Accommodations for Individuals Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deaf-Blind, 9285-9299 [06-1656]

Agencies

• Office of the Secretary
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9285-9299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1656]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

RIN 2105-AD41

[OST Docket No. 2006-23999]


Accommodations for Individuals Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or 
Deaf-Blind

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to amend a 
previously published proposed rule that implements the Air Carrier 
Access Act (ACAA), 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 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; caption safety and informational videos, 
DVDs and other audio-visual displays shown on new and existing 
aircraft; caption entertainment videos, DVDs and other audio-visual 
displays on new aircraft; 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; 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; 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 train carrier personnel to proficiency on 
recognizing requests for communication accommodations and communicating 
with individuals who have visual or hearing impairments.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this 
proposal. Comments must be received on or before April 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking must refer to 
the docket and notice numbers cited at the beginning of this notice and 
be submitted to the Docket Management Facility of the Office of the 
Secretary (OST), located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at 
the U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The DOT Docket Facility is open to the 
public from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Commenters may 
also submit comments electronically. Instructions appear on the Dockets 
Management System (DMS) pages of the Department's Web site (https://
dms.dot.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Omar Guerrero or Blane A. Workie, 
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 7th 
Street, SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (voice), 
(202) 366-0511 (TTY), 202-366-7152 (fax), omar.guerrero@dot.gov or 
blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail). Arrangements to receive this notice in 
an alternative format may be made by contacting the above named 
individuals.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This NPRM concerns the issue of accommodations for deaf, hard of 
hearing and deaf-blind individuals. The Department of Transportation 
(hereinafter ``Department'' or ``DOT'') first considered such an NPRM 
in 1996. At that time, DOT issued an NPRM on seating accommodations and 
stowage of collapsible wheelchairs in which it also requested comments 
on suggestions the Department had received regarding accommodations for 
deaf and hard of hearing persons. See 61 FR 56484 (Nov. 1, 1996). 
Specifically, the 1996 NPRM sought comments on the need for, technical 
feasibility of, and cost of the following accommodations: (1) The 
captioning of video material shown on aircraft (e.g., movies and other 
entertainment features); (2) the availability of telecommunications 
devices for the deaf where air phone service is provided to other 
passengers; (3) the provision of assistive listening technology for 
public address announcements in the aircraft; and (4) the provision of 
electronic messaging or assistive listening technology in gate areas. 
In the preamble of the final rule that resulted from the November 1996 
proposed rulemaking, however, the Department deferred a decision on 
whether to require additional accommodations for deaf and hard of 
hearing passengers. See 63 FR 10528 (March 4, 1998).
    In January 2000, DOT reopened consideration of this issue by 
convening a public meeting to discuss whether the Department should 
commence a rulemaking to require certain additional accommodations for 
deaf and hard of hearing passengers under the ACAA. See 62 FR 63279 
(Nov. 19, 1999); 64 FR 66590 (Nov. 29, 1999). Later that year, the 
Department determined to institute a rulemaking on additional 
accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing individuals through the use 
of a regulatory negotiation. However, resource issues delayed the 
formation and progress of a regulatory negotiation on this issue.
    Representatives from the deaf and hard of hearing community, during 
the May 2001 DOT forum regarding air travel for people with 
disabilities, asked that DOT follow-up on these early efforts to 
address deaf and hard of hearing accommodations with a rulemaking. In 
response to this request, DOT indicated that collaboration among air 
carriers, airports and the disability community would accelerate the 
initiation of rulemaking addressing these issues.

[[Page 9286]]

    DOT entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 
National Council on Disability (NCD) in August 2002 which served as a 
contract for a number of deliverables. Among a number of items in this 
MOU, NCD agreed to submit a proposal on improving accommodations for 
deaf and hard of hearing passengers. It was understood that this 
proposal would be construed as a petition for rulemaking. See 
Memorandum of Understanding Between United States DOT and NCD on 
Finding Cooperative Solutions to Accessibility Concerns Regarding Air 
Travel (August 19, 2002). Soon thereafter, NCD established the Deaf, 
Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind Workgroup. Numerous airline, airline 
association, airport, and disability community representatives 
participated in this group to develop a document to submit to DOT on 
ways to improve under part 382 accommodations in air travel for 
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or deaf-blind. The airline 
industry was represented by the Air Carrier Association of America 
(Association), Air Transport Association (ATA), International Air 
Transport Association (IATA), National Air Carrier Association (NACA), 
and the Regional Airline Association (RAA). The following individual 
airlines also participated in the workgroup: Alaska Airlines, American 
Airlines, America West Airlines, British Airways, Continental Airlines, 
Delta Air Lines, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, LA Beltway 
Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and 
U.S. Airways. The disability community was represented by the American 
Association for the Deaf-Blind, Deaf & Hard of Hearing Advocacy 
Network, Equip for Equality, National Association of the Deaf, National 
Council on Disability, and Self Help & Hard of Hearing People. Airports 
Council International represented the airport industry.
    The Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind Workgroup met 
independently from DOT beginning in late 2002. The workgroup met in 
Washington, DC, on November 14, 2002, February 13, 2003, September 23, 
2003, October 29, 2003, December 16, 2003, February 9, 2004, and April 
28, 2004. In between these meetings the workgroup continued to work via 
electronic mail and telephone. The workgroup occasionally sought DOT's 
assistance to facilitate the continued cooperation of the workgroup 
members, to clarify administrative details (e.g., regulatory formatting 
and contact information for possible workgroup members), and to clarify 
DOT's expectations of the workgroup. The Department encouraged the 
parties to work together to reach consensus on a proposed rule drafted 
by the workgroup members and to submit such proposal to DOT for 
consideration. Without discussing the substantive details of any 
proposal submitted by the workgroup, DOT further advised that 
submission of a consensus document would better educate DOT regarding 
the needs and concerns of the affected parties as DOT worked to fulfill 
its expressed intention to issue an NPRM to improve accommodations in 
air travel for deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind passengers. The 
Department did not provide guidance with regard to the substance of any 
provisions contained in any final proposal for rulemaking submitted by 
the workgroup as a whole or its members individually.
    On July 19, 2004, the Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind 
Workgroup submitted a petition for rulemaking to DOT titled, ``Proposed 
Regulatory Language for Part 382 Amendments Concerning Accommodations 
for Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind Passengers'' (hereinafter 
``Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking''). The Workgroup Petition for 
Rulemaking states that all of the members involved agree that 
``recommendations must tangibly ensure air travel improvements for 
passengers who are deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind in all airports 
and on all air carriers,'' and that in order that such recommendations 
``are effectively implemented by all air carriers and airports, they 
must have the full force and power of law.'' The petition recommends 
numerous changes to part 382. Each proposal is followed by an 
explanation as to whether each stakeholder (e.g., air carrier or 
disability community advocate) agrees with the recommendation. If one 
stakeholder disagrees with a recommendation, a summary of the reason 
for the disagreement follows. Any statement of disagreement is 
generally followed by an alternate proposed rule. The Workgroup 
Petition for Rulemaking sought to amend the following sections of 14 
CFR part 382: [1] Sec.  382.5, Definitions; [2] Sec.  382.23, Airport 
Facilities; [3] Sec.  382.35, Attendants, [4] Sec.  382.45, Passenger 
Information, [5] Sec.  382.47, Accommodations for Individuals Who are 
Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind; [6] Sec.  382.55, Miscellaneous 
Provisions; and [7] Sec.  382.61, Training. The proposal also makes 
recommendations regarding 49 CFR 27.71, which prohibits airports from 
discriminating against individuals based on disability. A discussion of 
each specific recommendation, whether a consensus was reached, and 
reasons for disagreement among stakeholders appears below.

Formatting of the NPRM

    This NPRM has been formatted in accord with the format of the NPRM 
issued on November 4, 2004, which proposes to extend part 382 to 
foreign air carriers and convert part 382 to a question and answer 
format. See 69 FR 64364 (Nov. 4, 2004). The Department expects to merge 
the final rule resulting from the instant NPRM with the final rule that 
results from the November 4, 2004, NPRM. For these reasons, the instant 
NPRM differs from the existing organization and numbering scheme of 
part 382 and adopts the structure of the November 4, 2004, NPRM. To 
assist readers in finding where related current provisions are located 
in the proposed regulatory text, a reference table is provided at the 
end of this preamble.

The NPRM

    The NPRM has ten main components on which we specifically solicit 
comment: (1) Changes in terminology; (2) new definitions being 
considered; (3) scope/coverage of the proposed rule; (4) carrier 
responsibility and associated costs related to requiring a passenger to 
travel with a safety assistant; (5) accessibility of carriers' 
telephone information and reservation services (i.e., service and 
response time for TTY information/reservation lines); (6) availability 
of accessible copies of part 382; (7) accessibility of airport 
facilities (e.g., captioning of televisions and other audio-visual 
devices in airports); (8) accommodations required at airports for 
individuals with a vision impairment or individuals who are deaf or 
hard of hearing; (9) accommodations required on aircraft for 
individuals with vision impairments or individuals who are deaf or hard 
of hearing; and (10) training for carrier personnel to better 
communicate with individuals who have visual or auditory impairments.

1. Change of Terminology

    This NPRM proposes to change the phrase, ``telecommunication device 
for the deaf'' and its acronym, ``TDD,'' to ``text telephone'' and 
``TTY,'' respectively. All of the members of the Deaf, Hard of Hearing 
and Deaf-Blind Workgroup agreed to these proposed changes, noting that 
the proposed terms are ``more widely used and recognized'' than those 
currently used in part 382. The Department seeks comment on the 
suitability of this proposed terminology change.

[[Page 9287]]

2. Section 382.3 What do the terms in this part mean?

    In the context of the Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind 
Workgroup, the disability community requested that DOT add a definition 
of ``hard of hearing, deaf, and deaf-blind'' to part 382. It recommend 
that DOT define ``hard of hearing, deaf, and deaf-blind'' to include 
``the entire spectrum of hearing disability, including congenital 
deafness and acquired deafness, and mild through profound hearing loss 
which may or may not occur with vision loss or other types of 
disabilities.'' According to these stakeholders, the recommended 
definition clarifies that individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing 
may also have vision loss or other disabilities (e.g. mobility or 
cognitive disability) and is ``consistent with the most widely accepted 
language among the disability community.'' The air carrier 
representatives did not comment on this issue.
    From DOT's perspective, the definition of an ``individual with a 
disability'' as provided for in the ACAA and part 382 is quite broad. 
It includes individuals whose blindness, deafness and/or hearing loss 
substantially limits one or more major life activities (e.g., hearing, 
seeing), and individuals who have a record of, or are regarded as 
having such impairment. It is unclear the benefit that would derive 
from including a specific definition in part 382 of individuals who are 
hard of hearing, deaf, and deaf-blind, particularly when no other type 
of disability is separately defined. As a result, this proposal does 
not adopt the recommendation of the disability-rights community to add 
a definition of ``deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind'' in part 382. 
The Department seeks comment on the potential benefits and drawbacks of 
including the proposed, or some other definition of ``deaf, hard of 
hearing and deaf-blind'' in part 382.
    The Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking also recommends defining the 
term ``captioning'' as follows:

All references to ``captioning'' throughout the entire regulation, 
regardless of type of captioning, will refer to captions that comply 
with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAGs) standards for text and high-contrast. When ADAAG standards 
are not available for specific applications, captions shall be high-
contrast on a consistent background, and of a size that is easy to 
read.

The NPRM does not propose to include this definition. The Access Board 
has advised us that ADAAG was not intended to apply to captions that 
are displayed on televisions or other video displays. ADAAG does have 
provisions regarding contrast but those are intended to cover signage--
not captions on televisions or other video displays. Moreover, as used 
in the instant NPRM, the term ``high-contrast captioning'' refers to 
``white lettering on a consistent black background.'' Where it has 
intended to require ``high-contrast'' captioning, the Department has 
used the term ``high-contrast'' and given this subsequent description 
thereof. For example, section 382.51 proposes to require carriers to 
provide ``high-contrast captioning'' on audio-visual displays in 
airports. Similarly, Sec.  382.69, which proposes to require carriers 
to caption all in-aircraft safety and informational videos, DVDs and 
other audio-visual displays states that such captioning must be ``high-
contrast * * * (e.g., white letters on consistent black background).'' 
Section 382.69 also requires carriers to provide ``high-contrast'' 
captioning on entertainment videos, DVDs and other audio-visual 
displays on new and refurbished aircraft. The Department seeks comment 
on the effect and necessity of including a definition of ``captioning'' 
in Sec.  382.3. In a related matter, the Department seeks comment on 
the content of any definition of ``captioning'' that may be included in 
Sec.  382.3 (e.g. Should the Department adopt the definition proposed 
by the disability community in the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking or 
include another definition) or elsewhere in part 382. Specifically, the 
Department seeks comment on the meaning or meanings of the term ``high-
contrast'' as it refers to captioning of televisions and audio-visual 
displays. For example, is there a standard definition of ``high-
contrast'' captioning? Is white lettering on a consistent black 
background the only type of ``high-contrast'' captioning used on 
televisions and/or other audio-visual displays, or is there another 
type of ``high-contrast captioning''? To the extent that there is more 
than one type of ``high-contrast'' captioning, is one better or more 
accessible to a larger number of individuals than the other(s)? If 
there is more than one type or definition of ``high-contrast'' 
captioning, which type or definition is most appropriately used within 
the text of part 382?
    The instant NPRM contains the term ``informational'' several times 
in reference to videos, DVDs and other audio-visual displays. This NPRM 
does not contain a definition of this new term, which does not appear 
in the current version of part 382 or the November 4, 2004, NPRM. The 
Department intends that the term ``informational'' to include all 
videos, DVDs and other audio-visual displays that do not qualify as 
safety or entertainment, including, but not limited to, videos, DVDs 
and other audio-visual displays addressing weather, shopping, frequent 
flyer programs, customs and immigration information, carrier routes and 
other general customer service presentations. The Department seeks 
comment on whether it should include a definition of ``informational 
videos, DVDs and other audio-visual displays'' in this section or 
elsewhere within this Part. The Department also seeks comment on the 
substance of any such definition.

3. Section 382.5 To whom do the provisions of this part apply?

    This NPRM proposes that this part be applicable notably to U.S. air 
carrier operations but also to certain foreign air carriers. On April 
5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
21st Century (AIR-21) amended the ACAA specifically to prohibit foreign 
carriers from discriminating against otherwise qualified individuals 
with disabilities. See 49 U.S.C. 41705(a). To implement the statutory 
application of the ACAA to foreign carriers, on November 4, 2004, DOT 
issued an extensive NPRM proposing to amend numerous portions of part 
382 and apply the rule to foreign carriers. See 69 FR 64364 (Nov. 4, 
2004). The November 4, 2004, NPRM explained that the ``intended scope 
of the statutory coverage of foreign air carriers, consistent with 
international law, focuses on traffic to and from the United States'' 
and proposed to cover flights operated by foreign carriers that begin 
or end at a U.S. airport. However, when a foreign air carrier is 
``code-sharing'' with a U.S. carrier, the November 4, 2004, NPRM 
proposes to require that the foreign air carrier comply with the 
service-related requirements of part 382 even in situations where it is 
using a particular aircraft in operations only between foreign 
airports. Like the November 4, 2004, NPRM, the instant NPRM, with 
respect to flights operated by foreign air carriers, proposes to cover 
only aircraft that are used for flights operated to and from the United 
States, so long as the flight is not part of a code-sharing arrangement 
with a U.S. carrier. Because it is the Department's intention that the 
instant NPRM apply to foreign carriers in nearly the same manner as 
proposed in the November 4, 2004, NPRM, the entirety of Sec.  382.5 as 
proposed in the November 4, 2004, NPRM is reproduced in the instant 
NPRM (with one minor

[[Page 9288]]

change discussed in the next paragraph). To the extent that individuals 
have already submitted comments regarding the extension of part 382 to 
foreign carriers in response to the November 4, 2004, NPRM, those 
comments will be considered with regard to the final rule issued as a 
result of the instant NPRM.
    As proposed in the instant NPRM, Sec.  382.5 would make one minor 
change to the proposed Sec.  382.5 contained in the November 4, 2004, 
NPRM. With regard to U.S. carriers, Sec.  382.5 as proposed in the 
instant NPRM would apply to all of their operations and aircraft 
regardless of where their operations take place, except as stated in 
Sec.  382.51. Section 382.51 proposes that the required captioning of 
televisions and other audio-video displays would apply only to U.S. 
airport terminal facilities owned, leased or controlled by U.S. or 
foreign air carriers. DOT believes that this exception is necessary 
because the alteration of equipment or physical space at foreign 
airports by U.S. air carriers may be difficult or impossible. Several 
U.S. air carriers have expressed concern that they would not be able to 
comply with certain requirements related to facilities at foreign 
airports because they do not have complete control over the equipment 
and space inside foreign airport facilities. The Department seeks 
comment on the cost and feasibility of requiring U.S. carriers to 
modify equipment and/or space at foreign airport terminals that they 
lease, own or control. For example, would it be likely that televisions 
located in U.S. owned, leased or controlled portions of foreign 
airports would have captioning capabilities, and if so what would be 
the cost and feasibility of enabling such capabilities?

4. Section 382.29 May a carrier require a passenger with a disability 
to travel with a safety assistant?

    This section proposes amendments regarding carrier responsibility 
related to requiring individuals with disabilities to travel with a 
safety assistant. The instant NPRM and the November 4, 2004, NPRM use 
the term ``safety assistant'' to replace the term ``attendant,'' which 
is used in the current version of part 382. This change has been made 
to more accurately reflect the duties of any individual who travels 
with a disabled passenger in order to assist that passenger with 
safety-related matters. Currently, part 382 permits a U.S. carrier to 
require an individual with both severe hearing and severe vision 
impairments to travel with a safety assistant if the person cannot 
establish some means of communication with carrier personnel, adequate 
to permit transmission of the safety briefing required under Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) rules. The November 4, 2004, NPRM did not 
propose to change the substance of this requirement, except to extend 
the rule to foreign air carriers. The proposed Sec.  382.29(b)(4) in 
the instant NPRM, on the other hand, places a new obligation on U.S. 
and foreign air carriers; they would share the responsibility with 
passengers with severe hearing and severe vision impairments to make 
reasonable efforts to establish communication with one another in order 
to ascertain the need for a safety assistant. It also makes clear that 
the individual with severe hearing and vision impairments has the 
responsibility of initially informing carrier personnel of his or her 
need for communication accommodations.
    Proposed Sec.  382.29(b)(4) is a result of comments received from 
the Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Deaf-Blind Workgroup. To support its 
recommendation that the responsibility to communicate be shared by 
carriers and deaf-blind passengers, the disability community in the 
Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking cited ``[a]necdotal reports * * * 
[that] indicate that qualified passengers who are deaf-blind have been 
treated with a lack of sensitivity by airline employees, and have been 
denied air travel due to communication difficulties caused by employee 
unfamiliarity with communication techniques.'' Air carrier 
representatives disagreed with the recommendation that the 
responsibility to communicate be shared by airlines and deaf-blind 
passengers. These carrier representatives appear to believe that the 
change proposed by the disability stakeholders would result in 
``airline personnel [having] to unilaterally identify passengers who 
need communication accommodations, but whose disabilities are not 
readily apparent'' and assert that ``[o]nly self-identification would 
be a reliable, objective way to establish when a passenger requires a 
communications accommodation.''
    Section 382.29(b)(4) as proposed in this NPRM addresses the 
concerns expressed by both the disability and carrier representatives. 
It requires self-identification by individuals with severe hearing and 
vision impairments to ensure that carrier personnel are aware of the 
need for communication accommodations and requires both air carrier 
personnel and individuals with severe hearing and severe vision loss to 
make reasonable efforts to establish adequate communication with one 
another. That is, once a passenger self-identifies as needing 
accommodation, the joint communication requirement begins.
    The Department seeks comment on the joint responsibility provision 
of proposed Sec.  382.29(b)(4). In particular, the Department seeks 
comment on how this joint responsibility provision would work in 
practice. The Department also seeks comment on what may qualify as 
reasonable attempts to communicate, whether this standard is specific 
enough to allow carrier personnel and/or individuals who are deaf-blind 
to understand their responsibilities under this proposed subsection, 
and whether there is another more appropriate standard for use in this 
section of the instant NPRM.
    In addition to the joint responsibility proposal, the instant NPRM 
proposes in Sec.  382.29(c) to clarify that U.S. and foreign carriers 
must make reasonable efforts to find a safety assistant at no 
additional cost to the disabled passenger where the carrier's 
assessment that such assistance is needed is contrary to a disabled 
passenger's self-assessment. It is the Department's belief that a 
number of carriers already train their employees to assist individuals 
in locating a safety assistant when the carrier determines that one is 
necessary despite the individual's assertion that he or she is capable 
of traveling independently. Some U.S. carriers even provide their 
employees with a preferred order of selecting attendants. For example, 
a carrier may train its personnel to select an attendant in a 
particular order, such as [1] nonrevenue passengers, [2] carrier's 
airport personnel, [3] ticketed customers who have checked in for the 
same flight, and [4] a person accompanying the disabled passenger to 
the airport. Additionally, the rule as proposed would allow carriers to 
select the most cost-effective manner to comply with this requirement. 
Therefore, a carrier may choose to use nonrevenue passengers and 
personnel, or it may determine that it is less costly simply to solicit 
volunteer passengers in exchange for a free one-way ticket. Either way, 
the carrier is free to choose the least costly and most workable option 
for accomplishing this objective. Given that part 382 currently 
requires carriers to cover the cost of transportation for a safety 
attendant who is required by a carrier over the objection of a 
passenger with a disability, DOT believes there would be little to no 
additional cost associated with this proposed duty.
    With respect to foreign air carriers, the November 4, 2004, NPRM 
proposed to adopt the requirements of the currently effective part 382, 
with regard

[[Page 9289]]

to the circumstances under which a carrier may require that a safety 
assistant travel with persons with severe hearing and severe vision 
disabilities. Also like the current part 382, the November 4, 2004, 
NPRM proposed to require U.S. and foreign carriers to absorb the cost 
of travel for any safety assistant required by the carrier, where that 
assessment is contrary to the self-assessment of an individual with 
severe hearing and severe vision impairments that he or she can travel 
independently. Because of this, the Department believes that the cost 
of complying with this section of the instant NPRM will be the same for 
U.S. and foreign carriers. That is, the only costs of this section 
attributable to the instant NPRM are those associated with [1] the 
proposed shift in communication responsibilities to one that is shared 
between carriers and passengers with disabilities; and [2] the new 
requirement that air carriers make reasonable efforts to locate a 
safety attendant where one is required over the self-assessment of the 
passenger that he or she may travel independently. The Department 
believes that these costs are minimal. The Department seeks comment on 
whether this proposed section has any costs other than the two stated 
above. The Department seeks comment on whether foreign carriers will 
incur greater costs than U.S. carriers in complying with this section 
of the instant NPRM, and if so, why. The Department seeks comment on 
whether it should allow additional time for foreign carriers to comply 
with this proposed section, and if so, why and how long.

5. Section 382.43 Must information and reservation services of carriers 
be accessible to individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-
blind?

    This NPRM proposes to require U.S. and foreign carriers to ensure 
that the service and response times are equal for TTY information/
reservation lines and non-TTY information/reservation lines, including 
the provision of a queue or auto attendant feature. Currently, Sec.  
382.47(a), requires those U.S. carriers that provide telephone 
reservation and information services to the public to make equivalent 
TTY service available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. 
Section 382.47(a) of the current rule further requires that TTY service 
be available during the same hours as the telephone service provided to 
other members of the public, that the response time for answering calls 
be equivalent, and that no greater charges be levied against TTY users 
than users of non-TTY lines. The November 4, 2004, NPRM, Sec. Sec.  
382.43(a)(1) through (3), proposed to extend these same requirements to 
foreign air carriers one year after the effective date of the rule. The 
instant NPRM maintains the requirements of the current rule and 
proposed sections of the November 4, 2004, NPRM, but proposes one 
change as described below. Thus, there is only one new requirement (and 
associated cost) attributable to the instant NPRM.
    Section 382.43(a) of the instant NPRM proposes only one change to 
its current equivalent, Sec.  382.47(a), which states: ``The TDD 
service * * * response time for answering calls shall be equivalent.'' 
Section Sec.  382.43(a) proposes to add the following to the end of 
this sentence: ``including the provision of a queue message if one is 
provided to the general public (i.e., non-TTY users or callers).'' The 
disability community supports the proposed addition to Sec.  382.43(a), 
stating that constituents report that often they are unable to direct 
dial into reservation and information services through a TTY line and 
that the response time to TTY users lags behind response time to non-
TTY phone messages. In the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking the 
disability community stated that a queue feature (also referred to 
herein as an ``auto attendant'') allows telephone systems to handle 
multiple callers at the same time by allowing callers to hold for 
connection to the desired department or service. A queuing or auto 
attendant system automatically answers calls and puts them in line 
(queue) for the next available customer service representative. The 
disability community asserts that a queue feature is common on non-TTY 
lines, but that often TTY lines are not queued and therefore such lines 
can only handle one call at a time. Without a queuing system, if a call 
comes in while the TTY line is in use, the second TTY caller will 
receive a busy signal and be unable to connect to the airline to make a 
reservation, obtain information or leave a message without calling 
back, perhaps, multiple times. The lack of queuing features on TTY 
lines may cause delays and inconvenience for deaf and hard of hearing 
individuals that are not encountered by nondisabled individuals.
    It is the Department's belief that, for the reasons stated in the 
first paragraph of this section, the only cost attributable to this 
NPRM provision for both U.S. and foreign carriers would be the cost of 
installing queuing or auto attendant features on their TTY lines. The 
Department further believes that it would not be costly for carriers to 
install queuing features on TTY lines. This belief is supported by 
information provided in the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking and the 
regulatory evaluation. The regulatory evaluation indicates that most 
carriers use queuing or auto attendant features on their non-TTY lines 
that can easily be applied to their TTY lines. Air carrier 
representatives in the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking stated that 
they need further guidance on their queuing capabilities. The 
Department seeks comment on the ability of U.S. and foreign air 
carriers that have queuing or auto attendant features to apply such 
features to their TTY lines. The Department also seeks comment on how 
many U.S. and foreign carriers have queuing or auto attendant features 
and whether they may use these existing systems to have queuing or auto 
attendant features on their TTY lines. To the extent that individuals 
have already submitted comments in the November 4, 2004, NPRM regarding 
whether there are countries the communications infrastructures of which 
would not readily permit the use of TTYs, those comments will also be 
considered with regard to the final rule issued as a result of the 
instant NPRM.

6. Section 382.45 Must carriers make copies of this part available to 
passengers?

    The proposed Sec.  382.45, among other things, continues the 
requirement in the existing rule for carriers to make a copy of 14 CFR 
part 382 available for review by any member of the public on request. 
The current provision only applies to U.S. carriers, but the November 
4, 2004, NPRM proposed to extend this requirement to foreign air 
carriers. In addition to requiring that carriers make part 382 
available at the airports they serve in the U.S. and at foreign 
airports for flights to the U.S., the proposed Sec.  382.45 in the 
instant NPRM also requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to provide 
passengers with information on [1] how to obtain an accessible copy of 
14 CFR part 382 from DOT's Disability Hotline or by calling, emailing 
or writing DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division and [2] how to 
obtain disability-related assistance from DOT's Disability Hotline or 
the Department's Aviation Consumer Protection Division.
    The disability community in the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking 
recommended a broader rule than that proposed by the instant NPRM. It 
recommended that Sec.  382.45(a) require carriers to make available a 
copy of part 382 at each airport in accessible formats. Air carriers 
opposed such a requirement stating:


[[Page 9290]]


``Carriers cannot support the proposed requirement [in proposed 
382.45(f)]. It would impose an unnecessary and costly burden on the 
airlines, with little or minimal value over existing procedures. 
Under current (d), a copy of Part 382 must be available for review 
upon request. Part 382 is available on the DOT website in accessible 
formats. Moreover, the DOT Disability Hotline is available to assist 
passengers with disabilities in understanding the requirements of 
Part 382 should they experience difficulties at an airport. We 
recall, as well, that we received some support from the deaf and 
hard of hearing and deaf-blind community on this.''

    After considering both arguments, the Department is proposing to 
continue the existing section 382.45 language in the instant document 
for three primary reasons. First, the proposal of the disability 
community in the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking is overly broad in 
requiring that part 382 be made available in accessible formats at 
airports. That proposal may require carriers to identify all 
conceivable accessible formats and to provide part 382 in each of these 
formats. Such broad language is likely to result in a disjunct between 
what the disability community believes to be the universe of accessible 
formats and the accessible formats provided by carriers. Second, the 
Department makes available part 382 in accessible formats. Third, it is 
reasonable to assume that many individuals requesting a copy of part 
382 also have questions about their rights under this part. Given this 
assumption, the Department believes that it would be more useful for 
such individuals to have carriers provide them with information on how 
to contact DOT to obtain an accessible copy of part 382 and receive 
assistance regarding disability-related air travel problems. Thus, DOT 
is proposing to require that, upon request, U.S. and foreign air 
carriers provide passengers with information on how to obtain an 
accessible copy of part 382 and disability-related assistance from DOT. 
The Department also seeks comment about the potential costs to U.S. and 
foreign carriers and benefits to passengers if it were to require that 
carriers have accessible copies of part 382 available at all airports 
for U.S. services.

7. Section 382.51 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the 
accessibility of airport facilities?

    Proposed Sec.  382.51 requires U.S. and foreign carriers, with 
respect to terminal facilities they own, lease, or control at a U.S. 
airport, to : (1) Enable and keep on at all times the captioning 
feature, if such a feature exists on the effective date of this 
proposed rule, on all televisions and other audio-visual displays 
providing safety, information or entertainment content in those 
portions of the airport that are open to general public access; (2) 
enable, upon request, the captioning function, if such a feature exists 
on the effective date of this proposed rule, on televisions and audio 
visual displays in restricted passenger access areas (e.g. clubrooms); 
(3) replace non-caption-capable televisions and audio-visual displays 
with televisions and audio-visual displays that have captioning 
capabilities as those devices are replaced in the normal course of 
operations and/or when applicable airport facilities undergo 
substantial renovation or expansion; and (4) equip with captioning 
capability newly acquired televisions and other audio-visual displays 
for passenger entertainment. This is a new requirement that is not 
contained in the current version of part 382 or the November 4, 2004, 
NPRM.
    The Department requests comments as to whether there are any 
instances where a carrier may lease a terminal facility at a U.S. 
airport but the airport retains control over the televisions and other 
audio-video displays in that facility. If such instances exist, the 
Department would consider requiring carriers and U.S. airports to work 
together to enable captioning on audio-visual equipment (including 
televisions) that have captioning capability and to replace non-caption 
capable audio-visual displays with captioning capable technology. The 
Department believes that airports and carriers have worked together for 
decades to find a basis for agreement on a wide variety of air 
transportation matters, so the concept of airports, which are subject 
to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and air carriers working 
together to determine how captioning will be provided would not be 
difficult.
    In drafting the proposed Sec.  382.51, the Department assumed that 
most televisions currently in use at U.S. airports will have captioning 
capabilities because all televisions with screens of 13'' or larger, 
made or sold in the U.S. since July 1, 1993, are required by federal 
law to have captioning capabilities. Because of this, DOT believes and 
the regulatory evaluation supports that requiring carriers to enable 
the captioning feature should not be costly or otherwise onerous. The 
Department's assumption is supported by the fact that in the Workgroup 
Petition for Rulemaking the air carriers proposed the following 
language which is nearly identical to that proposed in Sec.  
382.51(a)(5) in this NPRM:

All televisions and other audio-video displays presently provided 
for passenger entertainment by and under the control of air carriers 
in the terminal (e.g. passenger lounges and gate areas), to the 
extent such televisions and other audio-video displays are presently 
capable of having caption display, shall have the captioning enabled 
at all times when the television or video display is in operational 
[sic]. Such television or other audio video displays with captioning 
capabilities maintained in private areas (e.g., club facilities) 
will be turned on by the carrier upon request. These provisions will 
become mandatory one hundred eighty days after the effective date of 
the regulation.

Given the substantial similarity between the proposed Sec.  
382.51(a)(5) and the language suggested by air carriers in the 
Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking, it appears that carriers have 
considered any costs of the requirement and their ability to implement 
it and have found its implementation to be feasible. The Department 
seeks comment on these assumptions, as well as the feasibility of the 
requirements in the proposed Sec.  382.51(a)(5).
    In the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking, carriers also requested a 
180-day waiting period for this provision to become effective. The 
Department has not adopted this proposal. The requirements of Sec.  
382.51(a)(5) do not require new equipment or construction. Rather, 
compliance with this section is a matter of providing the training 
necessary to turn on the captioning feature of a television or other 
audio-visual display. Such training, which if done by an individual at 
home would require the perusal of the television manual, does not 
appear to require a lengthy amount of time or in-depth instruction. 
Given the straightforward nature of the implementation involved in 
complying with proposed Sec.  382.51(a)(5), DOT believes that the 
thirty day implementation period for the rule as a whole is adequate. 
DOT seeks comment on reasons that a longer time frame may be necessary.
    In the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking the disability community 
proposed that Sec.  382.51(a)(5) contain the following additional 
sentence: ``Captioning must be high contrast, such as white letters on 
a consistent black background.'' The air carrier Workgroup participants 
did not include such language in their proposal but did not oppose its 
inclusion. Section 382.51(a)(5) does not adopt the disability 
community's high-contrast captioning language in this particular 
subsection because section 382.51(a)(5) requires carriers to use any 
captioning feature already installed on their televisions and other 
audio-visual

[[Page 9291]]

displays. It may be possible that certain televisions and audio-visual 
devices do not have a high-contrast captioning feature but have another 
type of captioning feature. Under the proposed Sec.  382.51(a)(5) 
carriers would be required to enable the captioning feature even if it 
were not high-contrast. Under the language of proposed Sec.  
382.51(a)(5), if the features of the television or other audio-visual 
display allow for it, high-contrast captioning must be enabled. The 
Department seeks comment on whether televisions and other audio visual 
displays equipped with captioning features would necessarily have high-
contrast captioning, whether such televisions and audio-visual displays 
may have some type of captioning other than ``high-contrast'' (e.g., 
low or medium contrast), and whether the availability of high-contrast 
captioning as opposed to another type of captioning depends on the age, 
cost or screen size of the television or other audio-visual display. 
The Department seeks comment on whether its assumptions in adding the 
final sentence of proposed Sec.  382.51(a)(5) are correct and/or 
appropriate.
    Section 382.51(a)(6) in this NPRM addresses televisions and audio-
visual displays that do not have captioning features on the effective 
date of this proposed rule. It proposes to require carriers to supply 
televisions and other audio-visual displays equipped with high-contrast 
captioning when [1] carriers replace televisions and other audio-visual 
devices in the normal course of operations; or [2] the area of the 
airport terminal in which the non-caption-capable devices are located 
undergoes substantial renovation or expansion. Under the first 
situation, if a carrier, in the normal course of operation, replaces an 
individual television or audio-visual device that does not have high-
contrast captioning capabilities (e.g., because a television or other 
audio-visual device becomes inoperable, the carrier decides to replace 
several old, low quality, television sets or other audio visual 
devices) then it must replace it with a television or audio-visual 
device capable of displaying high-contrast captions.
    Under the second situation, proposed Sec.  382.51(a)(6) is 
triggered when a carrier undertakes substantial renovation or expansion 
of a portion of the airport which it owns, leases or controls. Carriers 
would be required to replace any television or other audio-visual 
device present in an area undergoing substantial renovation or 
expansion that is not capable of high-contrast captioning, even if the 
renovation or expansion did not require or contemplate the replacement 
of audio-visual equipment. For example, if a carrier plans to replace 
the carpeting, seats, and podiums/counters in one of the terminals over 
which it has control (i.e., substantial renovation), it must replace 
any televisions and audio-visual devices that are not high-contrast-
caption-capable with high-contrast-caption-capable devices even if such 
replacement were not part of the original renovation plan.
    Air carriers in the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking proposed a 
narrower replacement rule as follows:

To the extent that televisions and other audio-video displays for 
passenger entertainment are included in expansion or renovation 
plans on or after the effective date of this regulation for airport 
areas controlled by air carriers, these televisions and other audio-
video displays for passenger entertainment shall be equipped with 
captioning capability.

The Department has rejected this language and proposes the slightly 
broader language of Sec.  382.51(a)(6) because of the minor cost of 
replacing televisions and audio-visual displays as compared to the 
significant costs associated with substantial renovations and 
expansions. The Department also believes that Sec.  382.51(a)(6) as 
proposed will not require the replacement of many televisions or other 
audio-visual displays given that most televisions and audio-visual 
displays in use at airports incorporate such capabilities by federal 
law. The Department seeks comment on the reasonability of requiring 
carriers to replace non-caption-capable audio-visual equipment located 
in areas of substantial renovation or expansion particularly if 
replacing these items was not part of the original renovation plan and 
whether there are renovation costs (e.g. rewiring) that we have not 
considered. The Department further seeks comment on whether the terms 
``substantial renovation'' and expansion provide enough guidance for 
industry compliance. Also, the Department requests comment as to 
whether there are any instances where the audio-visual equipment may be 
part of an airport-wide system that extends beyond areas of substantial 
renovation or expansion.
    In the Workgroup Petition for Rulemaking the disability community 
proposed that carriers be required to ensure that all televisions and 
audio-visual displays provided for passenger information and 
entertainment by and under the control of carriers have captioning 
capabilities within 180 days of the date that the final rule is issued. 
The Department has not adopted this proposal because of cost 
considerations. The Department seeks comment on whether it should 
require carriers to ensure that all airport televisions and audio-
visual equipment under their control contain high-contrast captioning 
capability within 180 days of the date that the final rule is issued.

8. Section 382.53 What accommodations are required at airports for 
individuals with a vision and/or hearing impairment?

    This NPRM proposes to require carriers to provide the same 
information to deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind individuals in 
airport terminals that it provides to other members of the public. This 
information must be provided in a prompt manner when such individuals 
identify themselves as needing visual and/or auditory assistance. 
Currently, Sec.  382.45(c) requires carriers to provide timely access 
to ``information the carrier provides to other passengers in the 
terminal or on the aircraft * * * including, but not limited to, 
information concerning ticketing, flight delays, schedule changes, 
connections, flight check-in, gate assignments, and the checking and 
claiming of luggage'' and ``aircraft changes that will affect the 
travel of individuals with a disability.'' The November 4, 2004, NPRM, 
proposed to change the rule by requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers 
to provide the information ``promptly'' upon request and to ensure that 
information provided to the general public is provided to individuals 
who are deaf, hard of hearing or deaf-blind who request the information 
at ``each gate, baggage claim area, ticketing area, or other terminal 
facility that [the carrier] own[s], lease[s], or control[s] at any U.S. 
airport.''
    There are three elements to the proposed provision in the instant 
NPRM. First, it includes the proposed requirement from the November 4, 
2004, NPRM, that carriers provide information ``promptly'' to 
requesting individuals. Second, the instant NPRM also expands the 
current list of specific examples of information carriers must provide 
upon request. Third, the instant NPRM changes the language in the 
current Part 382 and applies to information ``at each gate, baggage 
claim area, ticketing area, or other terminal facility'' owned, leased, 
or controlled by U.S. and foreign carriers.
    Section 382.53 in the instant NPRM proposes to require carriers to 
provide the same information provided to the general public to 
requesting individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or deaf-blind 
promptly. The current rule, Sec.  382.45(c), requires carriers to 
provide

[[Page 9292]]

the information in a ``timely'' manner. The November 4, 2004, NPRM 
required that carriers provide the information ``promptly.'' The 
instant NPRM also requires that the information be provided 
``promptly.'' In requiring the prompt provision of information to 
requesting deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind passengers the 
Department believes that it is requiring that carriers transmit 
information at a faster pace than currently required by the ``timely'' 
standard in Sec.  382.45(c). DOT considered requiring the transmission 
of equal information ``simultaneously,'' but rejected this standard as 
being unworkable in practice. Thus, by requiring U.S. and foreign air 
carriers to provide ``prompt'' access to information equal to that 
provided to the public, the Department is proposing a standard between 
``timely'' and ``simultaneously.'' The Department seeks comment on this 
change, including whether the standard and the discussion above is 
adequate to allow carriers to identify their duties under the rule.
    With respect to carrier compliance in providing prompt access to 
the same information provided to the general public to passengers who 
are deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind, Sec.  382.53 proposes a 
performance standard (e.g. ``prompt'') rather than requiring that 
carriers use a specific medium (e.g., LCD displays screens, wireless 
pagers, etc.). DOT believes that using a performance standard allows 
carriers to design a compliance plan that best suits their needs as an 
organization and to consider such factors as customer base, location of 
operation, and passenger flow. The Department is aware of four 
potential mechanisms that could be used alone or in conjunction with 
each other to communicate with individuals who are deaf or hard of 
hearing: Whiteboards (i.e., a white smooth, erasable board on which 
carrier personnel could easily write all notifications provided orally 
to the public and also easily remove such information to make room for 
more current information), LCD displays, restaurant type or wireless 
pagers, and handwritten notes. Carriers may choose any one of these 
methods or alternative methods that meet the promptness standard.
    However, the Department is concerned that there may not be readily 
available methods of communicating with individuals who are deaf-blind 
although it recognizes that there are different levels of both deafness 
and blindness and that the combination of severities in deaf-blind 
persons varies according to the individual. The methods the Department 
is aware of take time or require special training as they consist of: 
(1) Using a finger to write in block letters on the palm or forearm of 
the individual who is deaf-blind (block printing); (2) using an index 
card with the letters of the alphabet raised to enable the communicator 
to place the fingertip of the deaf-blind person's index finger on the 
desired letters to feel the shape of the raised letter; and (3) tactile 
signing or fingerspelling where the deaf-blind person feels the shape 
of the signs by placing his or her hands on top of the signer's hands. 
The Department is not proposing to require carriers to use any of the 
aforementioned methods to communicate with deaf-blind individuals. We 
specifically request comment regarding other less specialized methods 
of communicating with individuals who are deaf-blind. If less 
specialized methods are not available, we seek comment as to whether 
the Department should limit the requirement for carriers to provide 
prompt access to the same information provided to other passengers at 
airports and on aircraft to individuals with vision or hearing 
impairments rather than to individuals with vision and/or hearing 
impairments. The Department also seeks comment on whether it should 
maintain a performance standard or require compliance in a certain 
manner. Further, the Department requests information about the methods 
that carriers are currently using to comply with Sec.  382.45(c) as 
well as methods other than those mentioned above that may be used to 
comply with the proposed requirement to provide prompt information in 
the terminal and aircraft.
    In a related matter, DOT has decided not to adopt the proposal that 
deaf and hard of hearing individuals not be required to self-identify 
as needing auditory assistance. Such a proposal would turn the 
performance standard into a requirement for a specific type of 
accommodation to accommodate these individuals (e.g., LCD displays). A 
key component of proposed Sec.  382.53 is that deaf, hard of hearing 
and deaf-blind passengers identify themselves to carrier personnel as 
needing auditory and/or visual assistance. The disability community 
representatives of the Workgroup oppose such a requirement and state 
that passenger information ``should be made available automatically in 
audio and visual formats and without requirement or expectation that a 
carrier be informed of the need for communication accommodations.'' 
Carriers disagreed stating that a rule that did not require deaf, hard 
of hearing and deaf-blind passengers to self-identify would be 
unnecessarily costly. The Department agrees with the carrier 
representatives that a rule requiring transmission of information 
accessible to deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind individuals 
irrespective of whether or not there are individuals needing such 
information would be unnecessarily costly, and we also conclude that 
the burden of self-identification to passengers is minimal in 
comparison to the cost of the alternative. Consequently, we are 
maintaining the self-identification requirement in the proposed Sec.  
382.53.
    DOT believes that eliminating the self-identification requirement 
would be costly because it would limit the compliance options available 
to carriers. A rule requiring transmission of information in formats 
accessible to deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind individuals at all 
times regardless of whether any individual self-identifies as needing 
visual or auditory assistance or both would eliminate or increase the 
cost of the various methods currently available to carriers to comply 
with the requirement that they provide timely information to 
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind. For example, 
such a rule would eliminate the use of wireless or restaurant type 
pager systems because both systems require that carriers provide pagers 
to passengers who self-identify as needing assistance. Eliminating the 
self-identification requirement would remove a carrier's ability to 
assign pagers to those who request auditory or visual accommodation or 
require carriers to give pagers to every passenger, which would be 
costly and unworkable. A rule requiring transmission of information in 
formats accessible to deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind individuals 
irrespective of receipt of a request for such information, may also 
increase the personnel costs of carriers using whiteboards. Carrier 
personnel would have to immediately write all public announcements down 
on a whiteboard at every gate for every flight. This would likely 
require continued and regular diversion of personnel from gate desk or 
boarding duties to write public announcements on a whiteboard or the 
assignment of additional personnel to ensure proper transmission of 
accessible information via whiteboard and adequate operation of the 
gate desk and boarding process. The use of LCD screens, estimated to 
cost $1900 per screen (plus $800 for computer chips and a keyboard to 
control up to four

[[Page 9293]]

screens), would be costly and, similar to the whiteboard solution, 
would require increased personnel time to input each public 
announcement onto the LCD displays.
    Furthermore, the benefit to deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind 
passengers does not appear to substantially increase by requiring 
carriers to transmit accessible information irrespective of self-
identification. Thus, the increased cost as compared to the little or 
no increased benefit to disabled consumers, weighs in favor of 
maintaining the self-identification portion of proposed Sec.  382.53. 
The Department seeks comment on potential benefits of eliminating the 
self-identification clause of proposed Sec.  382.53 that it may not 
have considered as well as the potential costs associated with doing 
so.
    With regard to the second proposed change, proposed Sec.  
382.53(a)(2), which addresses information provided in airports, adds 
the following specific information to the current list: flight 
cancellations, boarding information, volunteer solicitation on oversold 
flights (e.g. offers of compensation for surrendering a reservation, 
individuals being paged by airlines), and emergencies (e.g. fire, bomb 
threat etc.).
    In support of this expanded list in the Workgroup Petition for 
Rulemaking, the disability community representatives stated:

Air carriers routinely provide much information important to 
successful and enjoyable air travel. In addition to safety briefings 
and emergency announcements, typical air travel involves airline 
announcements such as gate agents paging a passenger (to resolve a 
ticketing issue, etc.), gate changes, preboarding, flight delays, 
boarding instructions, movie selections, and other non emergency 
information. If an airline provides information to all its 
passengers, it should make sure that information is accessible to 
all its passengers, not just those who can hear or see. It's 
paternalistic for airlines to predetermine what passenger 
information is important to a passenger with a hearing disability, 
and to limit the information available to that passenger. At a 
minimum, any information provided by the airlines over a public 
address/loudspeaker should be provided simultaneously in formats 
accessible to passengers who have hearing loss.

    Air carriers objected to the expanded list of airport terminal 
information stating: ``The current regulatory language in subsection 
(c) is the only essential information carriers should be required to 
provide individuals in the terminal.''
    In proposing the expanded lists, DOT aims to clarify that in 
airport terminals and on aircraft, airlines must provide the same 
information to passengers with hearing and visual disabilities as it 
provides to non-disabled passengers via public address or other means. 
The term ``clarify'' is used because DOT believes that even under the 
current Sec.  382.45(c) a carrier is required to provide timely the 
same information given to non-disabled passengers, including the items 
listed in proposed Sec.  382.53(a)(2). Both the current Sec.  382.45(c) 
and proposed Sec.  382.53(a)(2) specifically require carriers to ensure 
that deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind passengers have timely access 
to information the carrier provides to other passengers in the terminal 
and on aircraft. Both the current and proposed rules contain the 
language ``including, but not limited to'' immediately prior to the 
specific list. Therefore, to the extent carriers have interpreted this 
requirement as being limited to the items in the specific list or to 
communications the carrier deems essential, that is in error. Neither 
the plain text of Sec.  382.45(c) nor proposed Sec.  382.53(a)(2) use 
the term ``essential'' to define the type of information carriers are 
required to provide to deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind individuals 
who identify themselves as requiring accommodation. The Department 
seeks comment on the items contained in the proposed lists and whether 
additional items should be added. The Department also seeks explanation 
and justification for the carriers' assertion that the only type of 
information carriers should be required to make available to passengers 
who are deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind is ``essential'' 
information.
    With regard to the third proposed change, the current Sec.  
382.45(c) requires that carriers ``ensure that qualified individuals 
with a disability * * * have access to information the carrier provides 
to other passengers in the terminal * * *'' The November 4, 2004, NPRM, 
Sec.  382.53(a)(1)(i), proposed to require U.S. carriers to ``make this 
information available at each gate, baggage claim area, ticketing area, 
or other terminal facility that you own, lease, or control at any U.S. 
or foreign airport.'' The instant NPRM m