Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar
Updated:
OST-2004-19482 - Nondiscrimination on Basis of Disability in Air Travel - NPRM
|
Nondiscrimination on Basis of Disability in Air Travel OST-2004-19482 - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
October 22, 2004 | Federal Register Publish Date is November 4, 2004 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Pre-Publication Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Final Publication November 4, 2004 The Department proposes to revise its rule requiring nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel to update, reorganize, and clarify the rule and to implement a statutory requirement to cover foreign air carriers under the Air Carrier Access Act. By: Norman Mineta
Order 00-8-18 - Air Canada - Violations of 49 USC 41310 Issued and Served August 21, 2004 By: Rosalind Knapp
Order 01-8-17 - Atlantic Southeast - Violations of 14 CFR Part 382 and 49 USC 41705 Issued and Served August 21, 2004 By: Rosalind Knapp
November 4, 2004 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation The proposed rule's main beneficiaries would be prospective international air travelers among the world’s population of persons with permanent or temporary disabilities, including passengers who lack sufficient stamina to walk long distances or climb steps unassisted. These persons would have a far higher likelihood of being able to use foreign carrier air services if they are accessible. In addition, making airline web sites accessible would enable use by blind persons and those with limited vision. They would be able to take advantage of a wider range of scheduled flights, fare discounts, travel bonuses, and special bargain package deals offered exclusively on air carriers' web sites. In addition, many passengers with disability – perhaps as many as 60 percent – book air trips through travel agents. If these persons could book through web sites like other passengers, they would realize a saving from avoiding travel agent fees. Other beneficiaries of the proposed rule would include travel companions, family members or friends of disabled passengers whose current responsibilities for making air travel arrangements and providing them with assistance in moving through airport terminals would be assumed by foreign carrier personnel.
Counsel: Robert Ashby
December 28, 2004 Please, note that usually First and Business Class seats have an endbay instead of an armrest in the aisle side. This design solution requires a not simple mechanism to accomplish the requirement for facilitating disable people accommodation. We believe that the seat-to-seat room should be evaluated as an alternative to the moveable endbay. The current design practice is to maintain a distance of minimum 6 inches from the backrest to the most forward hard point of the endbay for passenger egress. This figure should be the parameter fixed by the Rule for assessing the nondiscrimination for disable people. By: Antonio Foti
January 6, 2005 Re: Air Transport Association of America Request to Extend Comment Period If the Department were to extend the comment period as requested, ATA could provide useful information regarding the anticipated impacts of the multiple proposals contained in the NPRM. ATA and its members have already begun to evaluate the impacts of the NPRM on some aspects of the carriers' operations and have identified a number of areas that will require the collection of information from various different departments within each carrier. For example, each carrier will need to consult with inhouse (and possibly outside) specialists to determine whether the Department's proposals regarding web site accessibility are technologically feasible given the wide variations in technology among carrier web sites. That analysis, in turn, will assist in determining whether the Department's cost estimate for compliance with the proposed accessibility standards is fair and accurate. The additional time would also permit the carriers to fully explore the impacts of the proposed rule on operations performed jointly with code‑share and regional partners or other carriers with whom, under the proposed rule, our members will share responsibility for providing services to disabled passengers. With the additional time, we would also be able to better articulate for the Department any areas where we believe the proposed rule could be improved to better achieve the goals of the Air Carrier Access Act. Extending the comment period will not adversely affect other interested parties, and we understand that other stakeholders will support this request. By: ATA, Sophy Chen
January 7, 2005 Re: Comments of The Texas Governor's Committee on People with Disabilities | Word By: Angela English
January 10, 2005 Re: Comments of Phillip Hensley Please reference Docket Number OST-2004-19626-1. It is my understanding that the DOT is considering a rule allowing the Airlines to charge for a seat for passengers with service dogs. I am voicing my concern that this will affect many people that may not be able to afford to fly if they have to buy 2 tickets. I understand that a service dog takes up room on board a plane, but I would hope there is some other alternative. Also, I assume since the passenger with the service dogs has to purchase a seat for the dog, the dog would be entitled to sit in the seat. I don't want to be sitting in a seat occupied by a dog on the flight before me. Maybe an alternative is to offer free transport of the dog in a kinnel after the passenger is seated. Again, please do not allow this rule. By: Phillip Hensley
December 30, 2005 Re: Comments of Sanford Alexander III By suggesting that airlines may charge for an additional seat if the service animal intrudes into the neighboring passenger's space, DOT is violating basic principles of non-discrimination. In addition, 382.67 permits carriers to comply with the wheelchair storage requirement by using a strap kit across two or three seats to store the wheelchair and if other passengers are bumped they receive compensation equivalent to denied boarding. No mention in this rule is made of additional charges for the extra seats provided for wheelchair stowage. Providing such an accommodation to the stowage of wheelchairs but not to the placement of service animals can be viewed as discrimination toward one class of disabled passengers. 382.11, Section 3 states: that whatever services are offered to one passenger must also be offered to disabled passengers. If wheelchair users are offered additional seats for the stowage of their wheelchairs, then an equivalent accommodation should be made for assistance dog partners. Providing additional space for mechanical assistive devices and denying additional space for live assistive devices, namely assistance dogs, is discriminatory. By: Sanford Alexander
January 2, 2005 By: Cathi Catlet
January 3, 2005 I do not have a choice in the size of my service dog and do not feel I should be penalized or placed under the stresses you suggest. I am already under duress by trying to obtain the bulkhead row so my dog can lie down. Many airlines are reducing the size of the bulkhead floor space or making the bulkhead an exit row in which I cannot be seated. While I respect your desire to accommodate all passengers, I heartily request that you reconsider requiring people with large service dogs to pay for an additional seat or ship the dogs in cargo. Honestly, the stress of being apart from me would kill my dog. I would be ill and stressed worrying about him. I would no longer be abler to fly and have the independence I now experience. By: Lane Phalen
January 4, 2005 By: Kaye Marschke
January 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Leader Dogs for the Blind By: William Hansen
January 10, 2005 By: Walt Whittle
January 12, 2005 Re: IATA Letter in Support of Request for Extension to File Comments By: IATA, David O'Connor, 202-293-9292
January 4, 2005 Re: Comments of The Partners of Assistance Dogs Network By: Barbara Burton
January 13, 2005 I feel that the proposed rule changes shift the burden of accommodation to the disabled person in terms of cost and inconvenience. Traveling with a disability is quite challenging as it is without worrying about what surprises lie in store at the ticket counter by the airline. Many disabled people like myself live on fixed incomes. When I plan to travel I budget carefully in advance for the trip and would face serious hardship were I compelled to purchase an additional ticket at the last minute. I would like to see the rules for reasonable accommodation applying to the airline industry adopt language similar to that of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That statute requires business to make accommodations even if some expenditures are necessary. Forfeiting a seat to accommodate a service dog if another passenger refuses to occupy the seat adjacent to it seems on par the financial outlay of refitting restrooms to accommodate wheelchairs or installing ramps so stairs can be circumvented. By: Natalie Hunter
January 5, 2005 By: Linda Stein
January 14, 2005 Re: Letter from The Regional Airline Association on Behalf of The Air Carrier Association of America in Support of Request for an Extension of Time | Word The Regional Airline Association on behalf of its 50 member airlines and the Air Carrier Association of America look forward to commenting on the referenced Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking. However, we agree with and fully support the January 6, 2005 request of the Air Transport Association for a thirty-day extension of the comment period. Granting such an extension will facilitate more careful consideration and analysis of the proposed rule. It is important that the Department receive comments on the proposed rule that include the most accurate and complete information about the impact of the proposal on airline operations and the additional time would allow the development of this data. By: Deborah McElroy and Edward Faberman
January 18, 2005 By: Kathleen Bell
January 18, 2005 Re: Comments of Patricia Cowan By: Patricia Cowan
January 18, 2005 By: Eloise Mills
January 7, 2005 Re: Comments of The Travel Depot By: Dawn Flynn
January 18, 2005 Re: Conference Call with Representatives of Association of Asian Pacific Airlines On January 6, 2005, representatives of the Department of Transportation participated in a conference call with representatives of the Association of Asian Pacific Airlines. The call concerned the Department’s pending notice of proposed rulemaking that would extend coverage of the Department’s Air Carrier Access Act regulations to foreign carriers. Counsel: Robert Ashby
January 18, 2005 Re: Meeting With Representatives of the United Kingdom and the British Embassy The UK Department for Transport raised several areas of concern. In general, Ms. Frye expressed concern about potential extraterritorial effect of the ACAA regulations, the calculation of benefits in the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM, and potential conflicts between specific provisions of the NPRM and European codes of practice concerning transportation of passengers with disabilities. Counsel: Robert Ashby
January 16, 2005 Re: Comments of an Anonymous Submitter By: ???
January 18, 2005 Re: Comments of Boulder Parks and Recreation By: Cory Lasher-Miller
January 18, 2005 Re: Comments of Colorado Therapeutic Recreation Society | Word By: Julie Buderus
January 9, 2005 By: Rachel Bish
January 12, 2005 Re: Comments of David Densmore By: David Densmore
January 18, 2005 Re: Comments of The Interactive Travel Services Association By: Arthur Sackler
January 10, 2005 By: Pam Munici
January 10, 2005 Re: Comments of L. Kay Roberts By: L. Kay Roberts
January 12, 2005 Re: Comments of Katherine Schnieder By: Katherine Schnieder
January 12, 2005 By: Judy Sheppard
January 20, 2005 Re: Comments of South Suburban Parks and Recreation By: Carey Armburst
January 13, 2005 Re: Comments of Patrick Van Dyke By: Patrick Van Dyke
January 14, 2005 Re: Comments of Hermine Willey By: Hermine Willey
January 18, 2005 Re: The Association of Asia Pacific Airlines Request for Extension The AAPA agrees and supports the Air Transport Association's (ATA) earlier request dated January 6, 2005 to extend the comment deadline by thirty (30) days from the current deadline of February 2, 2005. With the extension, AAPA and other interested parties will be able 'to fully evaluate the proposed rule and develop constructive comments for the Department. By: Andrew Herdman
January 19, 2005 Re: Comments of Elizabeth Henderson By: Elizabeth Henderson
January 5, 2005 Re: Comments of Robert Schuler By: Robert Schuler
January 23, 2005 By: Nancy Wagner
January 17, 2005 Re: Comments of Celiene Morrison By: Celiene Morrison
January 24, 2005 The Department is extending through March 4, 2005, the period for interested persons to submit comments to its proposed rule to amend regulations implementing the Air Carrier Access Act. Counsel: Jeffrey Rosen
January 25, 2005 By: Philippe de Gouttes
January 11, 2005 Re: Comments of Janet Carpenter By: Janet Carpenter
January 20, 2005 Re: Comments of Cheryl Cutsforth By: Cheryl Cutsforth
January 25, 2005 Re: Comments of McHugh, DeNune, and McCarthy Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the letter from attorney John F. McCarthy to Damon P. Whitehead, Esq. dated August 25, 2003 addressing the department’s Policy Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation. Mr. McCarthy submitted his comments on behalf of a client who suffers from bronchial asthma. His letter contained several suggestions with respect to the department’s Policy Guidance document. Upon Mr. McCarthy’s death in September of 2003, I have been representing the client with respect to her wishes involving her input into the rulemaking process regarding the regulations dealing with nondiscrimination of the basis of disability and in particular with respect to accommodation for service animals. By: Frederick Kalmbach
January 26, 2005 By: Harry Wolfe
January 27, 2005 By: Mary Donahue
January 26, 2005 By: Peter Donahue
January 27, 2005 Re: Comments of Paula Dunn and Katie Heffelfinger By: Paula Dunn and Katie Heffelfinger
January 27, 2005 Re: Comments of Dario Fernandez By: Dario Fernandez
January 27, 2005 Re: Comments of Theresa Ganley By: Theresa Ganley
January 21, 2005 By: Loretta Henry
January 24, 2005 By: Judith Sacks
January 30, 2005 Re: Comments of Robin Bergen | Word By: Robin Bergen
January 29, 2005 Re: Comments of The Guide Horse Foundation By: Donald Burleson
January 31, 2005 By: Jeri Licht
January 31, 2005 Re: Comments of MN Airlines d/b/a Sun Country Airlines By: Karen Erazo
January 31, 2005 By: Robert Torn
January 22, 2005 By: Zona Burn
January 19, 2005 Re: Comments of Condor Flugdienst By: Claus-Dieter Wehr
January 21, 2005 Re: Comments of Hawaii Disability and Communication Access By: Lucy Miller
January 24, 2005 Re: Comments of Elizabeth Henderson By: Elizabeth Henderson
January 22, 2005 Re: Comments of Elizabeth Levy By: Elizabeth Levy
January 7, 2005 Re: Comments of Jane MacFarlane By: Jane MacFarlane
January 30, 2005 Re: Comments of Service Dog Equipment By: Robert Jelf
January 17, 2005 Re: Comments of St. Edward's University By: Deborah Herczog
February 1, 2005 By: Maggie Wallis
January 20, 2005 Re: Comments of Sharon Wachsler By: Sharon Wachsler
February 2, 2005 By: Mike Ball
February 2, 2005 By: Tom Doran
February 2, 2005 Re: Comments of Carol-Ann DeMaio Goheen By: Carol-Ann DeMaio Goheen
February 2, 2005 By: Katie Knight
February 2, 2005 Re: Comments of John Hoffschwelle By: John Hoffschwelle
February 2, 2005 By: Linda Holing
February 2, 2005 Re: Comments of Angela Palazuelos By: Angela Palazuelos
February 2, 2005 Re: Comments of Jennifer Pesek | Word By: Jennifer Pesek
February 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Association of Disability Advocates | Word By: Frederick Shotz
February 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Boeing Commercial Airplanes | Word By: Jill DeMarco
February 3, 2005 Re: Comments of HelperDog-USA | Word By: Kimberly Dwyer
February 3, 2005 Re: Comments of Kimberly Dwyer By: Kimberly Dwyer
January 27, 2005 By: Miriam McGee
January 27, 2005 By: Winfred McGee
February 4, 2005 By: Marty Will
February 4, 2005 Re: Comments of John Aaker | Word By: John Aaker
February 5, 2005 Re: Comments of Rhonda Brantley By: Rhonda Brantley
February 5, 2005 Re: Comments of Polly Callant | Word By: Polly Callant
February 5, 2005 By: Sharon Davis
February 5, 2005 Re: Comments of William Dennis By: William Dennis
February 5, 2005 Re: Comments of Richard Geary | Word By: Richard Geary
February 5, 2005 Re: Comments of Cynthia Hawley By: Cynthia Hawley
February 5, 2005 Re: Comments of George Holland | Word By: George Holland
February 4, 2005 By: Katie Kane
February 5, 2005 By: S. Katzman
February 7, 2005 Re: Comments of Annette Painter By: Annette Painter
February 4, 2005 By: Lori Snyder
February 6, 2005 Re: Comments of Stacy Stephens By: Stacy Stephens
February 5, 2005 By: Robin Tierney
February 8, 2005 Re: Comments of Paula Hernandez By: Paula Hernandez
December 6, 2004 By: Dana Miller
January 27, 2005 By: Dinah Pollard
January 24, 2005 Re: Comments of Judith Heishin Sacks By: Judith Heishin Sacks
January 28, 2005 By: Susan Smith
February 9, 2005 Re: Comments of Kathryn Terhune Cotton By: Kathryn Terhune Cotton
February 8, 2005 Re: Comments of Jennifer Manganello By: Jennifer Manganello
February 8, 2005 Re: Comments of Candice King-Palgut By: Candice King-Palgut
February 8, 2005 Re: Comments of Service Dogs for Victims of Assault By: Cheryl Reed
February 10, 2005 Re: Comments of SherriLee Brennan By: SherriLee Brennan
February 10, 2005 Re: Comments of Meredith Jaynes By: Meredith Jaynes
February 10, 2005 By: Nancy Marks
February 10, 2005 By: Darla Maybee
February 10, 2005 By: Betty Miller
February 10, 2005 Re: Comments of Diane Shotwell By: Diane Shotwell
February 10, 2005 By: Marie Smith
February 10, 2005 By: Bill Smiley
February 10, 2005 By: Sonya Smiley
February 10, 2005 By: Aimee Soloman
February 10, 2005 Re: Comments of Melinda Stahl | Word By: Melinda Stahl
February 10, 2005 Re: Comments of Jennifer Swearingman | Word By: Jennifer Swearingman
February 10, 2005 Re: Comments of Christina Wheldon By: Christina Wheldon
February 11, 2005 Re: Comments of Katrin Andberg | Word By: Katrin Andberg
February 10, 2005 By: Laura Brown
February 10, 2005 By: Brenda Grice
February 11, 2005 By: Todd Harrison
February 10, 2005 By: Sharon Hill
February 6, 2005 Re: Comments of International Association of Assistance Dog Partners By: Ed Eames
February 11, 2005 Re: Comments of Latounya Moore By: Latounya Moore
January 25, 2005 Re: Comments of Shirleymae Flake Pajkos By: Shirleymae Flake Pajkos
February 11, 2005 Re: Comments of Kathleene Palgut By: Kathleene Palgut
February 11, 2005 By: Martin Palgut
February 10, 2005 By: Keith Piskur
February 10, 2005 By: Lenard Smiley
February 11, 2005 Re: Comments of Patricia Sullivan By: Patricia Sullivan
February 10, 2005 By: Tim Vargas
February 11, 2005 By: ???
February 11, 2005 By: Tara Bostwick
February 12, 2005 By: Dan Caliendo
February 14, 2005 By: Mary Cook
February 13, 2005 Re: Comments of Karyn LaGrange By: Karyn LaGrange
February 13, 2005 By: Sue Matthews
February 11, 2005 By: Rebecca Maxey
February 12, 2005 By: Joe Maslak
February 12, 2005 By: Laura Otis
February 12, 2005 By: Pawsistants
February 11, 2005 By: Nancy Sanders
February 12, 2005 Re: Comments of Carolina Singer | Word By: Carolina Singer
February 14, 2005 Re: Comments of Lorraine Sutton By: Lorraine Sutton
February 13, 2005 Re: Comments of Kimberly Taylor By: Kimberly Taylor
February 13, 2005 By: Susan Tucker
February 13, 2005 By: Susan Whitman
January 26, 2005 Re: Comments of Aerospace Medical Association By: Russell Rayman
February 14, 2005 Re: Comments of Arizona Office for Americans with Disabilities By: Denise Thompson
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Britannia Airways Britannia recognises in certain situations that current US legislation is effective extraterritorially where the aim is to protect US citizens abroad. However as a UK charter carrier we do not sell seats in the US and therefore as a general rule do not carry US nationals. We are not entitled to sell seat accommodation for ex‑US travel, as that is a preserve of the designated scheduled carriers under the Bermuda bi‑lateral. To allow US authorities to impose cabin configuration requirements and reduce the level of service we currently offer our disabled passengers would be non‑sensical and is an unreasonable burden on Britannia when we do not even have a direct link to the US market. By: Britannia Airways
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Maryann Beauchene By: Maryann Beauchene
February 15, 2005 By: Bill Boerder
February 15, 2005 By: Connie Brown
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Elizabeth Byrne By: Elizabeth Byrne
February 15, 2005 By: Bree Connally
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Richard Dipeppe By: Richard Dipeppe
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Julianne Dunkle By: Julianne Dunkle
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Kimberly Goode By: Kimberly Goode
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Linda Griffiths By: Linda Griffiths
February 15, 2005 By: Lynn Houston
February 15, 2005 By: Judy Kelsey
February 15, 2005 By: Amanda Kirk
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Pamela Lee | Word By: Amanda Kirk
February 6, 2005 Re: Comments of Maggie Marshall By: Maggie Marshall
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Juliana McMullin By: Juliana McMullin
February 15, 2005 By: Brett Mindus
February 15, 2005 By: Carol Moore
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Eren Niedehoffer By: Eren Niedehoffer
February 15, 2005 By: Lindsay Reday
February 15, 2005 By: Joy Ritter
February 14, 2005 Re: Comments of Annemari Romero By: Annemari Romero
February 15, 2005 Re: Comments of Annette Shepard By: Annette Shepard
February 15, 2005 By: Amy Stevens
February 15, 2005 By: Sandra Upton
December 4, 2004 By: Janet Zeller
February 8, 2005 Re: Comments of All-Purpose Canines By: Beverly Swartz
Gary Anliker | Bonnie Bradford | Lisa Brown | Tisha Cochran | Barbara Deloge | Diane Dunlop | Donna Dykstra | Jennifer Fandray | Raquel Garcia | Elizabeth Harless | Jenny Johnson-Riley | Mary Mazzeri | Terry O'Rourke | Karen Peak | Adele Penhollow | Kari Hammer-Phillips | Lyn Richards | Mark Roden | Rosemary Roden | Kathryn and Dennis Smith | Lori Stewart | Rebecca Swan | Whitney Wetherill
Susan Boulton | Stacey Bry | Debra and Stephen Clinton | Jo Curdle | Dawn Denny | HolLynn D'Lil | Randolph Hack | Pauline Helfstein | Jeffrey Helsdon | Donna Jones | Katherine Kinsey | Ed Kleinman | Steve Lanzet | Patricia LeMay | Michelle Linscomb | Wendy McCoy | Kerstin Ottmar | Eileen Queen | Darrell Shandrow | Bonnie Simpson | Lisa Sims | Aimee Whyte Solomon | Carol Sowerby | Mary Upchurch | Kimm VanSchoelandt | Rita Wilson | Jennifer Wise
Kathleen Abdell | Amy Austin | Jan Baylor | Jill Blackton | Sheryl Brooks | Cynthia Brown | Pat Clinch | Linda Gore | Jacqueline McCarthy | Andrew Roberts | Lisa Rodier-Yun | Kay Smith | Timothy Taylor | Richard Tubbs | Georgianne Vesper-Muench | Abigail Vincent | Bonnie Watts | Janet Wilshire | Ronald Yates | Kari Young
February 14, 2005 Re: Comments of Monarch Airlines We are therefore concerned with the proposed rulemaking for two reasons; firstly that the apparent intent is to impose the proposals contained within the NPRM extraterritorially and secondly that a number of the practices considered suitable by our own regulating and advisory bodies will conflict with the requirements of the proposals put forward in the NPRM. There are further concerns stemming from the historical fact that US carriers have enjoyed significant state aid by way of support from central government to whilst European competitors have not. Any extra-territorial imposition of the proposed act financially supported by one but not both sets of governments will further skew the question of competition to the dissatisfaction of many carriers. By: Mike Smith, 44-1582-398320, mike.smith@monarch-airlines.com
Debbie Abbenante | Richard Abbott | Shelley Andrews | Hiroko Arikawa | Julie Barnhill | Kevin Bedell | Karen Berggren | Debbie Behrer | Marvin Bell | Jason Beloungy | Linda Booth | Liz Bottner | J. Bradley | Mary Brewer | Madeline Burgoon | Lilian Busse | Terry Calter | Kristina Calvin | Linda Carter | Thomas Casavant | Jerry Chaffen | Bertand Challier | Kathy Charles | Andrew Chepaitis | Jon Chopin | Wendy Chrisman | Lindsey Christman | Suzanne Clothier | Judith Coode | Julene Cooper | Montonya Corujo | Kimberly Cruz | Janet Curly | Becky Dan | Pam Davies | Barbara Davis | Mark DiMeglio | Lucille Doerr | Stanley Dounn | Alice Duncanson | Karrie Eder | Carolyn Edwards | Catriona Esquibel | Helen Ewing | Jenny Factor | Laura Finco | Robert Flannery III | Angee Foster | Chad Foster | Joshua Fox | Toni Frasier | Rachel Freidman | Sandi French | Wendy Gantos | Mark Goldman | Marcia Gordon | Michael Grassi | Stephanie Gunter | Lee Ann Hamilton | Barbara Handelman | Linda Harlow | Byron Henry | Jo-Ann Hernandez | Kim Hetrick | Margret Hickey | Charles Hinton | Nicole Hytinen | Tam Ilg | Catherine Inglis | Rebecca Johnston | Barbara Jones | Heather Jones | Lee Spark Jones | Alan Kalish | Kacey Kowars | Alexandria Kriofske-Mainella | Stephen Kuusisto | Bennie Lopez, Jr. | Susan Ludvigson | Karen Marcus | Michele Marshall | Barney Mayse | James McCorkie | Gail McGrew | Susan McKay | Kathleen Meader | David Milberg | Linda Milberg | August Miller | Kathryn Miller | Korliss Miller | Debra Moddelmog | Amy Monticello | V.M. Morris | Kay Mullen | Sue Nageotte | Jackie Nieman | Cheryl Nunez | Ken Oberle | William O'Daly | Carol Olson | Julie Philipson | Jessica Power | Marcia Potts | Heather Price | Thomas Pruiksma | Jocelyn Pryor | Rise Quay | Priscilla Ray | Melissa Reed | Kim Reid | Jennifer Rich | Ann Robinson | Anne Marie Rodgers | Robert Rodgers | Miya Rodolfo-Soison | Corina Ross | Mary Ross | Sarah Rothberger | Eliza Rottermen | David Rowe | Beverly Rumbles | Marilyn Russell | Ann Sabino | Veronica Sanchez | David Sano | Todd Scheetz | Allison Schwartz | Barbara Schwartz | Robin Schwartz | Jeanette Schmoyer | Alice Schnepel | Lee Seaholm | Gail Selfridge | Ilene Semiatin | Paula Shepard | Carrie Shipers | Peggy Shumaker | Karen Seifert | Terry Shewmake | Cheryl Simon | Robert Skotheim | Joshua Slade | Linda Smith | Luther Smith | Susan Sommers | Sommer Sterud | Valerie Stocking | Edwin Stone | Mary Stowell | Marcy Straus | Diana Sullivan | Caryn Summers | Shar Sylvester | Sally Taniguchi | Nora Terrell | Amy Thorne | Nathan Thornton | Raeanne True | Chase Twichell | Lewis Ulman | Linda Vayens | Kyle Walpole | Gracie Warren | Douglas Watson | Ellen Weaver | Susan Webb | Elizabeth Weiser | Edward Wheatley | Vicki Wherry | Gary Whittington | Janice Williams | Siobhan Wolf-Shaffer | Marianne Wright | Karen-Carla Burgess Yakemovic | David Young | Fred Young
February 24, 2005 Response from the Government of the United Kingdom - Department for Transport | Word The key objection that we wish to raise is that the proposals are an unwarranted exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is most acute in respect of the application of ACAA service requirements to foreign carrier operations taking place entirely outside the US but under the code of a US carrier. But it is also objectionable because the effect of the proposals is to require UK airlines, while operating to and from the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom, to comply with measures stipulated by the United States Government. This is contrary to accepted principles concerning the extent of a State's legislative competence. By: UK Department for Transport, Ann Frye, Mobility & Inclusion Unit, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London UK SW1P 4DR
February 25, 2005 Re: Comments of Expert Services Computer Consultancy By: Paul Marcelin-Sampson
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of Air Transat A.T. Air Transat fully supports the maintenance of high standards with respect to the treatment of disabled passengers, which Air Transat accomplishes through adherence to the laws and policies of Canada. While Air Transat acknowledges it must abide by the laws and regulations of the United States while operating to, from and within the territory of the United States, the United States has no authority to impose those same laws and regulations to its operations which occur purely outside the United States. As a general matter, many of the proposed rules set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making impose unreasonable economic burdens upon foreign air carriers, conflict with foreign law, and constitute impermissible extraterritorial overreaching in violation of United States law as well as the obligations of the United States under international treaties and agreements. Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Andrew Harakas, 212-490-9100, aharaka@condonlaw.com
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of The American Society of Travel Agents These are serious concerns because some travel agent websites include much data "imported" from other firms' websites, including cruise lines and other forms of wholesalers of travel product. The agent has no control over the methods by which that content was created and cannot change the content or even influence changes in it. No matter how well-intended the goal, the Department cannot simply extend its jurisdiction over air carriers to reach non-air transportation commercial activities of firms that happen to have a certain contractual relationship with the airlines for other purposes. Counsel: Paul Ruden 703-739-6854, pruden@astahq.com
March 2, 2005 Re: Comments of The National Air Carrier Association NACA concurs with the Departments recommendations for the inclusion of foreign carriers in its regulations, as required under ACAA. We do recommend that, where foreign airlines are from nations that already have aviation regulations that address nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, the U.S. regulation need only address a flight that originates or terminates at a U.S. airport. Other foreign flight segments need not be addressed. Where the foreign air carriers' national regulations do not have coverage of this issue, NACA fully supports the Department's recommendations to include beyond gateway flights. Taking this approach will provide some foreign carrier the flexibility to operate under their own country's regulations, while precluding discrimination and assuring that no one carrier has an advantage or disadvantage in aviation markets. By: NACA, Ronald Priddy
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of Paws With A Cause By: Michael Sapp, Sr.
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago By: Kenneth Walden
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of The Association of Asia Pacific Airlines By: Andrew Herdman
March 4, 2005 Comments of Atlantic Southeast Airlines ASA further questions the requirement of Section 382.65 from both a security and financial standpoint. There is only one flight attendant on a 50 seat aircraft and, for the safety and security of all passengers and the aircraft, the sole flight attendant must have free and unimpeded access throughout the aircraft at all times. A wheelchair in the aisle of a single aisle cabin impedes that safety and security environment, blocking anywhere from two or three rows, to the entire cabin depending upon the location of the lavatory and the positioning of the wheelchair. The needs of a passenger requiring a wheelchair on a flight with a short airborne profile should not supercede the safety and security expectations of other passengers. By: ASA, Donald Day, 404-766-1400
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of British Airways Counsel: British Airways, Paul Jasinski, 347-418-4250, paul.jasinski@britishairways.com
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of Cathay Pacific Airways Limited Counsel: DLA Piper Rudnick, John, Mietus, Jr., 202-861-6466
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Cendant Corporation By: Kimberly Turner
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Deutsche Lufthansa AG An important example of potential conflict is the EU's proposed rulemaking on PRM rights in air travel, which determines that the airports solely are responsible for the assistance to PRM when in the terminal. If this principle is enforced without an option for the airlines to provide the service on their own, then no alternative means exist for the airlines to fulfill the NPRM guidelines at airports in Europe. This example alone highlights the existing and ongoing problematic situation. This is direct evidence of why it is strongly preferred that the NPRM not apply to provisions and facilities of foreign carriers, when operating within a foreign territory. Carriers should not be required to comply while a waiver request is pending. Otherwise carriers are under pressure to violate their own national! EU law, or to establish unnecessary provisions which have to be abandoned soon after they are set in place. By: Anthony Santangelo
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of European Civil Aviation Conference By; L. Kiss
March 4, 2005 By: Erkki Ahtee
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of First Choice Airways By: First Choice, Eddie Redfern
March 4, 2005 Counsel: Mullenholz & Brimsek, John Brimsek, 202-296-8000, jrb@mbblawyers.com
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of The International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet By: ICDRI, Cynthia Waddell
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Martinair Holland N.V. | Word By: Martinair Holland N.V.
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of The New Zealand Ministry of Transport By: Nigel Mouat
March 4, 2005 Comments of Northwest Airlines Northwest Airlines, Inc. supports the Department's NPRM insofar as it seeks to rewrite Part 382 to provide greater clarity and guidance, sensibly take industry changes into account, and more clearly specify the U.S. Government's expectations for ACAA compliance by foreign air carriers. As explained above, however, Northwest is concerned that the Department has not yet placed sufficient emphasis on addressing the foreign relations and cost‑benefit issues associated with many of the new requirements proposed in the NPRM. Northwest urges the Department not to act with undue haste to finalize the NPRM, but rather to open a collaborative effort to work with the air carrier and disability communities to address the issues presented in this proceeding. Counsel: Northwest, Ronald Brower, 202-842-3193, ron.brower@nwa.com
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of The Regional Airline Association By: RAA, Deborah McElroy
March 3, 2005 Re: Comments of Swiss International Air Lines By: Erin Sweeney
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Virgin Atlantic By: Sian Foster
March 4, 2005 Re: Comments of Air Canada and Air Jazz Counsel: Garfinkle Wang, Anita Mosner, 703-294-5890
March 4, 2005 Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
March 4, 2005 Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
March 4, 2005 Comments of Air Transport Association of America By: Sophy Chen
March 4, 2005 Comments of All Nippon Airways Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Charles Simpson, 202-298-8660
March 4, 2005 Comments of The American Council of the Blind | Word By: Day Al-Mohamed, 202-467-5081, kmerritt@acb.org
March 4, 2005 Comments of The American Foundation for the Blind By: Alan Dinsmore, 202-408-8171, adinsmore@afb.com
March 2, 2005 Comments of Atlantic Southeast Airlines By: Donald Day
March 4, 2005 Comments of The Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services By: Mike Mrdak
March 4, 2005 Observations of The Delegation of the European Commission By: European Commission
March 4, 2005 Comments of Delta Air Lines on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Revising 14 CFR Part 382 Counsel: Delta and Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999, recohn@hhlaw.com
March 4, 2005 Comments of The Interactive Travel Services Association By: Arthur Sackler, 301-365-0270, execdir@interactivetravel.org
March 4, 2005 Comments of The International Air Transport Association Counsel: IATA, David O'Connor, 202-293-9292
March 4, 2005 Comments of Japan Airlines International Counsel: Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223, wkaras@steptoe.com
March 4, 2005 Counsel: jetBlue, Robert Land
March 4, 2005 Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
March 4, 2005 By: Mexicana
March 4, 2005 By: Kelby Brick
March 4, 2005 Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
March 4, 2005 Comments of Pakistan International Airlines Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Richard Mathias, rdmathias@zsrlaw.com
March 4, 2005 Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Meaghan Molinini, mmolinini@condonlaw.com
March 4, 2005 Comments of Saudi Arabian Airlines Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
March 4, 2005 Comments of SN Brussels Airlines Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
March 4, 2005 Comments of Societe Air France By: Marie-Joseph Male
March 4, 2005 Counsel: US Airways, Elizabeth Lanier, 703-872-5230
March 4, 2005 Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
March 8, 2005 By: Gerard Gilmore
March 1, 2005 Comments of The Animal Welfare Project By: Linda Adkins
February 24, 2005 By: Sheila Styron
March 4, 2005 Comments of Paralyzed Veterans of America | Word Counsel: Robert Herman, 202-416-7699, bobhn@pva.org
March 9, 2005 Comments of American Airlines and American Eagle American echoes the AlA's concerns and comments regarding this proposal. Codeshare flights permit U.S. carriers to fly to destinations they otherwise would be unable to serve due to an insufficient number of passengers to operate their own aircraft profitably or lack of governmental authority to service that destination. Requiring foreign flights that are marketed as codeshare flights by U.S. carriers to comply with the Department's ACM regulations might lead foreign carriers to refuse to agree to, or withdraw from, codeshare arrangements with U.S. carriers due to perceived added expense or non‑compliance risk. U.S. carriers could be put at a competitive disadvantage as they might be forced to cease service in a market that foreign carriers are otherwise free to serve. Counsel: American, Alec Bramlett, alec.bramlett@aa.com
March 4, 2005 By: Phillip Reed, Jr.
March 10, 2005 Comments of The Arc of the United States and United Cerebral Palsy | Word By: The Arc of the United States and United Cerebral Palsy
March 4, 2005 Comments of The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities | Word By: Maureen McCloskey
March 10, 2005 Comments of The National Center for Accessible Transportation By: Katharine Hunter-Zaworski
March 18, 2005 Re: Additional Comments of The Air Transport Association of America As you know, the comment period in the above‑captioned rulemaking proceeding closed on March 4th• write to draw your attention to a very serious process deficiency and an apparent underlying policy premise that causes us great concern. For the reasons noted below, I believe this rulemaking warrants your personal review. Given these significant deficiencies, we recommend in our comments (copy enclosed) that the Department conduct a new, complete and accurate preliminary regulatory evaluation that complies with Executive Order 12866. Such an evaluation should include appropriate cost surveys of air carriers regarding all of the NPRM's concepts and proposals. Once this is accomplished, the NPRM can be revised accordingly and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking issued. Finally, it has come to our attention that the Department is considering reopening the comment period because it is not satisfied with the number of comments received on one particular question ‑ whether to establish standards for ticket/boarding pass kiosks. We think this would be an extraordinary and questionable procedure. Rather than take this unusual step, we urge the Department to revise the PRE as we have suggested, revise the NPRM as appropriate, and then open the entire rule to supplemental public comment. Counsel: ATA, David Berg
March 1, 2005 Re: Comments of The International Air Carrier Association We are refering to the comments sumitted by AlA (International Air Transport Association) to the above‑mentioned DOT Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In this respect, IACA would like to inform you that we fully endorse IATA's position in this matter. By: IACA, Koen Vermeir
May 16, 2005 On November 4, 2004, the Department of Transportation issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend 49 CFR Part 382, the Department's regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act. The NPRM would, among other things, apply the requirements of Part 382 to foreign air carriers. Pursuant to Department policy, this memorandum is being placed in that docket to report a communication regarding the proceeding made to Department employees. On May 10-12, 2005 talks were held in Washington, D.C. between the European Civil Aviation Conference and representatives of the Department, the U.S. Department of State, and other U.S. Federal agencies. These talks involved a wide variety of subjects touching on various aspects of aviation. During talks held on May 10, ECAC members were advised of the status of the disability NPRM. ECAC members asked that the issue of potential conflict of states' laws be taken into consideration and were advised that in the NPRM the Department specifically asked for comments on a proposal to make available an exemption, or provide other relief to the extent necessary, that would recognize any such conflicts. It was explained to ECAC members that all comments that had been filed in the public docket, including those of ECAC, would be given serious consideration, including those concerned with conflict of laws issues. By: Dayton Lehman
May 23, 2005 Re: Letter from Samuel Podbersky to Alma Chaney Your recent email to Senator Maria Cantwell has been referred to me for response. You have expressed concerns about a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which the Department recently issued and which asks for public comment on, among numerous other disability-related issues, the service animal guidance published by the Department on May 9, 2003. I can understand your interest in this issue and appreciate the opportunity to comment on it. By: DOT, Samuel Podbersky
June 10, 2005 Re: Ex-Parte Email to Michael Osborn Concerning Senator Craig's Letter By: Samuel Podbersky
July 6, 2005 Re: Meeting with ECAC and Other European Parties By: DOT, Robert Ashby
September 14, 2005 By: Andrew Bate
September 14, 2005 By: Robb Boscardin
September 13, 2005 By: John Burton
September 13, 2005 By: Hilde Hanson
September 20, 2005 By: Linda Moore
September 19, 2005 Comments of Linda Trepel-Cantor By: Linda Trepel-Cantor
September 19, 2005 Considering the enormous technical, operational and cost issues raised by the multiple actions required by the NPRM, along with issues involving the Federal Aviation Administration, it would be a significant burden to require the industry to submit comments by November 7, 2005. Therefore, the Air Carrier Association of America, Air Transport Association, National Air Carrier Association, and the Regional Airline Association ask that the comment period for the NPRM be moved to January 30, 2006. The Associations understand that comment periods are rarely extended by more than sixty days. An extension of sixty days in this rulemaking would place the comment date in the New Year holiday season. In addition, with multiple other proposed rulemakings and developments that have to be addressed, it is reasonable to extend the comment period until January 30, 2006. The Associations ask that the Department approve this request as soon as possible so that we can focus on the very important issues raised in the NPRM including steps that should be taken to improve access for all passengers. By: Air Carrier Association of America
September 19, 2005 The carrier associations expressed concern that the 60 day comment period for the NPRM does not provide sufficient time to fully evaluate the proposed rule and develop constructive comments for the Department’s consideration. The representatives of the carrier associations explained that additional time was needed as there are a number of issues/questions raised in the NPRM that would require the collection of information from various different departments within each carrier. Other reasons mentioned as to why an extension of the current closing date for comments was needed included the time needed to determine the proposed rule’s potential impact on operations performed jointly with code-shares and regional partners as well as the difficulties the airline industry as a whole is facing today. DOT representatives encouraged carrier associations to file a written request for an extension of the comment period detailing the reasons that they believe the Department should extend the comment period. The discussion then turned to a request for a clarification as to the Department’s intention with respect to language in the NPRM that covered U.S. and foreign air carriers provide in-flight medical oxygen consistent with applicable TSA, FAA, PHMSA, and foreign government safety regulations. There was also a question raised as to whether the testing that U.S. carriers conduct of ventilators, respirators, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines, or certain portable oxygen concentrators (POC) must be consistent only with FAA safety requirements but also with applicable foreign safety regulations. DOT made clear that the U.S. and foreign air carriers are subject to FAA rules (14 CFR 121.574 and 135.91) when providing medical oxygen on commercial flights in U.S. airspace. Similarly, as proposed, U.S. carriers testing ventilators, respirators, CPAP machines, or POCs must comply only with FAA rules when testing these devices. However, the NPRM does not directly address the issue of whether to follow U.S. or foreign law when carriers are providing medical oxygen on commercial flights outside of U.S. airspace. The NPRM also does not address the issue of what a U.S. carrier should do if a foreign safety regulation precludes a U.S. carrier from permitting passengers to carry the four types of respiratory devices. DOT representative encouraged the carrier associations to submit comments to the docket on these areas. By: DOT, Blane Workie
September 22, 2005 By: Adrienne Haugen
September 23, 2005
September 30, 2005
September 30, 2005 By: Peter Donahue
April 10, 2007 Comments of Japan Airlines International You will recall that on February 15, 2007 we wrote to you concerning some modest amendatory thoughts to the JAL March 4, 2005 comments in the referenced docket. In an effort to be super-accurate, JAL would like to delete the words "and examined" in the last sentence of the sixth paragraph of the February 15 letter because JAL of course does not precisely know JCAB's inner workings once JAL has notified the agency of certain of its disability rules. We enclose a revised letter making this change. Please substitute the enclosure for the February 15 letter. Counsel: Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223, wkaras@steptoe.com
January 29, 2008 Correction to Comments of American Airlines and American Eagle Airlines American Airlines, Inc. and American Eagle Airlines, Inc. file this correction to the comments they originally submitted in this docket on March 9, 2005. On page 8 of the comments, in the first line of the third paragraph, the word "not" should have appeared between the words "does" and "think." Given the context and the remainder of the paragraph, American and American Eagle believe it is apparent the word "not" was inadvertently omitted, but formally submit this correction to the comments nonetheless. Counsel: American, Alec Bramlett, 817-931-4358, alec.bramlett@aa.com
OST-2004-19482 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel April 28, 2008 Final Rule (Original) - Bookmarked - 12MB The Department of Transportation is amending its Air Carrier Access Act rules to apply to foreign carriers. The final rule also adds new provisions concerning passengers who use medical oxygen and passengers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The rule also reorganizes and updates the entire ACAA rule. The Department will respond to some matters raised in this rulemaking by issuing a subsequent supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. By: Mary Peters
OST-2004-19482 - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking February 25, 2008 Regulatory Evaluation - 95 Pages The purpose of this Regulatory Evaluation is to assess the rule's potential costs and benefits, as required by Executive Order 12866. Benefits to the disability community, which are the rule's chief purpose, are not readily quantified but are described in qualitative terms. Although the economic benefit to affected airlines of additional ticket revenue is offset by the tickets' cost to passengers, insofar as this revenue exceeds the cost to airlines, we can be assured that the rule provides net social benefits, since travel also provides consumer surplus to the passengers. By: DOT
OST-2004-19482 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel April 29, 2008 By: Robert Ashby |
||