The Air Carrier Access Act: Protecting the Civil Rights of Airline Passengers with Disabilities. Presenter: Mike Spollen. >> TAJAUNA: Good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to the webcast the Air Carrier Access Act: Protecting the civil rights of airline passengers with disabilities. My name is Tajauna Arnold with ILRU and I will be moderating today's webcast and voicing your questions to the presenter. You can submit questions any time throughout this webcast, however, I want to encourage you to submit questions you may already have at the beginning of this webcast. You can submit questions by clicking the submit question button at the bottom of your RealOne Player screen or simply address it to webcast@ilru.org. Questions will be posed to the presenter upon the preventer's request. Additionally, if anyone has technical difficulties during this webcast, please call us at (713)520-0232 and dial 0 for the operator. This number is both voice and TTY capable. As previously mentioned, today's webcast is the Air Carrier Access Act: Protecting the civil rights of airline passengers with disabilities. It is being presented by Mike Spollen, who is a native of the Washington D. C. area. After attending Virginia Tech and graduating from George Mason University, Mike began his federal career as an investigator in 1979 with the Civil Aeronautics Board. There he investigated potential violations of airlines by various consumer protection regulations and was involved closely in a development and implementation of the first federal regulation protecting the rights of airline passengers with disabilities. Mike says that he has finally gotten over the fact that after Congress realized that the Civil Aeronautics Board had hired him, it quickly passed sunset legislation closing that agency at the end of 1984. Not to be deterred, Mike transferred from the Civil Aeronautics Board to the Department of Transportation where he currently works in the general counsel's Aviation Consumer Protection Division. Since passage of the Air Carrier Access Act in 1986, Mike has been actively involved in DOT's efforts to protect the civil rights of airline passengers with disabilities and ensure airlines' compliance with DOT's Air Carrier Access Act regulations. Mike currently serves as the Department of Transportation's aviation disability team leader, where he helps coordinate the department's rule-making, investigative and enforcement activities. And with that, Mike, I turn the webcast over to you. >> MIKE: Thanks a lot, Tajauna. Hello everyone. Hey, since I understand this is being broadcast all over the entire world, when I'm done does this mean I'm an international man of history like Austin powers? >> TAJAUNA: Yes, it does. It is being archived, so you will forever be an international man of mystery. >> MIKE: That's fitting to my past life. In any event I appreciate very much as Tajauna just mentioned I work at DOT and their headquarters office in Washington D. C. And I'm part of the general counsel's enforcement office and more specifically within that office I work in the Aviation Consumer Protection Division and I guess our office is probably best known as the office that attempts to resolve airline passenger's service related complaints against airlines. We're sometimes confused with the federal aviation administration or the FAA which is probably a better known entity. The primary distinction between our role and that of the FAA is that the FAA handles safety issues whereas my office handles the service related issues we received from the public. The Secretary of Transportation and the department as a whole are very concerned about ensuring the civil rights of airline passengers with disabilities and for that reason, complaints involving passengers with disabilities and disability issues in general for that matter are given a very high priority within the department. Just as a quick sidebar as many of you may know, former Secretary of Transportation, Norman Minetta who was one of the principal authors of both the Air Carrier Access Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act departed DOT on July 7th of this year after serving for over five years. Our current acting secretary is Maria Fino and President Bush has recently announced the nomination of Mary Peters who was with the former Highway Administration to serve as the 15th secretary of transportation. Having said that, I forgot to mention that I do a little public speaking occasionally and they let me out of my office, but I talk a little quickly so for the captioner there, if I happen to be ramblinging on too quickly, by all means let me know and I'll try to slow down, but the good thing is most captioners get to submit a bill for double time after having to type the stuff I say. Please slow me down if I'm going to too quickly. I love hearing myself talk so I get a little excited. In any event, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Air Carrier Access Act and then maybe give some specifics as they relate to the disability-related activities of the office I work in. And I'll then be happy to answer any questions that folks might have. Having done a few of these, I'm happy to try to field questions on the fly as I do it, although it's been my experience it might be better to wait until the end of my little -- I've got on few notes here I'd like to go through and it might be that before you ask the question I might go over the issue that you have in mind so it might be better to wait for the questions until after I'm done with my little spiel here, but having been married twice I'm very familiar with being interrupted constantly. If you want to send an E-mail through while I'm talking, feel free and Tajauna will decide whether I will answer. The Air Carrier Access Act was signed into law by then President Reagan in October of 1986. And the Air Carrier Access Act or ACAA as I will probably start referring to it prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in commercial air transportation. The Air Carrier Access Act is sometimes confused with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was signed into law by then President Bush in July of 1990. So that again came four years after signing the Air Carrier Access Act. Again, in very brief terms, the primary distinction between the Air Carrier Access Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act is that the former law prohibits discrimination by airlines against passengers with disabilities, whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in other modes of transportation, for example, subways, bus systems, et cetera. In any event, the Air Carrier Access Act prohibits discrimination against airline passengers with disabilities. The act is intended to remove the nonsafety related barriers both physical and attitudinal for that matter to air travel by people with disabilities. The act is intended to ensure that passengers with disabilities enjoy equal access to the nation's air transportation system and are afforded the safe and dignified service that they all that they and all others expect and deserve. The act and the implementing regulation which I will refer to as 382 is meant to remove the hassle and stress that is sometimes encountered by folks with disabilities prior to its passage. Forgive me if I refer to parts 382, that's just my summary for the regulation itself is 14 CFR Part 382, but since I can't repeat that too often without messing it up, I'll refer to 382 which is the regulation implementing the Air Carrier Access Act. Again, it's been about 20 years since passage of the Air Carrier Access Act itself in 1986 and 16 years since DOT adopted the final regulation which implemented it, which as I said is Part 382. Part 382 of the regulation we think represents a major stride forward in improving air travel for folks with disabilities and protecting their civil rights. Our rule we think clearly explains the responsibilities of the air traveler, the airlines, the airports and the contractors that collectively make up a system that moves over a million airline passengers each day. As a preliminary matter, it might be good for me to define what the heck is a disabled individual, who is covered by our regulation? Our disability rule essentially defines an individual with a disability as an individual who has either a physical or mental impairment that are either a permanent or temporary basis substantially limits a major life activity. By a major life activity, I mean something very basic like caring for yourself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and even working, all could be considered major life activities. Very briefly about did requirements of the act and the rule itself and I'll try to be brief because it's about a 15 page rule and kind of complex. I like it that way. It's job security for me to get on these things occasionally and explain what the heck it means, in any event, among numerous requirements of the rules, some of the fundamental services that are required by the act and the incoming rule is that it requires carriers to provide on request assistance to passengers with disabilities with enplaning, deplaning, making connections with an airport to get to a connecting flight, to transport wheelchairs and other kinds of assistive devices. They must provide the packaging for powered wheelchair and devices similar to that and package the batteries to return such devices promptly to passengers upon arrival after a flight lands and also provide special seating accommodations for folks in certain situations. An example of such a seating accommodation that comes to mind would be a bulkhead seat for a passenger traveling with a service animal or perhaps a seat in a row with a movable arm rest for a nonambulatory passenger who requires the use of an aisle wheelchair to board the aircraft. Those are a couple of examples of the types of seating accommodations we would require. Carriers are not allowed to charge for any of the accommodation that is are required by our rule such as those services I just mentioned and for things like hazardous materials packaging for wheelchair batteries bot they may charge for option al services such as provision of inflight medical oxygen. Carriers also have to allow for the stowage of wheelchairs and other devices in the passenger cab ins provided it's done won sis tent with FAA safety considerations and they cannot count an assistive device against the carry on total normally allowed for other passengers. Additionally, airlines may not limit their liability for damage to a wheelchair or other assistive device on a domestic flight, which I think is a kind of cool thing and they are prohibited from requiring a passenger with a disability to travel with an attendant except in very limited circumstances based on safety considerations. Airlines must also permit passengers with disabilities who travel with service animals in the cabin in most circumstances. Not to be too technical, but real quickly, there are some technical requirements about aircraft themselves. Our rule Part 382 requires what we define new aircraft and that if I recall off the top of my head is an aircraft that is ordered by an airline after April 5th of 1990 or delivered to the airline after April 59SDZ 1992. The rule requires those aircraft that I'll refer to hereinafter as a new aircraft to have physical accessibility features, for exam, a new aircraft with 30 or more seats has to have movable aisle arm rests on half the aisle seats. New twin-aisle aircraft have to have accessible laugh a tore it's and new air cast with 100 or more seats have to have a priority stowage space in the cabin to stow a passenger's personal folding wheelchair. And in addition, aircraft other than new aircraft that have more than 60 seats have to have a place on board to put an on board aisle chair on a flight with a passenger gives the airline at least 48 hours notice that he or she could use an inaccessible lav but needs help getting from the seat to the bathroom. Our rule Part 382 also requires airlines to provide training to the customer contact personnel and the requirements of the Air Carrier Access Act and it states that carriers must make available a complaint resolution official or CRO to respond to complaints from passengers with disabilities so, again, if there is one tip that I'd highly recommend that listeners glean from this little talk I'm giving, it's the term CRO. Pair pier a CRO or complaint resolution official is someone who is converse ant with the rule and knows what the requirements of the rule are and will be able to react in a realtime basis to any complaint or request for an accommodation from an individual with disabilities. So again, Tajauna, what does CRO stand for? Are you taking notes? >> TAJAUNA: I was just about to write it down. >> MIKE: It stands for complaint resolution official. And if I ask you what a B. L. T. stood for, what would you say? That's a bacon, lettuce, tomato. I know this is dry stuff. In any event, seriously, if you are ever in an airport situation and you need help with a disability-related issue, please ask the airline to provide a CRO or complaint resolution official and that will really help expedite, we hope the resolution of your problem. >> TAJAUNA: Quickly, the CRO, whenever they ask for one, is this someone who is there within the airport or where? >> MIKE:Essentially I to answer your question, yes, the airlines make available on request in a fairly prompt manner a CRO in real life what most carriers do is they train customer service supervisors, station managers and folks such as that that work for the airline familiar with our rule and designated as CRO's so in most cases at each airport there is one or more CRO physically available to discuss disability issues consumers, but the airline would in fact be in compliance with our rule if they simply made the CRO available via telephone in a fairly timely manner at no cost to the public. So if you happen to be for some reason you came in at eleven o'clock at night to an outlying station like mason city, Illinois, and they probably don't have people there at that late night, they'd still have to make one available from the headquarters via telephone. Most cases you'll have an actual human being to react to the issue in the airport itself. >> TAJAUNA: Good to know. Thank you. >> MIKE: What does that mean? >> TAJAUNA: Complaint resolution officer. >> MIKE: Official. In any event, our rule also requires airlines to provide to consumers who write a written complaint, it requires them to provide a dispositive written complaint to the consumer that addresses the issues. I'll dare you to find the word dispositive in addiction Nary. It response a response that fully addresses all the issues raised by the consumer and a concluding letter whether the carrier thinks they did or didn't violate the rule. And what action might be taken. So in any event, since the adoption of the original ACAA regulations in 1990 the department issued several amend 's to the ruse which we think are intended to further enhance the accessibility of the transportation system. The rule is kind of a living, breathing document which changes ten times since we put it out on the streets in 1990 as new issues come up and as people bring to our attention things they think are not super clear or we didn't address at all. We will add amendments to the rule after doing a rule-making how that whole process works, but we're constantly enhancing, amending the rule to make it easier to understand, we hope, and to increase accessibility to folks with disabilities getting on and off planes is basically the intent of it. I'll go over real quickly some of the major amendments since 1990 to the rule. In November 1996 we amended the rule to require boarding list os aircraft with the compass I have 19 through 30 seats. There are certain aircraft that are exempted from the requirements. Off the top of my head there are various ones. All three of those aircraft type are 19 seat aircraft where there are problems either literally get something one in an aisle chair down the aisle of the aircraft or deploying the lift itself without a direct threat to puncturing the fuselage of the plane. In most cases, the 19 through 30 seaters if they don't have entry level boarding have to have a lift to get folks who are nonambulatory from the tarmac level up to the door of the plane to get to their seat. Another significant rule that we added an amendment to the rule was in March of 1998. We amended the rule to clarify that in addition to following the other specific provisions of Part 382, carriers can arguably be asked to modify policies and practices and facilities to ensure nondiscrimination consistent with the standards in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, unless such a modification would impose an undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the program that the carrier provides. So in other words, in layman's terms that even I can understand, the carriers could arguably be asked to do anything that an individual asks them to do even if it isn't specifically enumerated in the regulation unless doing so could be shown to be an undue burden to the aircraft. >> TAJAUNA: Mike, if I could get you to slow down just a bit for the captioner. >> MIKE: Okay. >> TAJAUNA: Thank you. >> MIKE: I'll do my best. Also in March of 1998 we amended the Air Carrier Access Act rules to establish specific procedures for providing seating accommodations for folks with disabilities. An example of a required seating accommodation on request would be a bulkhead seat for a passenger traveling with a service animal or a seat in a row with a movable aisle arm rest as I think I alluded to earlier for a passenger who is totally nonambulatory and requires en planing assistance using an aisle chair otherwise known as a boarding chair. Those are just some examples of the kinds of seating accommodation that is are now mandated by the regulation. As I also alluded to earlier, I think, on August the 2nd of 199 we amended the Air Carrier Access Act regulation Part 382 by eliminating the liability limit for lost, damaged or delay to wheelchairs and other assistive devices on domestic flights, and we think that that particular amendment provides a strong incentive, an economic incentive for airlines to treat assistive devices with care and to ensure that they are returned to the passenger in the condition in which they are received as required by the rule. Because after all, in many cases, someone's cane, crutches, wheelchair, is in fact their very mobility and without them it makes it incredibly inconvenient when you arrive at your destination and your wheelchair doesn't function properly. So we think removing the liability limit hopefully makes the carriers do an even better job making sure these things are returned to folks in a good condition. On May the 3rd of 2001, DOT issued another amendment to our rule that requires a lift to board aircraft larger than 30 seats. I mentioned earlier we had done one that would require lifts for aircraft with 19 through 30 seats. We issued kind of a similar rule that covers the bigger planes, the 31 and above aircraft capacity planes. As I said, it's real similar to the one with the 19 through 30 seats, but we think together the two lift amendments should go a long way toward eliminating the problems we were hearing about from folks who were nonambulatory who were subjected to the formerly acceptable practice of being lifted from the tarmac level to the door of the aircraft in a boarding chair which many folks understandably considered to be an undignified and unsafe sometimes manner of boarding and deplaning. So essentially whenever there is not level entry boarding, and by that I mean one of those gizmos that what we call a jet bridge or jetway, if they don't have one of those available, in most instances airlines have to ensure some form of level entry boarding that does not require them to put you in a straight backed chair or a boarding chair and physically lift you up to the plane. You would be transfered. You would be transfered from perhaps your personal wheelchair into a boarding chair that would be rolled on to the lift. The lift would then be hoisted up the ten or 15 feet to the level of the plane and you are rolled off that to your seat which we think is a much safer and more dignified way of getting folks on and off aircraft. As it relates to amendments, in 2003 I believe it was, DOT issued another amendment to our rule that requires both U.S. and foreign airlines that operate flights into and out of the U.S. to record and categorize complaints that they received directly from passengers with disabilities alleging inadequate accessibility or discrimination and in fact to report those complaints each year to DOT where I work. And then I get the lovely task of reading them all. In any event, this is the only provision in our current rule that applies to both U.S. and foreign carriers. Again, that is the requirement that aircraft -- that airlines that operate flights into and out of the U.S. have to capture complaints from folks with disabilities and report that data to DOT. We then in turn the department summarizes the data and sends a summary report over to Congress, which summarizes the data. We in fact have done that and we've submitted one report to Congress that covers the complaints that the airlines received for calendar year 2004. And we're currently finalizing our second report to Congress that concerns the data we received from the airlines for the calendar year 2005. Again, not to be too confusing, but that's what I'm good at, when initially it was passed into law, the Air Carrier Access Act applied only to U.S. carriers. However, on April the 5th of 2000, Congress passed a law called the Wendal Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, otherwise known as AIR 21, which extended the applicability of the Air Carrier Access Act itself to foreign airlines as well. We're currently working on a rule-making, what we call an N. P. R. M. or notice of proposed rule-making -- and Tajauna, I am going to quiz you on all of these acronyms. These are all going to be on the quiz. >> TAJAUNA: I know I'll get one out of three. It would be the B. L. T. >> MIKE: At least two out of three would be a beaurocrat like I am. This rule-making is going to extend the applicability of the underlying regulation, the really detailed 15 page regulation to cover the foreign carriers of the world that operate into and out of the U.S. So that's a very significant rule-making we're working on and it's really going to, we think, enhance the accessibility for disabled folks all around the world now, not just in the American transportation system. Most of the provisions in the current rule that apply now simply to the U.S. carriers will apply to the foreign airlines that operate into and out of the U.S. and to the coach airlines that the foreign airlines operate in conjunction with their U.S. partners. That's kind of a little bit about the Air Carrier Access Act. When it came into being, what the heck it does, what it requires. I'd like to talk a little bit now on some general stuff on complaint trends in my office. We think at least in our view that airline passengers with disabilities have experienced fewer difficulties in gaining access to the nation's air transportation systems since passage of the Air Carrier Access Act. And instances of bad treatment of disabled folks seem to occur less frequently than prior to its passage in 1986. I think probably as airlines have become mor aware of the need to provide service to people with disabilities and have trained their contact employees in the best techniques and procedures for accommodating their needs, many of the common problems that had formerly confronted disabled travelers have been minimized and in some cases eliminated altogether. For example, we don't hardly ever receive complaints involving issues such as a flat out refusal to board a passenger with a disability or forcing a passenger with disability to travel with an attendant at least when it's not allowed by our rules or refusal to permit the service animal to travel in the passenger cabin or refusal to transport a wheelchair or other assistive device. So we feel the disabled travelers have significantly benefited from the act itself and the underlying rule. Having said that, airline passengers with disabilities still encounter problems and we still receive a significant number of disability complaints in my office. For example, since 2000, DOT has averaged between about 400 to almost 700 disability-related complaints each year, which we receive directly at the department and that averages about 3 percent to 6 percent of the total service-related airline complaints we receive at DOT it's our understanding many speaking with airlines that they receive a significantly bigger number of complaints directly from consumers. I don't know the exact number. I've heard quotes of something like 50 times as many but I don't have any specific data on that, but while the number of complaints received in my office may seem small in comparison to those that the airlines themselves get, we think we have a sufficient number of complaints to enable us to at least track trends and problem areas and to otherwise identify situations in which airlines policies and procedures may need to be corrected in order to assure compliance with our rule. In that regard, whenever our review of even one disability complaint indicates that a carrier's policy or procedure is not in compliance with Part 382 or the act as it relates to foreign airlines, we in fact immediately contact the carrier to ensure prompt corrective action and that's a fairly effective program. With regard to complaint handling process itself, which is something that I kind of am involved in every day, briefly, whenever DOT receives a written complaint involving a disability-related issue, we conduct a thorough investigation of the individual complaint. That process essentially consists of sending an acknowledgment letter to the passenger or complainant, we then send a referral letter with a copy of the complaint to the appropriate airline and we ask the carrier to review and respond directly to the complainant, but providing DOT a copy of the response. And then my office, in conjunction with some enforcement attorneys, does a legal analysis of the complaint and the airline's response to determine if in our view the carrier's actions did or did not constitute a violation of our disability rule or the intent of the Air Carrier Access Act. After that legal determination has been made, we then send a letter summarizing the results of the investigation to the consumer and explaining what action we intend take as a result of our investigation. Such actions could include sending a warning letter to the involved airline if it appears as though they may be in violation of our rule. If it's appropriate or considering perhaps more formal enforcement action if we uncover a pattern or practice of noncompliance with our rules or if a particular incident constitutes a really bad violation of Part 382 or the ACA pavement. As I've mentioned in all cases if we determine that an airline has a policy or procedure that might affect other folks with disabilities down the road that's not in compliance with our rules, we contact the airline as quickly as possible and work with them to ensure that prompt corrective action is taken by the carrier. Roughly, one-third to one-half of the complaints that DOT receives involve potential violations and by that I'm talking about if a complaint alleges an activity that's inconsistent with our rules and the carrier doesn't refute or deny the allegation, we arguably might have a disability violation to contend with. The vast majority of the potential violations fall into about four basic categories, just looking back at my notes here, those would be, number one, failure to make wheelchairs available in an untimely fashion to deplane passengers with mobility impairments. I think that generates about at least 50 percent of the complaints DOT receives directly from the public about disability issues. About half of them have to do with folks who have difficulties getting on and off of aircraft because of mobility problems. It's a difficult thing to do, but it's required under our rule and we get an awful lot of complaints indicating that on occasion carriers don't do it at least to the satisfaction of the traveling public. The second complaint generated would be fair to deplane someone in a timely fashion. We still occasionally receive complaints concerning folks with reduced or limited mobility who are left on board an aircraft after the plane arrives and are discovered by the cleaning crew or the airline personnel long after all the other ambulatory passengers have deplaned which is obviously not an acceptable situation. The third category that comes to mind would be leaving a disabled traveling unattended in a wheelchair for more than 30 minutes. We hear from folks who allege they have been assisted to a gate area for caking flight but then removing from the carrier's wheelchair and left unattended in a stationary chair in the gate area for an extended period of time. Our rules prohibit leaving someone unattended unless they are independently mobile for more than 30 minutes. The fourth category is failure to respond dispositive written response to the complainant. Since I have a fairly good knowledge of the rule, know that the airlines are required to send detailed responses and therefore we scrutinize whether we feel the response is in fact thorough and addresses all the issues that the passenger has raised. Initially when we put the rule out years ago, some of the airline replies have been vague apologies that didn't necessarily address all the specifics of the a particular incident or advise the passenger of the recourse to contact the department which is also a requirement of our rule. But within the last several years, the carrier replies have shown a marked improvement in the quality of the response to the disabled complaint antes which is really good. In addition, our data seems to suggest that folks with disabilities who are entitled to special seating accommodations as I said earlier, maybe a bulkhead seat if they have a service animals, those kind of folks occasionally experience difficulties in obtaining a particular seating accommodation in some instances. A lot of it has to do with the fact that load factors since 9/11 have greatly increase and as anybody who has traveled recently knows sometimes you can't find any kind of seat let alone one that may be suits your needs as a disabled individual. Having said that, there are specific categories of folks who are entitled to seating accommodations in most instances. We also receive a significant number of inquiries from consumers who have questions about the cost and availability of inflight medical oxygen and I'll touch on that issue in just a minute when I go over some of our rule make activity. In addition to the potential violations I mentioned briefly, we also receive complaints that allege for lack of a better phrase, bad attitudes or courtesy or sensitivity by airline employees or their contractors when they are interacting with individuals with disabilities. And it's often this type of alleged insensitive treatment and not a violation of a regulation itself which results this complaints. I've been talking for awhile now. So to steal a line from Don Henry of the eagles, with you with me so far, Tajauna. That's out of life in the fast line as you know. >> TAJAUNA: Yes, I am still with you. >> MIKE: Just nod your head, Tajauna. Thank you. Well now that I've talked a little bit about complaint trends and how we handle complaints internally here at DOT I thought I'd do a quick overview and provide some details on what my office does or has been doing in the last couple of years specifically in the disability area and then attempt to answer any questions that folks might have. I'll try to focus my comments this three basic areas, number one, investigations and enforcement activities, number two would be rule-making activity, and three is outreach and public education. With regard to investigations and enforcement as I mentioned preliminarily, I do work in an enforcement office at DOT and although our basic philosophy in my office is to work informally with airlines to resolve issues in a cooperative manner which seems to work great, there are occasionally times when DOT that is to take enforcement against airlines either because we don't see eye to eye on what airlines should provide or there seem to be repeat issues or patterns or practice of violations which sometimes result in me having to involve the attorneys with whom I work across the hall in an enforcement context. For example, in I believe it was calendar year 2003 and 2004, we concluded a large number of enforcement investigations which resulted in the slue answer of what we called consent orders which assessed significant civil penalties against airlines for violation very our disability rule. Those that I'm referring to, most of the ones in 2003 and 2004 involved either alleged failure to provide adequate wheelchair emplaning and deplaning and connecting help as well as a parent violations of the in cabin wheelchair stowage provisions of our rule. I believe we assessed civil penalties somewhere in the neighborhood almost $6 million in 2003 and I think 1.2 million or so in calendar year 2004 for that kind of complaint that we were investigating. More recently, we've issued three consent orders in October 2005. One against a major U.S. carrier assessing a civil penalty for inappropriately denying boarding to a passenger because she was not traveling with an attendant. And we also assessed civil penalties against two other U.S. carriers for not having in cabin stowage facilities. It's been our policy within the last couple of years to allow carriers to what we call offset a large portion of these civil penalties which I think is a really kind of neat program. Rather than sending a check to Uncle Sam where it goes to the federal treasury, a lot of it is offset for programs and activities that will directly benefit consumers with disabilities. This money, just so I'm clear, has to be spent on programs or activities that go over and beyond the minimum requirements in our disability rule. One major carrier was allowed to offset the penalty toward oxygen concentrators. Another carrier was allowed some offsets for instituting what they called a quality assurance program in which they allowed folks to fly on their aircraft and report back to them as to the quality of the service the carrier was providing to folks with disabilities. Another carrier was allowed a significant amount of money for an offset to beef up its website and provide a lot more information about DOT, my office, our disability rules and the availability of a toll free hotline that we also have available to the public I'll mention in just a minute. There are some fairly innovative opportunities for airlines to provide -- put their money toward a program activity that will directly benefit disabled travelers rather than sending a check to the federal treasury where it will be misspent by Congress. I hope we can delete that last sentence so I will have a job tomorrow. This is a time delayed presentation, right? >> TAJAUNA: Yeah, we'll have to talk to the captioner about deleting that last sentence. >> MIKE: In another kind of recent and pretty innovative activity we've been involved in recently in the summer of 2005, DOT announced an aircraft inspection program in conjunction with the FAA on compliance with those aircraft accessibility requirements that I'd outlined earlier. Things like having movable aisle arm rests, stowage space for folding wheelchairs, accessible bathrooms for disabled individuals and having incabin aisle chairs to get folks from an aircraft seat to the bathroom. The inspections are currently ongoing by the FAA and we're in the process now of reviewing the results of those inspections of the aircraft and contacting carriers where needed to discuss any deficiencies that the inspectors may have found. Also of note in the enforcement investigation area is the fact that several investigations have been initiated involving foreign airlines and what we feel are possibly inappropriate policies in requiring attendants or medical certificates as a condition of carriage for passengers with disabilities. Those investigations are ongoing and could result in the issuance of consent orders as I mentioned in the assessment of civil penalties. Similar to the ones I had mentioned about U.S. carriers and in fact in August 7th of 2006, just about a month or so ago, the department announced the enforcement office where I worked, we reached a settlement with one large foreign airline and assessed a 50,000-dollar civil penalty for what we think was the carrier's inappropriate requirement that several individuals who travel with a wheelchair could not travel without an attendant. So we a tested that civil penalty against that foreign entity. It's the first time that the Air Carrier Access Act enforcement settlement involved a foreign carrier for treatment of a person with a disability since Air 21 which again as you now know, Tajauna was the law that extended the active provisions of the Air Carrier Access Act to cover foreign airlines. Since that was signed into law on 575th, 2000, that was the first consent order that directly involved the Air Carrier Access Act violations by a foreign airline. And under the terms of that particular settlement of the 50,000-dollar assessed civil penalty, I believe it's $45,000 of that is going to be put towards one of these offsets I mentioned which is going to be used towards enhanced training of airport personnel regarding the proper standards for accepting folks with mobility related disabilities on flights from the U.S. into the UK. Finally, as it relates to enforcement investigations, we made a significant progress toward reducing the number of pending disability complaints we've received at DOT. I apologize to any of you out there who may be listening who have filed a written complaint with my office although by now I'm sure you received an acknowledgment letter. You may not have received that final concluding letter. We're working hard to a point where we're getting final responses out to folks in a much more timely fashion thanks to a fairly recent hiring of enforcement attorneys and analysts such as myself. To those waiting for a reply, it should be coming to you soon. We beg your pashes evens a little longer on that. It takes awhile to review these. They are not something we can kick around and turn over in a week. With regard to the second area I thought I would talk about real briefly is rule-making that I happen to be involved in myself as well. Within the last year or two, we focused -- you might say more energy toward rule-making than enforcement and I'll mention four such disability rule-making currently underway. I thought I'd go quickly over how the process works. DOT issues what we call a notice of proposed rule-making or N. P. R. M. Which now we have CRO, BLT and N. P. R. M, is that right, Tajauna? >> TAJAUNA: Mike, while I have you, if I could get you to slow down a bit. Thank you. >> MIKE: Sorry again to the transcriber. I'll try to think more slowly. I should have had a beer or two before we started. In any event -- >> TAJAUNA: I'm thinking instead there was some caffeine. >> MIKE: I didn't even have my caffeine this morning. You know, some of us people don't sit around drinking coffee and reading Sports Illustrated. DOT has issued a notice of proposed rule or N. P. R. M. which as the name suggests is in fact a proposed change either to the current regulation or might be a new requirement altogether. After we issue the N. P. R. M, any interested parties, a consumer, disability rights organization, an airline, et cetera, have a set period of time in which to submit written comments to the proposal and after the comment period is closed, DOT then spends a considerable amount of time thoroughly reviewing the comments and we incorporate those comments to the extent possible before we issue a final rule. And I want to emphasize here that with one exception the proposed rules I'm going to get into real quickly, they are in that draft or proposal stage so that any final rule that might be issued could differ significantly from what it's been proposed in the draft rules themselves. So just without any further ado, a couple of quick rule-makings we're working on right now in the disability area, the most important one in the sense that comes to mind is what I refer to as the Big Kahuna rule-making which will extend the applicability of our disability rule to cover foreign airlines as I mentioned, when Air 21 was passed back on April 5th, 2000, it extended the applicability of the Air Carrier Access Act itself to cover foreign airlines. But the act is really just a very brief law that says to airlines thou salt not discriminate against disabled folks. Then there is 15 page or so implementing regulation. The law itself, the act applies to foreign and U.S. carriers, but the implementing rule does not yet -- although we have asked -- we use the underlying rule Part 382 as guidance to determine whether a foreign carrier is or is not in compliance with the intent of the Air Carrier Access Act. So the big rule-making we're working on is the one that will extent the applicability of Part 382 to cover both U.S. and foreign airlines. Also of some significance, my office has been working very closely with the federal aviation administration or FAA on the issuance of their what's called a special federal aviation regular. There is another one for you, on portable oxygen concentrate tores or P. O. C.'s. That was issued in July of 2005. It's an enabling rule. I'll repeat that. It's an enabling rule which basically means the carriers after they conduct appropriate tests on whether a given portable oxygen concentrate tore does or doesn't affect the electromagnetic -- whether it has any electromagnetic interference, once they've done the testing to make sure that a given portable oxygen concentrate tore is safe to use, carriers may allow the use of them, but they are not required to allow their use, and I'll talk about our corollary rule in just a second which will require airlines to permit the use of approved P. O. C.'s in just a second here. When the FAA rule was first published back in July of 2005, the FAA had approved the use in flight of two portable oxygen concentrators. They were approved for use in flight by the FAA. However, just yesterday, the FAA published and amendment to that rule which allows for the use of three more portable oxygen concentrators under certain conditions. For those who are interested, those newly approved portable oxygen concentrate tores are (so listed) it's also my understanding that the FAA is drafting a guidance document in Q. and A. format at the request of many airlines and consumers which will provide further information on the appropriate use of a portable oxygen concentrate tore in flight. Another draft rule which is still in the review process here in my office is what I refer to as a corollary rule to the FAA's portable oxygen concentrate tore rule would require airlines to provide oxygen either using compressed oxygen canisters or portable oxygen concentrators and testing other respiratory devices. There are four devices the airlines on paper will have to test if the rule goes final as it is published right now, airlines will have to test ventilate tors, respirators, CPAP machines which as most of you know stands for positive air pressure machines. So that rule on paper right now will require airlines to provide at no cost to the traveling public oxygen during flight, as well as to test four specific types of respiratory devices that are owned by consumers. That comment period has closed, so we're now reviewing something like 1900 comments I believe in that particular docket. By way of background, I probably should have mentioned this initially, P. O. C.'s are relatively new technology that differs from the traditionally provided compressed oxygen cylinders you may have seen on aircraft. I'm not an engineer, but it's my understanding that a portable oxygen concentrator essentially works by filtering out nitrogen from the ambient air within the aircraft and then providing the users of the P. O. C. with oxygen that's at roughly a 90 percent concentration level. It takes air in the cabin, filters it and then what you're breathing through a tube is 90 percent pure oxygen which is kind of cool. And again, briefly, our corollary rule as drafted will require all U.S. and foreign airlines that operates flights either within or to and from the U.S. with an aircraft with more than 60 passenger seats to provide oxygen at no charge and to test those four devices that I just went over. Carriers are going to have 90 days from the receipt of a given device from an individual or a manufacturer to complete the testing to make sure it does not negatively affect the controls of the plane. We don't want a plane heading to Cleveland to end up in a foreign country so we want them to do whatever testing is needed to make sure their use will not have a negative impact on steering the aircraft or have any other negative safety results. As a said, I think we received something like 1900 comments on that particular rule alone. One last comment on draft rules, we also issued a rule back in February of 2006, again, it's an N. P. R. M. or proposed rule that's going to require additional accommodations for individuals who are either deaf, hard of hearing or both deaf and blind. That again will apply to both U.S. and foreign airlines that operate into and out of the U.S. and to the aircraft that serve the markets and to the airport facilities that relocated in the U.S. which are owned or leased or controlled by the airline. That comment period is also closed. Among the other issues that are addressed in that particular rule-making is captioning of safety and informational videos on the aircraft itself. The accessibility of airlines' telephone systems and their reservation systems. For example the service and response time for a TTY phone line. The accessibility of airport facilities within like a gate area for example whether we should or shouldn't require captioning of the T. V. sets that you'll see when you are sitting waiting for your flight, or any other audiovisual device that might be in the airport. It also addresses the training of carrier personnel and suggests that there might be a better communication with individuals who have visual and or auditory impairments. Our intention -- I've mentioned just now four different rule-makings, our intention as we're keep all these balls in the air is to eventually after reviewing all the comments by sometime I believe in early 2007 is to publish one new Part 382 which will apply to both U.S. and foreign carriers and which will incorporate all three of the draft rule-makings that I just mentioned into one big final rule. It's possible we might complete our review of the oxygen rule-making first and issue that as an amendment to the current rule, but I believe our ultimate goal is to publish one new regulation that applies to both U.S. and foreign airlines and which will incorporate all three draft rule-makings into one final document. Briefly, real quickly to go over some outreach and public assistance activities, the third element of what my office does, in addition to offering a large number of educational documents on our website, things like our new horizons booklet for the air travelers with a disability which we think explains passengers rights in the context of traveling if you've got a disability. We have various one page fact sheets on disability issues. We have a complaint form if you rarely hopeful any you want to file a complaint. There is a complaint form on our website. We also have a free fax -- toll free fax on demand system where you can get any of our publications for free via the fax system. For those who might be interested in Fe want to go on our fax on demand system, I'll give that you number, 1-800-454-3114. Our website if you want to go on our website to look at any of the information we've got on there, which has a wealth of information for folks, I suggest you look at it if you haven't, that website I believe is http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov. So that's our website. In addition, you may have heard fairly recently we issued two other documents in conjunction with an outside contracting company called the Keybridge Foundation. It's a private contractor we put together what we call a technical sis tans manual and a model training program. The technical assistance manual is intended to explain in plain English the gist of Part 382 and the responsibilities of both airlines and the rights of consumers under the Air Carrier Access Act. The model training program is just a suggested supplement to carriers' existing training programs. And they are posted on the website which I understand is also section 508 compliant for those who haven't looked at it. Which means us can read it whether you are blind or not. I alluded to earlier the fact that we issued an amendment that requires foreign airlines and U.S. carriers to submit complaint data to DOT. We as I said issued our first report to Congress summarizing that data last year. We're working on our second report. As is essentially true for the complaints that consumers filed directly with my office, approximately half of the complaints sent directly to airlines seem to involve alleged failure to provide adequate assistance to folks who request wheelchair assistance. That's also available on our website who want to see the summaries. We're also currently finalizing -- this is a fairly significant initiative, we're finalizing an industry guidance document on the carriage of service animals in the cabin on flights into Great Britain. As most folks know in most instances if you fly into Great Britain with an animal, unless you go through certain procedures, there is the possibility your animal will be sunt to quarantine, but this document explains the steps necessary to transport a service animal legally into Great Britain without having to have the animal quarantined. The three basic goals of the document when we issue it soon, I hope, is number one to inform individuals with disabilities on the proper procedures needed to comply with Great Britain's what they call their pet travel scheme, for example, ensuring the service animal has obtained proper rabies and other vaccinations, documents the service animal has been microchiped and those kind of technical things that are required by the government. The second goal of the document is to inform both U.S. and foreign airlines on the proper procedures for the submitting and gaining approval of the procedures for accepting a service animal in the cabin. That's monitored by what they call DEFRA, the Department of Environmental Food and Rural Affairs. That's an English entity that oversees this issue. And the third basic goal of that particular document is going to notify both U.S. and foreign airlines that operates flights between the U.S. and Great Britain that any fare to obtain approval from British authorities to transport a service animal in the cabin in compliance with applicable law would be considered by DOT to be a violation of the Air Carrier Access Act, which could subject the carrier to enforcement action by the Department of Transportation if in fact that were the case. And last but certainly not least, as it relates to outreach and public education, and I'll be happy to try to take some questions, we probably have some of you might have heard back on August 5th, of 2002, the department instituted a toll free hotline so we celebrated our fourth anniversary of this toll free disability hotline system. The intent of the hotline system is for individuals with disabilities who are traveling by air, obviously, so they have a recourse to contact us by phone so we can provide them information and realtime assistance if they are having an issue involving an airline in the airport. The phone numbers for people who have not heard of the hotline and there aren't a whole lot of people that have heard of it, the phone numbers is a toll free disability hotline is for the voice is 1-800-778-4838. Again, if you do it by the voice system, it's 1-800-778-4838 and if you have to rely on a TTY, we have that service, the same hours, had is 2-800-455-9880. 1-800-455-9880. The hotline currently operates from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m, 365 days a year except for on Elvis' birthday -- I'm pausing here for the E-mail laughter to come through -- I'm just kidding. It's open 365 days a year even on Elvis' birthday. I wanted to see if you're still listening, but you're not laughing. >> TAJAUNA: I'm laughing on the inside. >> MIKE: Good. >> TAJAUNA: Those hours, are they central, eastern? >> MIKE: It's eastern time. Again, right now the hours are 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. eastern time. Having said that, and this is significant, on October the 1st, we're changing the hours. They are going to be changed to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time Monday through Friday except for federal holidays. So we will no longer be accepting calls, a real person like myself, will not be accepting calls any longer from 5 to 11:00 p.m. nor will we be available on the weekends. We will be available ten hours a day, Monday through Friday, except holidays. We think this is a tremendous service. We on a daily basis get contact from folks hoo need help explaining what their rights are or in some cases actually contacting the airline to work through an issue if someone is getting ready to board a plane and they are needing something, we can interact and have contacts with all the carriers and in a very timely manner most of the times we can take care of these things in a realtime basis so people don't have to send mail to DOT to me. In any event, I know some of this is very dry. I guess in conclusion, I'd really like to thank Tajauna and all those at the disability resource project in Houston, Texas for letting me get involved in the webcast. As I hope you've been able to gather from my remarks, DOT is very strongly committed to ensuring airlines' compliance with the Air Carrier Access Act and protecting the civil rights of passengers with disabilities so on that concluding note, I'd be happy to try to answer any questions that you, Tajauna, or the listeners might have about anything I've said or anything I didn't cover. >> TAJAUNA: Okay. Well, we have quite a few questions. So I tried to put them in some sort of order. Some of the questions, the topics you have touched on, but I'm going to go ahead and ask some of them so that because they are more specific. So I'm going to start off, the first one is the oxygen issue and the question says during hurricane Rita when people used oxygen were taken to a staging area to evacuate, they were all put on ground transportation rather than planes because of the oxygen use. This is still part of a local government plan. Should disaster plans in general, specifically address that oxygen should be allowed on all forms of evacuation transportation? >> MIKE: Wow. I hate to be bureaucratic, but I can't really comment on behalf of the department about what local entities should do in the context of ground transportation. I'm really more of an expert on what airlines should or shouldn't do. I'm not aware of any specific prohibition about carrying oxygen on the ground although obviously there were some severe problems in the context of the evacuation after the hurricane. It's my understanding that there was some oxygen canisters or cylinders that started a fire which caused several fatalities on one of those buses. So I had on rather defer whether they should R shouldn't, just speaking for my personally, that's a great idea to coordinate with the appropriate authorities about what they should R shouldn't do in the context of carrying because oxygen is in fact a hazardous materials if it's administered in the form of a compressed oxygen cylinders. Hazardous materials are named that because they can pose safety concerns. So obviously I would suggest that they coordinate with the folks in their local hazmat offices and I'd be happy if they want to send me an E-mail after the fact to get in touch with DOT's hazardous materials office to discuss that further. >> TAJAUNA: at the same time, individuals were instead of put on airplanes because they were using oxygen, they were instead put on ground transportation, and so with that, now if they are being evacuated, has the oxygen use -- they are now being evacuated, can they now get on airplanes with their oxygen vs having to take ground transportation? >> MIKE: Well, I'll put it this way, when the FAA issued their rule which as I said in an enabling rule, that allowed U.S. carriers to allow folks to get on with five -- well, initially two, now five FAA tested and approved portable oxygen concentrators. So right now, the FAA has basically said they have tested to their satisfaction that five different portable oxygen concentrator devices do not pose a sieve ti risk from the perspective of -- well, any kind of safety risk, however, they still have to undergo E. M. I. or electromagnetic interference testing to make sure there is inform problems in that area. Once those tests are all done, they are free to use those on the plane. That is the FAA says it's not a safety issue, but the rule doesn't mandate that carriers use them. That's why DOT and the office that I work issued a corollary rule that will in fact mandate the testing and use of any P. O. C. device that has been deemed safe. So, in other words, right now, carriers are free to allow a personal P. O. C. on a plane. They are also free not to allow it on the plane if they don't choose to do it. And the reason is we have not completed our draft rule. Once our draft rule goes final, if it goes final as it is written, our rule will in fact mandate that a consumer will be able to go and provided they using a device that's been tested by the FAA and deemed to be safe and it doesn't pose any concerns as far as enter fear Wednesday with the steering of the plane, our rule will main date that those folks will be able to use them. Right now carriers can choose to allow their use or choose not to. And six months from now that could be very different. >> TAJAUNA: Thank you for the clarification. The next question states I was discriminated by a foreign airline who stated that as a person with a disability I cannot fly by myself because by international safety laws, they require to make sure customers with disabilities need to have someone to a system in case of emergencies. Does such a rule exist? >> MIKE: I'm not sure which foreign entity you're referring, but I know that some international air transport association guidelines do address that issue. I don't have it in front of me the guidelines which I understand are some what more stringent than the regulation that I -- the office where I works that monitors compliance with. Briefly, the passenger is referring to something about a mobility difficulty, our rule essentially says if an individual can assist in their evacuation, they should not be required to fly with an attendant. It's my understanding that the guidelines and some foreign carriers have much more restrictive rules that for example might say not only do you have to go with an assistant in an evacuation, you also have to get to the bathroom without assistance. That would be prohibited with a U.S. carrier. A U.S. carrier cannot require someone to have an the end ant simply because of a concern that they need assistance getting to the bathroom. Our standard as I said is if you can assist in your evacuation, you would not be required to have an attendant. In putting it in terms you can understand, for example, if you're nonambulatory, but a paraplegic, you've probably got use of your upper body. In most cases, most pair a pledgee Ix would not be required to have an attendant in my view because they can use their upper body to assist getting -- they can physically assist getting to the exit. Someone who might be characterized as a quadriplegic could argue, depending on the level of their ability, could be required to have an attendant because they are not capable of assisting in their evacuation. But this touches on the fact that this is one of the reasons we're going through this rule-making because although we have a rule now that applies to U.S. carriers and we look at it as guidance as to what foreign carriers can do, the real provisions of the rule I just looked at doesn't apply to the foreign airlines yet. It will very soon. We will have run rule applying to all carriers, both U.S. and foreign and unless there is a specific conflict between the final rule we issue and the regulation or law of a foreign government, in most cases, at least on paper, the foreign airlines will have to comply with our rule unless there is a direct conflict of law between the foreign government and our rule. >> TAJAUNA: Okay. All right, whenever you were talking about the complaint resolution official, the CRO, are all airlines required to have a complaint resolution official and does that include foreign airlines? >> MIKE: That's a good question. The quick answer is that all U.S. carriers that provide scheduled service must provide a CRO and all do have a CRO. I speak with them frequently. The specific provisions of the rule requiring a CRO, again, not to belabor it, those rules don't specifically apply to the foreign airlines, but in real life, most foreign carriers have what is tantamount to a CRO. They have all in the context of all the legwork that we did in preparation for turning on our toll free disability hotline, in addition to getting a contact that I can personally get through to immediately with all the U.S. carriers, who is a designated CRO, we went to most of the foreign carriers that fly into and out of the U.S. they voluntarily gave us the name and number of contact people, although they may not be designated CROs, they are familiar with our rule and the intent of the Air Carrier Access Act and we can get in touch with them almost immediately and they are very converse ant with the way we think things should go and we can resolve things very quickly. So the quick answer is the requirement to have a CRO specifically applies to only U.S. carriers providing scheduled service, but in the real world, because we are proposing that even foreign carriers in this draft rule have them, the handwriting is sort of on the wall so to speak. If the rule goes out in the final form as drafted, it will require form airlines to have CROs as well, but they already have in place something similar to that. If you have a problem with a foreign airline, I suggest you ask to speak to one who knows about DOT's disability rule. If you think you're getting rushed, you can call the 800 number I gave out earlier. You can call me at that number and I'll work through the issue with you and I'll call the airline if I feel it's appropriate. >> TAJAUNA: The next question, I have a disability similar to cerebral palsy and one of the problems I have is using the bathroom. Usually I just use the rest room before going and then hold it until I get off. I'm wondering what do you mean when you say accessible bathroom and how do you find out which planes have one? >> MIKE: That's a great question. And I wish I knew the answer to it. No, I'm kidding. I know the answer to it. Yeah, when we say accessible lav, it's one that permits a person with a disability to enter the bathroom, maneuver within the bathroom as necessary to use all the facilities and exit it by means of the airline's on board wheelchair and the lav has to have certain accessibility features like door locks, accessible call buttons, grab bars and faucets and other controls, dispensers that are usable by folks with disabilities. The basic intent is that you should be able to take the wheelchair on the plane that the care wrier provides, what I will call an aisle chair, be transferred from your seat to the aisle chair, assisted down the main aisle to the lav, the carriers are not required to assist you within the lav, but you should be able to enter the lav on your own in the aisle chair. Use the bathroom and then exit still in the aisle chair. It has to be that big, but again, the requirement to have that accessible lav is only on twin aisle aircraft of a certain vintage. We have a separate provision in the rule, I probably should have mentioned, that requires on request that carriers give you accurate information about the extent to which they can or cannot accommodate any kind of an accessibility issue. So for example in your context if you were taking a trip you can call in advance and say, hey, I want to know before I give my money I need to use the bathroom, I am not ambulatory, if that's the case, forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing your condition, and just ask them do you have an accessible bathroom and they are required under our rule to tell you. The same would hold true for anything, if you want to stow a walker, a cane, a crutch, you name it, we have ability in the provision that on request once you give them some level of specificity about what you're asking, they are required to give you accurate information about the aircraft that is scheduled to be in the market. Occasionally, as you can imagine, because they are just machines, planes break and they sometimes will swap aircraft equipment out. But as long as the information at the time they give it to you is accurate, they would be in compliance with our rule. I hope that answered your question. >> TAJAUNA: Since you mentioned -- I thought maybe I heard you mention walker, you might have said cane, the next question says that each time I fly, I have a difficult time convincing the flight attendant that my walker folds and must be stored in the cabin in the closet. Am I mistaken? >> MIKE: No, I wouldn't say you're mistaken that they give you a problem about that. No, I'm being a little facetious. We have a requirement that they stow any device that can be stowed in compliance with FAA safety regulations. For for example, if you have a walker that folds and will in fact for example fit in the overhead and since I cannot imagine that a walker would exceed the weight bearing capacity of the overhead, if it goes in the overhead, they would be required to put it there. If it goes in the closet, they argue would be required to put it there but just so I'm clear, there is a specific provision that mandates that they give priority stowage to passengers folding wheelchairs in the on board closets. So unless there is a weird scenario where you happen to be taking a flight where either one or more individuals were traveling with folding wheelchairs and putting those in the closet, and that's the only place big enough to put your Walker, I can't imagine there would be a problem accommodating a Walker in the aircraft cabin. You know, if you don't already have a copy, you can look on our website, Part 382 of our regulation. If you want to jot down section 382, I'm pretty sure it's section 382.481 of our rule talks about priority stowage space for assistive devices in the cabin. So you might want to printout a copy of 382 and carry it in your back pocket and you might want to whip it outed and educate the flight attendant. I'm not saying if the thing doesn't fit you can't get ten pounds of potatoes in a five pound bag, assuming it fits it should not be an issue and maybe you're just dealing with a flight attendant who wasn't super familiar with our regulation. >> TAJAUNA: on that, one of my questions, do the airline personnel, do they receive disability sensitivity training? >> MIKE: Do the airline personnel? >> TAJAUNA: Yes. >> MIKE: Our regulation requires that public contact employees receive training as appropriate to the duties, which is somewhat vague, you might say. We left it almost deliberately vague because we and the carriers to have the opportunity to tail the training according to what the person does. It doesn't specify it has to be sensitivity training per se, it's more on what they absolutely have to do under the terms and conditions of Part 382. Having said that, I have been to most of the U.S. carriers' training sessions, almost all of them do touch on sensitivity. That is not only the nuts and bolts of what they have to provide for folks with disabilities, but the fact that it should be done in a po light and since representative manner. So most of them even though the rule doesn't say you have to have sensitivity training, they just out of common sense because they want to get your business back and want to do the right thing, do in fact in real life in the training touch on sensitivity and the appropriate way to treat folks with disabilities so it's done in a dignified manner. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, the next area goes into service animals, and I actually have three questions on service animals. The first one asks would you speak about relieve areas for service animals, any guidance on the number of areas and type of ground cover? >> MIKE: Okay. I'm sorry, that's the same question three times or is that the first of three? >> TAJAUNA: That's the first of the three. >> MIKE: Our rule doesn't specifically address relief areas. But having said that, because we've been working for the last couple of years on this initiative to extend the rule to cover foreign airlines, and we obviously realized that folks if we have our way will be getting better access to trips all over the world, that issue has been brought up in the context of that rule-making. We appended to the proposed rule a previously existing guidance document on service animals and asked the public to give us comment on that very issue. So we're -- I'm not at liberty to say where we might be leaning, but we have raised the issue of relief areas for service animals. You might want to go on to docket for that rule-making and see the kind of comments that have ben suggested. We've been wrestling with things like should there be a certain length of a flight, ten hours or 12 hours, incumbent on the airline to have a relief area for an animal. It's not an easy issue because in many cases the airlines themselves don't have control over the airport facility. So they sometimes f we got into trying to regulate mandating a relief area, there may be some sort of a shared responsibility between the airline and the airport as to how that would work, but we are aware of that as an issue. We've got a heck of a lot of comments from the public about service animals and a whole bunch of issues about whether there should be relief areas. What about relief areas not only in airports, but on airplanes, so we're wrestling with that. I don't know where the rule will come out, but in the preamble to the final rule we'll probably be addressing relief areas. It's something on our radar screen and I believe we'll be discussing in the final rule when that comes out. >> TAJAUNA: Sometime ago the DOT published a new guidance concerning service animals. Many airlines have read this guidance and concluded that a service dog must fit into the space in front of the passenger sit and within the width of that seat. With a typical coach seat being 16-inch wide, it is the rare service dog that is a guide dog -- hold on one second. With a typical coach seat being 16-inch wide, it is the rare service dog that is a guide dog that is mobility assistance dog for people who use wheelchairs that can fit into a space that is approximately 16 by 16. Is this the correct interpretation of the guidance? If it is, then the DOT guidance has eliminated air travel for a large percentage of people with disabilities with service animals. If this is not the correct interpretation, then what is the DOT doing to let the airlines know that they have it wrong? >> MIKE: Okay. I'd be happy to give you my comments on that. We have obviously raised this issue in the context of this rule making that I referred to. Just speaking for me, I think that perhaps some folks are misunderstanding the guidance. I don't know that the intent of the guidance, which does in fact say, a service animal should be able to fit essentially underneath the seat of the disabled individual, him or her self. Having said that, the preamble also goes on to say of that particular rule, that we don't necessarily want airlines to read that absolutely as an iron clad rule. That is if you happen to have an animal that might encroach a little bit on the foot area of the person next to you, I don't know that necessarily we would expect an airline to tell you that your animal is too big to be accommodated. In real life, I've been doing this a pretty long time, I have never had a complaint from a consumer in which an airline either refused transportation to a service animal or required a service animal owner to buy a second seat. They almost always in real life, if you have a very large animal, will work out a system. In fact, the rule itself mandates that if an animal will not fit in the area under your seat without posing a safety risk, the first thing they have to do is attempt to move you somewhere in the aircraft cabin where the animal can be accommodated. Having said that, there probably are going to be occasionally situations where people who for example have a germ an Shepherd, let's say and the animal can't physically curl up absolutely in your little 16-inch space, in real life, I think airlines do the best they can to accommodate those folks, but I think it would have to be a pretty darn big -- I dwell disabled folks all day long, and it would have to be a fairly large animal on a fairly small plane where the airline said look you're encroaching so much on the foot area of the person next to you, they can't use their space. We have to deal with this. The way they would hopefully deal with it in compliance with the rule is attempt to move you somewhere where there is an additional seat, but the first thing we would have to do is move you to someplace else on the plane. If it's a full flight, and from fact the animal is so large that they literally can't sell the seat next to you, the rule does not require the airlines to sell an individual with a service animal two seats for the price of one. So if in fact they literally had to block off the seat next to you because your dog encroached significantly on the foot area of the passengers next to you, they'd be within their rights to provide some other options to, either taking a later flight that isn't as full, perhaps suggesting you buy a second seat. A third option which is completely untenable to most folks with disabilities would be to have the dog go in the belly of the plane. Please don't start screaming at me. I deal a lot with disabled folk as you can imagine. I know that's not an acceptable option. I wouldn't want to be separated from my service animal. Sorry for my long answer, but it's something on our agenda to address more specifically in the rule, but in real life, as I've said, I don't know of a situation where a dog was so big if we're talking the context of a dog, that they couldn't accommodated in one seat. So I hope that answers your question. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, I'm going to leave service animals for a minute. We only have about close to ten minutes left and there are actually -- we have a lot of questions left, but I'm only going to be able to touch on a few and so I want to get a different categories in here. The next category is on listening devices and the question is are hard of hearing people allowed to bring wireless assistive listening devices on the plane to use for communication with the flight attendant? >> MIKE: Are they allowed to? >> TAJAUNA: Yes, that's the question. >> MIKE: My quick answer is yes, but having said that, it's my understanding that the FAA has a requirement that during take off and landing there may be is situations in which if you've got for example ahead phone on, you may be required to remove that in order to understand safety briefings, for example. If in fact there happens to be a legitimate safety regulation, I can't put my finger right on it right now in the FAA rule book, but if there is a rule that requires all passengers not to be wearing head gear during certain phases of the flight, that arguably would apply to people who have no hearing problems as well as people who do. But if the basic question is can I use it during situations when they are not giving the safety briefing or whatnot, I don't see why there would be an issue with that. >> TAJAUNA: Because that goes a long with a second question where the individual says that the use of an augmentive alternative communication devices on the aircraft, as with most electronic devices, the regulations to have them turned off during taxiing, take off and landing. In the event of an emergency, however, as well as the need for regular communication, turning off the device renders most users unable to speak. What is the policy. I believe you just answered that. >> MIKE: I can give them a more detailed response and give them some cites from both our rule and the FAA regulation about being able to give you a safety briefing and any kind of electronic device last to be turned off regardless of the nature of it. So my E-mail is Mike.Spollen@dot.gov. If you want to send that one on to me I might be able to respond after I do a little research and get back to them. If you're not in the states I can call you almost anywhere. >> TAJAUNA: They're in the states. Thank you. Okay, the next section is on security. It asks can a person in a wheelchair be required to disembark their wheelchair at the security check point and can they be required to remove their shoes? >> MIKE: Yes and yes. I don't mean to be bureaucratic again, but as you probably know, security used to be handled by airlines themselves on a contract basis and then we established what's called the Transportation Security Administration which used to be a part of DOT and has been spun off into the Department of Homeland Security so the actual application of security directives at airports is actually handled by T. S. A. It's my understanding that if you're asked to get out of a wheelchair to go through the magnetic machine, and you cannot do that, they'll take you around. You will be subjected to security screening, but it will be via a wand and hopefully a discrete patdown. You have the right to ask for a private screening. If you are physically incapable of standing up and walking the two or three feet through the magnetic machine, tell the T. S. A. individual that. They'll take you around it. If you don't feel like being wanded and hand patted in the public, you can ask for a private screening and they'll give that to you. I don't have it right in front of me the T. S. A. directives, but not to be flippant, I think T. S. A. can tell you to do almost anything they want and if there is a legitimate concern about it, whether you are disabled or not, you are probably subject to it, but my recollection is that T. S. A. does not mandate that you take off shoes if you indicate to them that you're disabled or at a minimum will assist you in doing that. Again, you might want to just go on their website. They have an entire section on passengers with disabilities and special needs and in there they do address shoes I believe. If you can't find it, shoot me an E-mail and I'll search it with you and get back to you. So I hope that answer the question. >> TAJAUNA: and then that also -- that website should also provide the answer to the individual who asked what has homeland security done post 9/11 regarding security issues and passengers using wheelchairs. It sounds like they can go to that same website and get all that information? >> MIKE: They have a plethora of information and even more stringent requirements about not carrying certain amount of gels and creams and how that relates to people who need gels and creams and whatnot for medical prescription purposes, and if they don't have it, you can type in a question and although I can't vouch for their staffing, it's my understanding you can ask questions of T. S. A. via their -- through E-mail. >> TAJAUNA: I have one last question -- actually a few questions that are left and I just want to let those who sent in questions, I want you to know that I will forward them to Mike. If he has a chance to answer them, I'm sure he will get back to you. If not, he can let me know and we will get back to you, but we did not get a chance to answer all of the questions so I'm going to ask one more that has three parts and then we'll close it from there. >> MIKE: Okay. >> TAJAUNA: the last one states, if a person with a disability traveling requires a personal care attendant, but the attendant have to pay for an additional seat? If a person with a disability traveling does not have an attendant with them, and needed to use the rest room facilities, would the flight attendants a system, not only in transporting them to the rest room, but with hygiene, self-care needs and I think you already answered part of that question. >> MIKE: I think I'm hearing two questions here. >> TAJAUNA: I'll let you answer that one and then I have one last question after that one. >> MIKE: I'm trying to remember the first part of the question. One of the parts was would they help you twin bathroom and the quick answer to that is no. They have to assist you in transferring to an aisle chair and push you up to the door of the bathroom. They do not have to physically transfer you to be indelicate from the aisle chair to the commode. That would be incumbent upon you. With regard to the first issue that just popped into my head, if in fact you want to travel with a personal care attendant, carriers are within their rights to charge you for the seat for that personal care attendant. >> TAJAUNA: Okay. And the last question is if a piece of equipment like a power wheelchair was damaged or lost, it was stated the airline would cover replacement costs in a timely manner. Can you be more specific to what that means? >> MIKE: Okay. We remove the liability limits on domestic flights -- well, I say remove the limit -- carriers can no longer put a cap on the limit there. Is a cap of sorts in that they have to -- they have to use the original purchase value of the device as the amount of money that they would not go above. My point being if you had a 10,000-dollar wheelchair when you purchased it and you still got the receipt for that, and it costs $6,000 to repair it under our rule, provided with all due respect it's a legitimate claim and they concede they damaged it they would pay you the full amount of it up to what you paid initially when you bought the device. When I say in a timely manner, usually carriers get on these things very quickly, kind of just to do the right thing. They kind of try to expedite requests for compensation in the context of damaged assistive devices, which could include even the cost -- the reimbursement cost for rental chairs and that kind of thing. Having said that, I can't give awe specific number of days. Each carrier has its own internal goals as to how quick it takes to turn around a claim. It's my understanding provide you can get the device to a rental -- rather a repair shop that they will work with those repair shops in either sending a check directly to them or to you and you can give it to the repair shop, but I would think within a few weeks many claims are taken care of if they are not super complex or things that the carrier disputes that they were at fault. But if anybody feels as though they've got a claim pending with an airline that has been too long, whatever in your mind that is, whether et cetera it's a week or six weeks, you can call our 1-800 disability line and give us the details and we will call the airline and check the status of it and we'll get back to you. We do that all time where folks feel as if they are not getting a response in a quickly enough manner and they'll call our hotline and we'll call the airline and say, hey, give us an update on it and we would be happy to did that for folks. >> TAJAUNA: Thank you so much. Okay, that is all the time that we have for this webcast. Again, Mike, thank you so very much. I'm extremely informative webcast and you have oh provided some great information for everybody -- (Multiple Speakers). >> TAJAUNA: I'm sorry, what? >> MIKE: You got my E-mail address. Send any E-mails I didn't get to and we will respond as quickly as we can. >> TAJAUNA: Thank you very much. Okay, so I hope all of you listening have learned from today's webcast. Also note that this webcast will be archived on ILRU's website, which you can find by visiting www.ilru.org. Also note that the websites and telephone numbers that our presenter has mentioned will be listed in that archive as well and/or you can contact us and we'll provide you with that information. I would like to acknowledge National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, NIDRR, who funds your host for today's program, the Disability Law Resource Project. I would also like to thank the in-house staff here at ILRU who without their efforts this webcast would not be possible: They include Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, Dawn Heinsohn, Vinh Nguyen, and Maria del Bosque. I would also like to thank the technical expertise provided by Rob Dickehuth and our realtime captioner, Marie Bryant. I encourage anyone with questions on the Americans with Disabilities Act to call the toll free number at 1-800-949-4232. Again, thank you for joining us and we hope you will join us again next Wednesday, September 20th, at 2:00 p.m. central standard time, to listen to the webcast on fair housing, presented by Barbara Chandler with adaptive environments. For more about this webcast or to see the schedule for all webcasts, visit www.ilru.org. Again, thank you, Mike, and thank all of you for listening. >> MIKE: Thanks, Tajauna, I appreciate it very much.