues. The most common suggestions included extended filing periods for damage claims (

e.g.,

14 or 15 days after the device is returned to the passenger), frequent and accurate updates provided to passengers throughout the repair or replacement process, increased airline policy transparency for repairs and replacements, and accessible claim filing options. Cure SMA recommended that passengers be given up to 14 days to file damage claims after their flights land because, for example, electrical damage caused by a pinched wire or water damage that occurred while inflight may not set in for days.

Airline industry stakeholders' comments voiced concerns over the options proposed in the NPRM. A4A stated that as an initial matter, the Department should recognize that when airlines cause a mishandling, they already repair or replace the wheelchair or scooter and work diligently and closely with the passenger to ensure a timely remedy.

Second, A4A claimed that airlines' regulatory liability for repairs and replacements must be limited to circumstances under the airlines' control. They argued that circumstances beyond the airlines' control, such as extreme turbulence that damages a properly secured wheelchair in the cargo compartment, are not an act of discrimination for which the Department can impose strict liability. A4A stated that imposing a requirement to provide repairs and replacements in all circumstances would exceed the Department's authority.

Lastly, A4A noted that even if a passenger has a preferred vendor, airlines may have an equally qualified (or more qualified) vendor that can repair or replace the device in a faster time and in an equal manner, minimizing the costs to the airline. They also asserted that airlines would not be able to vet the passenger's chosen vendor and its work, potentially resulting in replacement of devices whenever they could actually be repaired by the airline's qualified vendor instead. A4A claimed it is unreasonable to require replacement of a device because the passenger's preferred vendor is unqualified to make a repair that others could make. They claimed that airlines' qualified vendors are also best situated to make determinations as to whether damage to a device was caused by handling during air transport or whether it was pre-existing. For these reasons, A4A strongly recommended that the Department allow airlines to select a qualified vendor, and if the airline is unable to contract with one, then the passenger may select the vendor for the repairs or replacement. NACA and RAA shared views similar to A4A.

Foreign airlines and IATA noted that the Montreal Convention already sets relevant limits on their liability for damages resulting from the destruction, loss, damage, or delay of baggage, which includes passengers' checked wheelchairs or scooters. They asserted

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

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

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)

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.

The SDR was created by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and is defined as “equivalent to the value of a basket of world currencies. The SDR itself is not a currency but an asset that holders can exchange for currency when needed. The SDR serves as the unit of account of the IMF and other international organizations.”

See https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2023/special-drawing-rights-sdr.

As of September 30, 2024, one SDR was roughly equivalent to $1.36 USD in value.

The final rule also addresses passenger claims for insufficient repairs or replacement of wheelchairs and scooters by requiring carriers review promptly claims received within a reasonable time of the wheelchair or scooter being returned to the passenger. Most commenters agree that individuals with disabilities should have a reasonable time to inspect and test their repaired wheelchairs or scooters once they've been delivered by the airline. However, there is disagreement on how long this testing period should last. Disability rights organizations want up to a month, while airlines want to limit their liability once they have relinquished custody of the device and fully turned it over to the individual. The Department understands disability rights organizations' concern that an insufficient repair may only be noticed after testing the wheelchair or scooter in a variety of different settings or environments. As FLARE mentioned, repairs may need to be tested both at home and off-road to ensure all functionality has been restored. The

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

the premise. A4A, NACA, and others asserted that airlines already make efforts to work with passengers fol

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.