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-2006-23999 - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Accomodations for Individuals who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deaf-Blind
OST-1999-5099 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Compensation for Damage to Wheelchairs and Other Assistive Devices
OST-1999-6159 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel
OST-2004-19482 - Nondiscrimination on Basis of Disability in Air Travel
OST-2005-20952 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel - Technical Assistance ManualPart 382 Rule - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel
|
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Accomodations for Individuals who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deaf-Blind
July 19, 2004 National Council on Disability Petition for Rulemaking - Bookmarked The Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking proposes regulatory language necessary to ensure access for deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind air travelers. Unless otherwise stated, all sections are in reference to the Air Carriers Access Act regulation, 14 CFR Part 382, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel. It is intended that upon approval and incorporation to the upcoming revision of Part 382, these amendments also will apply fully to foreign air carriers. Counsel: National Council on Disability, Jeff Rosen, 202-272-2004, JRosen@ncd.gov
May 5, 2005 Initial Regulatory Evaluation - Bookmarked The objective of this report is to provide sufficient information to enable OST to make a reasoned determination as to whether the benefits of the NPRM justify its costs and to consider its anticipated impact on small entities. In achieving this goal, this evaluation includes the following: (1) an industry profile; (2) an analysis of the costs and benefits of various potential accommodations, including some accommodations that OST has decided not to propose in the NPRM due to limited benefits or disproportionate costs; (3) an assessment of the economic impact of these accommodations on small entities; and (4) an analysis of possible alternatives to minimizing the impacts on small business. These issues are addressed in Sections 2 through 6, respectively, of this report. By: Jack Faucett Associates Filed at Federal Register February 22, 2006 Notice | As Published in the Federal Register February 23, 2006 This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to amend a previously published proposed rule that implements the Air Carrier Access Act, to provide for additional accommodations for air travelers who are deaf, hard of hearing or deaf-blind. This proposed rule applies to U.S. air carriers, to foreign air carriers for their flights into and out of the United States, to airport facilities located in the U.S. that are owned, controlled or leased by carriers, and to aircraft that serve a U.S. airport. It proposes to require U.S. and certain foreign air carriers to [1] to provide prompt access for individuals who identify themselves as requiring hearing or visual assistance to the same information provided to other passengers in the terminal and on the aircraft; [2] caption safety and informational videos, DVDs and other audio-visual displays shown on new and existing aircraft; [3] caption entertainment videos, DVDs and other audio-visual displays on new aircraft; [4] ensure 'that individuals calling a carrier's TTY line for information or reservations receive equal response time and level of service (including queuing or other automated response service) as that provided to individuals calling a non-TTY information or reservation line; [5] enable captioning on televisions and audio-visual equipment located in those portions of U.S. airports that are owned, leased or controlled by carriers and open to public access to the extent that such equipment has captioning capability on the effective date of this rule; [6] replace non-caption capable televisions and audio-visual displays with captioning capable technology in the normal course of operations or when relevant airport facilities undergo substantial renovation or expansion; and [7] train carrier personnel to proficiency on recognizing requests for communication accommodations and communicating with individuals who have visual or hearing impairments. By: Norman Mineta March 16, 2006 Request of European Civil Aviation Conference for Extension of Comment Period Any possibility that the time allowed for response, that is, by 24 April 2006, could be extended by at least a few weeks, would be appreciated. The reason is that these are complex issues on which we will need to gather expert opinion from many sources to ensure that our response fully understands your proposals and fully reflects all its implications. By: R. Benjamin March 29, 2006 Considering the multiple and complicated technical and operational issues raised by the NPRM (for domestic and international operations) and the accompanying Initial Regulatory Assessment, it is a significant burden to require the industry to submit detailed comments on all of these matters by April 24, 2006. We are particularly concerned about proposed requirements regarding prompt access to information at all airports and captioning for in-flight entertainment content. Moreover, we believe that it is critical that these issues be thoroughly examined. Therefore, the Air Carrier Association of America, Air Transport Association, National Air Carrier Association, and the Regional Airline Association join the European Civil Aviation Conference and ask that the comment period for the NPRM be extended to June 24, 2006. By: Air Transport Association, David A. Berg Vice President and General Counsel / Air Carrier Association of America, Edward P. Faberman, Executive Director / Regional Airline Association, Deborah C. McElroy, President / National Air Carrier Association, Ron Priddy, President April 4, 2006 Support of International Air Transport Association Approximately one third of IATA's 265 member airlines operate to and from the United States and are therefore directly affected by this NPRM. Gathering and collating feedback from such a large number and geographically diverse range of entities is a significant task. However, collecting such extensive input is imperative for ensuring that our comments best address the needs of airlines and consumers alike. For this reason, IATA wholeheartedly supports the applications made by the European Civil Aviation Conference, the Air Carrier Association of America, the Air Transport Association, National Air Carrier Association and the Regional Airline Association, to extend the deadline for submitting comments to 24 June 2006. By: IATA, Douglas Lavin April 6, 2006 Response of the European Civil Aviation Conference The ECAC:
By: ECAC, L. Kiss On File at Federal Register April 17, 2006 The Department is extending through June 24, 2006, the period for interested persons to submit comments to its proposed rule on accommodation for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind. By: DOT, Neil Eisner April 24, 2006 Re: Comments of The American Council of the Blind In the paragraphs that follow, we will highlight some of the proposals which we believe have the greatest impact on travelers who are blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind and provide our comments thereon. By: Day Al-Mohamed, Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs June 20, 2006 Martinair objects to the view as expressed by the DOT that the U.S. authority over foreign airplane design and operation extends to non-airspace related aspects. Martinair therefore proposes that the DOT amends this Rule to restrict the scope of these Subparts to U.S. air operators only. Martinair wishes to emphasize that, as a European Union carrier, it offers services for disabled passengers as required by national and European Union regulations, which are similar, but not identical, to those proposed in this NPRM. By: Martinair, Arjen Balk
June 23, 2006 Comments of The Charter Airline Group UK By: First Choice Airways, Eddie Redfern, eddie.redfern@firstchoice.co.uk
June 23, 2006 Qantas is committed to the carriage of passengers with a disability in a safe and nondiscriminatory manner. Qantas considers that Australia's well-established and comprehensive anti-discrimination laws should be recognised by the US DOT as equivalent in their provision of similar levels of protection for people with disabilities (including people who are deaf, hard of hearing or deaf-blind). Qantas encourages the US DOT to reconsider its approach to its revision of Part 382. A broad set of principles aimed at providing reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities when undertaking air travel should be developed after consultation with international disability groups and US and foreign carriers alike. Qantas is confident that the international community could coordinate a unified and cost effective set of principles that reasonably accommodates the needs of people with disabilities on aircraft and in airports without imposing unnecessary financial burdens on carriers. To achieve this goal, however, a harmonised approach is required through international cooperation and mutual consideration. Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Rod Margo, 310-557-2030
June 23, 2006 Air France appreciates the opportunity to makes its comments known to the Department, and believes that at this stage, the proposed rule does not meet the necessary elements to guarantee a fair, final rule that would ensure that deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf/blind passengers have access to air transportation in a non-discriminatory manner and enable air carriers to provide these services in an equitable matter. Air France has been committed to the developing a high level of service to assist and accommodate all passengers with disabilities and wishes to continue developing these policies and practices in a clear regulatory environment, free of conflicts with either international or national law. Counsel: Air France, Joan Gabel
June 26, 2006 Air Pacific believes that the Department's regulations in this area are unduly burdensome by requiring carriers to sustain great costs to benefit a relatively small group of people. These costs ultimately will be passed on to all passengers through higher fares, which will affect the airline industry as a whole. Air Pacific believes that individuals with hearing and/or vision impairments can be treated in a proper and respectable manner without the additional regulations which the Department now proposes. Counsel: Eckert Seamans, Evelyn Sahr, 202-659-6625
June 26, 2006 Comments of The Air Transport Association of America - Bookmarked For the reasons discussed in these comments, ATA recommends that the Department withdraw the NPRM. The NPRM imposes an undue burden on airlines, exceeds the Department’s authority under the ACAA and violates the APA. The Department should determine whether to revise the NPRM without the offending burdens. Additionally, if a final rule is submitted to OMB for statutory review, it should be a consolidated rule that incorporates the three pending rules to revise Part 382. Counsel: ATA, David Berg, 202-626-4000
June 23, 2006 Comments of The American Association of the Deaf-Blind By: AADB, Marilyn Fernandez-Trader
June 23, 2006 Comments of The American Society for Deaf Children ASDC objects to the Department’s statement that it is not proposing to require carriers to train their employees to use sign language. The Department proposes to require that carriers train their employees about the common methods that are readily available to communicate with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. While not the only method of communication used by deaf and hard of hearing persons, sign language is a common one. For example, Washington, DC has a large deaf population because Gallaudet University is located there. Personnel based in DC airports may have an easier time communicating with many deaf and hard of hearing passengers there if they have some knowledge of sign language. The Department should not exclude a mode of communication from this requirement before common methods is even defined. By: ASDC, Barbara Raimondo
June 23, 2006 Comments of The Association of Asia Pacific Airlines AAPA submits that DOT should carefully reconsider the merits and approach of this rulemaking, failing which we do not believe it should be progressed in its current form. In particular, AAPA wishes to reiterate that there is a need for a more harmonised international approach, to avoid conflicting regulations and potential confusion amongst passengers. The approach of this NPRM presents significant obstacles for international carriers which are required to comply with a multiplicity of inconsistent and conflicting national and international regulations. By: AAPA
June 26, 2006 British Airways strongly supports the NPRM's objective but believes that, as drafted, it (i) exceeds the Department's authority with respect to foreign carriers; (ii) is unduly burdensome and costly to foreign carriers operating in multiple jurisdictions; and (iii) fails to consider, and in many instances, conflicts with laws and requirements to which foreign carriers are subject. British Airways objects to the proposed rule inasmuch as it would create an overlapping regulatory scheme resulting in inconsistency, unpredictability and confusion for passengers with disabilities while imposing significant and unnecessary costs on foreign carriers. In this regard British Airways refers the Department to its comments made on 4 March 2005 in response to the 4 November 2004 NPRM and incorporates those comments by reference. Counsel: BA, Paul Jasinski, paul.jasinski@ba.com
June 26, 2006 Comments of Cathay Pacific Airways Cathay Pacific recognizes the Department's goal, expressed in several ongoing rulemakings, of attempting to ensure accessible travel for the greatest number of passengers with disabilities. But in this truly global industry, that goal necessarily must be considered in the context of other countries' laws and the harmonized system of aviation regulation contemplated by the Chicago Convention and the International Civil Aviation Organization. That goal must also be tempered by the legal obligation to avoid placing undue burdens on regulated parties. Even accommodations that may be reasonable in the context of domestic US flights, sales, reservations, ticketing and terminal services may pose an undue burden if required outside the United States. Counsel: DLA Piper Rudnick, John Mietus, 202-861-6466, john.mietus@dlapiper.com
June 26, 2006 Comments of Delta Air Lines | Word Delta has significant concerns with a number of the revised regulations proposed in this NPRM. First and foremost is the cost to the industry associated with implementing many of the proposed regulations. Delta questions the accuracy of the cost benefit analysis offered by the DOT in support of this NPRM and requests that the DOT carefully consider the comments submitted by the Airline Transport Association addressing this issue, with which Delta concurs and hereby adopts as being offered on its behalf. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
June 26, 2006 Comments of The International Air Transport Association IATA once again urges the Department to reconsider its approach to the entire Part 382 revision process, and to avoid imposing unnecessary financial burdens on an already beleaguered industry. IATA encourages the Department to allow market forces and industry standards to motivate carriers to continue to provide a personalised service to passengers, rather seeking to impose overly-prescriptive standards that overburden the industry. And again IATA urges the Department to adopt broad general principles for the provision of services to passengers with disabilities on a nondiscriminatory basis that comport with the existing international standards, and are in accord with the EC regulation, and with those principles in place, embark on serious coordinated efforts to reach a harmonized approach via international cooperation. Counsel: IATA, Douglas Lavin, 202-293-9292
June 26, 2006 Comments of Japan Airlines International The D/B NPRM is premature. It would impose new requirements on U.S. and foreign airlines under Part 382 of the Department's rules; but the Department's proposal in the Basic NPRM to apply Part 382 to foreign airlines has not itself been finalized. JAL believes that the D/B NPRM, just like the Oxygen NPRM before it, puts the cart before the horse (now it is two carts before the same horse). Any proposal to impose additional detailed and prescriptive disability-related requirements on foreign airlines should come only after the Department decides whether, and how best, to require foreign airlines to comply with its existing disability-related rules, particularly after considering the extraterritorial and unilateral nature of such action, as well as the potential for conflict with foreign safety and other requirements. For this reason, the D/B NPRM, if not withdrawn, should be treated as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with another round of comments allowed after foreign airlines have had the opportunity to review the D/B and Oxygen NPRMs in light of any final rule that issues in the Basic NPRM proceeding. Counsel: Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-261-0651, wkaras@steptoe.com
June 26, 2006 Comments of National Air Carrier Association We still have several significant concerns about particular aspects of the NPRM. In general, we believe that the touted benefits stated in the IRE are overstated and do not justify the additional costs that would have to be incurred in implementing the NPRM in its entirety. We feel quite certain that adopting the NPRM in its entirety would have substantial financial impact on the operations of our members. There is a significant question of whether the NPRM is valid, in that it fails to meet the standard established by the Executive Order 12,866. Given the length and scope of this NPRM, NACA would hope that this is only the first step in developing a comprehensive and thoughtful final rule. We strongly believe there should be a supplementary rulemaking so the Department may refine its rules and make changes based on the comments from the airline industry, disability community, and the general public. By: NACA, Ronald Priddy
June 23, 2006 Comments of National Association of the Deaf and Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network The NAD and DHHCAN applaud the Department’s actions in commencing rulemaking on services to deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind individuals based on recommendations submitted by the National Council on Disability Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deaf-Blind Stakeholder Workgroup on air travel access. The NAD and DHHCAN were leading members of the Workgroup and we are gratified to see the Workgroup’s proposal being implemented. Deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind individuals have repeatedly asked for more than a decade that formal rulemaking regarding accommodation specifications be implemented. We look forward to an implementation of new rules at the earliest possible date. By: NAD and DHHCAN
June 26, 2006 Olympic Airlines believes that the Department's regulations in this area are extraterritorial and outside the Department's jurisdiction, and unduly burdensome by requiring carriers to sustain great costs to benefit a relatively small group of people. These costs ultimately will be passed on to all passengers through higher fares, which will affect the airline industry as a whole. Olympic Airlines believes that individuals with hearing and/or vision impairments can be treated in a proper and respectable manner without the additional regulations which the Department now proposes. Counsel: Eckert Seaman, Evelyn Sahr, 202-659-6625
June 26, 2006 Comments of The Regional Airline Association RAA opposes the proposal as written. We agree with the Air Transport Association of America that the Initial Regulatory Evaluation so greatly understates the costs and overstates the benefits of compliance with the NPRM that DOT should withdraw or significantly revise the proposal and republish it for public comments. If the proposal is nevertheless finalized, it should not apply to U.S. or foreign air carrier operations using aircraft with 30 or fewer seats. By: RAA, Deborah McElroy
June 22, 2006 Comments of Virgin Atlantic Airways We would refer the DOT first of all to our comments in response to the NPRM of 4 November 2004, as many of the issues raised then are also relevant to this issue. A copy of those comments is attached. By: Virgin, Sian Foster
June 23, 2006 WGBH National Center for Accessible Media Comments Deaf and hard of hearing airline passengers have long expressed their strong desire for access to in-flight entertainment and communications. This NPRM represents the final stages of a long wait, as does the next generation of in-flight entertainment systems. At long last, emerging digital IFE technology will readily support a variety of means for displaying text for a range of entertainment and communications products and services. While further development is required, we believe the airline and IFE industries are both motivated and interested in serving the needs of people who require By: WGBH
June 23, 2006 Comments of The World Airline Entertainment Association As the DOT surely knows, airlines are currently facing record‑ high fuel costs at a time when many carriers are still struggling to recover from the financial losses resulting from 9‑11 and the SARS‑scares. The DOT's Rules, as proposed, would impose undue and unacceptable financial burdens on the airline industry. While the WE industry is eager to address the needs of hearing‑impaired passengers, airlines must be allowed to do this by means that are technically and financially feasible and within time‑ frames that accommodate the product‑cycles that are unique to our industry. We believe that our proposed revisions to the requirements and deadlines presented in this NPRM will permit this. By: WAEA October 30, 2006 Midwest appreciates the Department's recognition of the costs associated with the captioning of entertainment videos and its attempt to lessen the impact on carriers by limiting the requirement to entertainment videos shown only on defined "new" aircraft. Midwest respectfully suggests, however, that if the Department decides to include in the Final Rule a requirement to provide captioning of such material that the requirement be linked exclusively to the replacement of the in-flight entertainment system itself, rather than also including a provision for the date on which the aircraft was ordered or delivered to the carrier. Midwest recently made a significant investment in hundreds of handheld "digEplayer" entertainment units that allow passengers to watch at their seats certain movies and television shows that are pre-programmed into the units. The digEplayer units are made available to passengers for a fee on certain longer Midwest flights. According to its vendor, the digEplayers recently acquired by Midwest are not capable of displaying the type of high-contrast captioning described in proposed § 382.69(b) and the carrier would have to replace its digEplayer units with an even newer model if it were required to provide units capable of displaying high-contrast captioning. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Robert Silverberg, 202-944-300, rsilverberg@sgbdc.com
OST-2004-19482 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel April 28, 2008 Final Rule (Original) - Bookmarked - 12MB As Published in Federal Register May 13, 2008 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 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel April 29, 2008 By: Robert Ashby |
||