[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 213 (Friday, November 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56481-56485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27192]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 382
[Docket OST-96-1880; Notice 96-25]
RIN 2105-AC28
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Air Travel
AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is proposing to amend its rules implementing
the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 concerning seating accommodations
for individuals with disabilities and the stowage of collapsible
electric wheelchairs. These proposals are the result of petitions for
rulemaking on which the Department previously received comment. The
Department is also proposing to clarify the meaning of the general
nondiscrimination provision in the Air Carrier Access Act rule. The
Department is also seeking comment on petitions requesting a smoke-free
path through airports for passengers with severe respiratory
disabilities.
DATES: Comments are requested within January 30, 1997. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent, preferably in triplicate, to Docket
Clerk, Docket No. OST-96-1880, Department of Transportation, 400 7th
Street, S.W., Room PL-401, Washington, D.C., 20590. We request that, to
facilitate scanning comments into the Department's electronic docket
system, commenters put comments on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch white paper using
dark ink, without tabs and unbound. Comments will be available for
inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. Commenters who wish the receipt of their comments to be
acknowledged should include a stamped, self-addressed postcard with
their comments. The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the postcard and mail
it back to the commenter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and
Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room
10424, Washington, D.C., 20590. (202) 366-9306 (voice); (202) 755-7687
(TDD); or Nancy Ebersole, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy, same street address, Room 9217, (202) 366-4864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In its September 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking on the Air
Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rules (58 FR 47681; September 9, 1993), the
Department asked for comment on three petitions for rulemaking. These
concerned use of oxygen by airline passengers, seating accommodations
for passengers with disabilities, and the stowage of collapsible
electric wheelchairs. The Department is considering addressing the
first of these issues through a negotiated rulemaking. The Department
has decided to grant the other two petitions, by issuing this NPRM
proposing amendments to the ACAA rule. The public will have the
opportunity to comment on these proposals before the Department takes
any final action on them. In addition, having become aware of
misunderstanding on the part of some parties concerning the scope and
nature of the general nondiscrimination obligation under the ACAA, the
Department is proposing a clarification of Part 382's statement of that
obligation.
General Nondiscrimination Obligation
The history of the ACAA clearly shows that Congress enacted the
statute to fill a gap in nondiscrimination coverage left by a Supreme
Court decision that said that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act did
not apply to air carriers, since they do not (with the exception of
participants in the Essential Air Service program) receive Federal
financial assistance. The intent of the statute was to achieve the same
protection from discrimination for airline passengers that section 504
provides persons affected by Federally-assisted programs. For a summary
of the history of the Act, see the preamble to the Department's 1990
final ACAA rule (55 FR 8009; March 6, 1990).
When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it
excluded transportation by aircraft from the definition of ``specified
public transportation.'' Congress did so specifically because air
transportation was covered by the ACAA. (See H. Rept. 101-485, Pt. 1;
May 14, 1990; p. 36.) There is no evidence that Congress intended this
exclusion, which simply avoids duplication in coverage, to suggest that
a weaker standard of nondiscrimination applies to air carriers than to
transportation providers covered by the ADA.
Under section 504 and the ADA, providers of transportation and
other facilities and services to the public have the obligation to take
steps to accommodate customers who have disabilities, though these
obligations have limits. For example, places of public accommodation
under Title III of the ADA are required to make
reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when
the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services,
facilities, privileges, or accommodations to individuals with
disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that
making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations. (28 CFR
Sec. 36.302.(a))
Under the ADA, public accommodations must remove barriers where doing
so is ``readily achievable i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be
carried out without much difficulty or expense'' (28 CFR
Sec. 36.304(a)). One option open to a public accommodation is making
its services available through readily achievable alternative means
where barrier removal itself is not
[[Page 56482]]
readily achievable (28 CFR Sec. 36.305(a)). These provisions are
intended to be compatible with the section 504 standards, which
requires recipients of Federal funds to make accommodations to the
needs of individuals with disabilities, as long as doing so does not
create undue financial or administrative burdens.
The Department has become aware that there may be some
misunderstanding concerning the applicability of these basic
nondiscrimination principles to air carriers. To avoid such
misunderstanding, the Department is proposing to add language to the
nondiscrimination section of Part 382 reciting explicitly the existing
legal requirement that carriers have the duty of accommodating
disabilities of passengers, consistent with these principles, even
where a specific accommodation is not mandated elsewhere in the
regulation.
Seating Assignments to Accommodate Passengers' Disabilities
Background
Section 382.37 of the existing rule, concerning seating
assignments, prohibits carriers from excluding a person from a
particular seat location or requiring a person to sit in a particular
location, on the basis of disability, with certain exceptions (e.g., to
comply with the FAA's exit row seating rule). The intent of this
provision was to preclude carriers from limiting a passenger's choice
of seats on the basis of disability. The issue in this rulemaking is
the other side of this coin: should carriers be required to provide a
particular seat assignment that a passenger needs to accommodate a
disability?
The petitioner, a consumer, has a disability that prevents her from
bending one of her legs. She requested that the ACAA rule be modified
to require airlines to seat a passenger in a location requested by the
passenger (e.g., a bulkhead seat) when sitting in that location is
necessary to reasonably accommodate the passenger's disability, even if
this requires changing the seat assignment of another passenger. In
addition to asking for comment on this petition, the 1993 NPRM also
requested comment on whether, if such a requirement were added to the
rule, carriers should be permitted to require advance notice for this
accommodation.
Comments
There was strong support for this petition from consumers. About 50
comments from passengers and disability groups said that airlines
should accommodate passengers with disabilities by placing them in a
seat that facilitates their travel. Examples cited in the comments
included ensuring that passengers with mobility impairments had the
opportunity to sit in a a row with a movable aisle armrest, that people
with fused legs could sit in bulkhead seats, that personal care
attendants could sit next to passengers whom they serve, and that
people with guide dogs could choose either a bulkhead or non-bulkhead
seat.
One commenter suggested that, if an appropriate seat in coach was
not available, the airline should offer a first-class upgrade if it
would facilitate the passenger's travel and there was a seat available
in first class. A few commenters suggested that it would be acceptable
for an airline to require passengers requesting a seating accommodation
to provide documentation of their need (e.g., a note from their
doctor). Four disability community commenters opposed permitting
airlines to request advance notice for providing seating
accommodations. Three commenters suggested that seating accommodations
be made for tall people, since they have trouble being comfortable in
many airline seats, and one suggested similar treatment for parents
traveling with infants.
Carriers and their associations generally opposed the petition.
They had several objections. First, it would be difficult to determine
which people deserved priority for seating accommodations. For example,
if multiple persons arrived for a flight and asked for a bulkhead seat,
how would carrier personnel decide who should be selected to receive
the desired seat? Airline personnel should not have to decide who is
the most deserving passenger. Second, it would be unfair and annoying
to other passengers who were asked to move to make room for the
disabled passengers. Passengers typically reserve flights on a first-
come/first-serve basis, and often seek aisle or bulkhead seats because
there is more space there, because they are tall, because they have
infants to care for, etc. They do not want to be bumped from the seat
assignment they had called in advance to obtain. Third, having to deal
with seat reassignments would distract flight attendants and other
personnel from other pre-flight duties, including those related to
safety.
One commenter pointed out that, like other passengers, people with
disabilities could call early for a seat assignment in order to get the
accommodation they wanted. This commenter suggested that carriers
should not have to do more than hold back one or two seats from advance
assignment, and then only until 24 hours before departure. Another
commenter suggested that, rather than mandating seating accommodations,
airlines should ask for volunteers to move from seats, perhaps
providing incentives like extra frequent-flier miles. One commenter
thought disabled passengers present a risk because they clog the
aisles. The commenter believes that such passengers should be kept out
of aisle seats and deplaned last. Another said that passengers who want
extra room should pay for it or find another mode of transportation.
Three commenters thought that passengers desiring seating
accommodations should have to provide advance notice, to minimize last-
minute seat changes for other passengers.
DOT Response
As noted above, carriers have an obligation to accommodate the
disabilities of passengers, through means such as altering policies and
practices, as long as doing so does not create an undue financial or
administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the service
provided. After reviewing the comments on this petition, the Department
believes that responding to requests for seat assignments to
accommodate the needs of an individual with a disability comes well
within the scope of this obligation.
Many people with disabilities--particularly those with mobility
impairments--find it very difficult to travel by air in the absence of
seat assignments that facilitate their use of the aircraft. Having to
transfer over a fixed aisle armrest, when moveable armrests are
available elsewhere in the cabin, burdens wheelchair users. Sitting in
a middle non-bulkhead seat may make it unfeasible for someone with a
fused leg to travel. Sitting apart from a personal care attendant may
make it impossible for a person with severe mobility impairment to eat
or to receive other needed assistance during the flight. Seating
accommodations that permit an individual who travels with a service
animal to sit with the animal may also be necessary.
The proposal would apply only to requests in these four categories.
The Department does not believe it would be relevant to apply the
provision to persons with other disabilities (e.g., vision or hearing
impairments, less severe mobility impairments). However, we seek
comments on whether there are additional situations in which seating
accommodations should be provided. In addition, we seek comment on
whether
[[Page 56483]]
it is necessary or appropriate for persons seeking these seating
accommodations to provide any documentation to the carrier.
To accommodate these needs of individuals with disabilities would
not appear to impose significant financial or administrative burdens on
carriers, or fundamentally alter the nature of the service they provide
to passengers. What appears to be needed is a limited modification of
existing administrative policies. There could be some inconvenience to
other passengers, but when a carrier is implementing a
nondiscrimination statute like the ACAA, accommodating the needs of
passengers with disabilities outweighs this inconvenience.
Under the proposal, a passenger seeking seating accommodations
would call the airline at least 48 hours before the scheduled departure
of the flight (see discussion of advance notice below). If the airline
had any seats that would provide the accommodation that had not yet
been assigned to another passenger, it would assign such a seat to the
requester. This includes situations in which there are unassigned seats
that have not been made available for assignment to the general
passenger population (e.g., seats that are not assigned until a short
time before the flight or that are held for frequent fliers). If,
however, all seats in which the needed accommodation could be provided
to the requester have been assigned to other passengers, the airline
would change the seat assignment of another passenger. In no case,
however, would another passenger be bumped off the flight to
accommodate the seating requests of an individual with a disability.
Part 382 already contains a number of accommodations for disabled
passengers for which carriers may request advance notification (see 14
CFR Sec. 382.33(b)). The purpose of this provision is to give carriers
time to prepare to provide the accommodations. While the Department is
aware that consumers with disabilities have opposed provisions of this
kind, we believe that they strike a fair balance between the needs of
passengers to receive accommodations and the needs of carriers to do
the work of providing them. Therefore, in addition to requiring seating
accommodations, we propose to add a 48 hours' advance notice provision.
We would point out that, for all accommodations to which the
advance notice provisions apply, a carrier is required to provide the
accommodation even when the passenger does not provide advance notice,
if the carrier can do so by making a reasonable effort that will not
delay the flight (see 14 CFR Sec. 382.33(c)). In the case of seating
accommodations, this should prove possible to do in most instances,
since all that may be involved is a quick request by carrier personnel
to another passenger to switch seats to accommodate the situation of a
disabled passenger. While, in a case where advance notice had not been
provided, the airline would not be mandated to change another
passenger's seating assignment, the carrier would be obligated to make
the request, and could, as comments suggested, provide incentives to
persons who agreed to a seat assignment change.
The Department does not believe that implementing this proposed
requirement would place carriers in the position of determining who was
the most deserving occupant of a given seat. Airlines could, under the
proposal, operate in a ``first-come/first-served'' manner. That is, if
a passenger with a disability for which sitting in a bulkhead seat
would be an accommodation (e.g., an individual with a fused leg, a
passenger traveling with a service dog) makes a request to sit in that
seat, another passenger subsequently requesting that seat as an
accommodation to a disability could be told that the seat was
unavailable. The airline would find a different seat to accommodate the
second passenger to the extent feasible.
A few things that this NPRM does not propose to require in this
provision should be noted. The proposal would not require airlines that
do not pre-assign seats to passengers to begin doing so. These airlines
allow passengers needing various kinds of accommodations to preboard.
Permitting passengers who need particular kinds of seating
accommodations to preboard would satisfy the intent of this provision.
It might be necessary, however, for the carrier to request or direct
that some preboarded passengers move to accommodate a passenger with a
disability who needed a particular seat location as an accommodation.
The Department seeks comment on whether any specific regulatory
provisions are needed to handle this situation.
Nor would this proposal require the airline to provide upgrades to
first class for coach passengers or provide more than one seat to an
individual. In this context, we note that the Department has received
occasional inquiries concerning passengers who are very obese. It may
be necessary for some such passengers to occupy the space of two seats.
The Department has been asked whether it is consistent with the ACAA
for carriers to charge for two seats in this situation. We have replied
that, if an individual is actually using two seats, it is not
discriminatory for the airline to charge the individual for two seats.
The Department seeks comments on whether this approach should be
changed. Should there be circumstances in which such a passenger should
be accommodated without being charged for more than one seat?
Handling of Collapsible Electric Wheelchairs
Background
The Department received a petition from Mr. Ralph Black, an
attorney representing a consumer who uses a collapsible electric
wheelchair, powered by a non-spillable battery. The consumer has
encountered difficulty with airlines that, in her view, treat the
wheelchair as it were a non-collapsible wheelchair powered by a
spillable battery. The petition set forth a rationale for changing the
ACAA rule and suggested revisions to the rule's language.
Comments
Disability commenters generally supported this petition. A few
expressed the concern that airlines may damage wheelchairs, either by
dropping them when being located into the luggage compartment or when
disassembling or reassembling them. (Two carriers suggested, in
response to this latter problem, that wheelchair manufacturers or
passengers be required to provide written instructions for disassembly
and reassembly.)
Air carrier comments focused on the battery-related portions of the
petition. They reiterated a long-standing industry concern that
passengers are not reliable sources of information about whether a
battery is spillable or non-spillable. Reliance on passenger-
representations, they said, could lead to safety problems. Some carrier
comments suggested that FAA certify or label which batteries are non-
spillable or that carriers be able to rely on their own list of
approved non-spillable batteries.
DOT Response
The Department has decided to partially grant this petition for
rulemaking. We believe it is useful to clarify that collapsible
electric wheelchairs, like folding manual wheelchairs, can be carried
in the cabin if they can be transported in appropriate storage
locations, such as in closets or overhead compartments, or under seats.
Indeed, commenters appeared to have
[[Page 56484]]
no objections to this idea. The Department has interpreted its existing
rule consistent with this idea. Consequently, we are proposing to adopt
the petitioner's proposed amendment to Sec. 382.41(g)(2), as well as
adding clarifications to Sec. 382.41(e) concerning in-cabin storage.
However, the issue of distinguishing spillable from non-spillable
batteries continues to be complex, and it continues to be discussed
among the Department and representatives of the industry and disability
community. We believe that is premature to propose further rulemaking
on the subject of handling batteries at this time. We also believe that
the existing, permissive provision concerning written instructions for
disassembly and reassembly is adequate. We do not see in the comments
an adequate basis for making the provision of such instructions
mandatory.
Additional Provisions for Passengers With Hearing Impairments
The Department has received some suggestions for additional
rulemaking concerning accommodations for persons with hearing
impairments. These include captioning of video material (e.g., movies
and other entertainment features) shown on the aircraft, and making
telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) available where air
phone service is provided to other passengers. Part 382 requires
captioning of safety videos, but not other videos shown on flights.
Another suggestion was for providing assistive listening technology for
public address announcements in the aircraft. The Department has also
received suggestions for electronic message and/or assistive listening
technology in gate areas, to ensure that hearing-impaired passengers
would receive information about flight departures and arrivals,
boarding announcements, etc. The Department seeks comment on the need
for such accommodations, as well as their technical feasibility and
cost.
Petitions Concerning an Accessible Path Through Airports for
Persons With Severe Respiratory Disabilities
The Department is seeking comment on petitions from individuals
with respiratory disabilities for a requirement for an accessible path
through airports. Petitions on this subject have been received from Dr.
Dwain Eckberg, a physician and medical school faculty member from
Richmond, Virginia, and Dr. Judith Plotkin, a Maryland resident. Both
individuals suggested that the Department add regulatory provisions to
protect such individuals from exposure to tobacco smoke.
The petitions make the point that some individuals have respiratory
conditions that can create significant health problems for them if they
are exposed to tobacco smoke. If such an individual must, in order to
get from the entrance of an airport to an aircraft, pass through areas
in which he or she is exposed to smoke, he or she may suffer these
health problems, require oxygen that is not immediately available, or
require emergency medical treatment. Exposure to smoke, then, acts as a
significant barrier for such individuals to the use of the air travel
system.
If granted, these petitions would lead to a proposal that carriers
and airports carrier ensure that an individual with a severe
respiratory disability that is triggered by exposure to tobacco smoke
have available a path of access from the terminal entrance to the
aircraft free from exposure to tobacco smoke. As with other airport
terminal accessibility issues, amendments to both the ACAA and section
504 rules would be needed as part of such a proposal. The air carrier
and airport would be expected to work together to meet an obligation to
provide such passengers with a means of getting to an aircraft that
does not expose them to significant adverse health effects.
We anticipate that any proposal resulting from this petition would
not specify or limit the means to be used. A smoke-free path through
the airport, transportation from the gate to the tarmac that does not
go through a terminal in which smoke is present, an enclosed cart that
took the passenger through the airport without exposure to smoke that
was present, etc. might all be possibilities.
The Department would not intend, if it granted these petitions, to
propose to ban all smoking in terminals. Regulating smoking in public
places is traditionally a state or local matter, and the Department
would not attempt to pre-empt state or local decisionmaking.
The Department seeks comment on whether we should propose a
provision of the kind requested by the petitioners. We seek comments on
the extent to which such a provision is needed and on cost and
feasibility considerations that should be taken into account.
The Department is also aware of people with environmental
sensitivities to a wide variety of common substances (e.g., cleaning
agents, perfumes). In some cases, these sensitivities may be severe. In
addition to seeking comment on whether to proceed with a proposal based
on the petitions, the Department seeks comment on whether it would be
desirable and feasible to have similar provisions for people with
severe environmental sensitivities.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
This NPRM does not propose a significant rule under Executive Order
12866 or a significant rule under the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. The Department certifies that this rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities. The basis for this statement is that the modifications
to airline practices and procedures involved if the rules are made
final would involve little additional cost to carriers or airports.
The Department has determined that there would not be sufficient
Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. As it implements a nondiscrimination statute, this rule is
not subject to scrutiny under the Unfunded Mandates Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382
Aviation, Handicapped.
Issued this 8th Day of October, 1996, at Washington, D.C.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes
to amend 14 CFR Part 382 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 382 would continue to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 47105, and 41712.
2. In Sec. 382.7, a new paragraph (c) would be added to read as
follows:
Sec. 382.7 General prohibition of discrimination.
* * * * *
(c) In carrying out their nondiscrimination obligations under this
part, carriers shall, in addition to meeting the specific requirements
of this part, provide accommodations to passengers with disabilities
and remove barriers to the use of facilities and aircraft by such
passengers. In meeting this obligation, carriers shall apply the
standards of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, as amended,
and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
3. In Sec. 382.33(b), the ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(7) is
proposed to be removed, a semicolon and the word ``and'' are proposed
to be substituted for the period at the end of paragraph (b)(8), and a
new paragraph (b)(9) is proposed to be added, to read as follows:
[[Page 56485]]
Sec. 382.33 Advance notice requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) Designation of a particular seat as an accommodation to a
passenger's disability.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 382.37, a new paragraph (d) is proposed to be added to
read as follows:
Sec. 382.37 Seat assignments.
* * * * *
(d) On request of a passenger with a disability designated in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section for a particular seat assignment
needed to accommodate the disability, the carrier shall provide the
seat assignment to the passenger.
(1) Requests for seating accommodations required to be accommodated
under this paragraph include a request by a wheelchair user for a seat
in a row with a moveable armrest, a request by a person traveling with
a personal care attendant whose services will be needed on the flight
to sit next to the personal care attendant, a request by an individual
traveling with a service animal for a bulkhead or non-bulkhead seat, or
a request by an individual with a fused or immobile leg for a bulkhead
seat or other seat that provides greater legroom than other seats.
(2) In responding to requests from passengers for seat assignments
to accommodate a disability, carriers shall comply with FAA safety
rules, including those pertaining to exit row seating (see 14 CFR
121.585 and 14 CFR 135.129).
(3) When a person makes a request for a seating accommodation
covered by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the carrier shall assign
the person a seat providing the requested accommodation if it has not
already been assigned, even if the seat is not available for assignment
to other passengers at the time.
(4) When a person makes a request for a seating accommodation
covered by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and all seats providing
the requested accommodation have already been assigned to other
passengers, the carrier shall change the seat assignment of other
passengers as needed to provide the accommodation.
(5) The carrier is not required to provide the accommodations in
paragraphs (d) (4) and (5) in response to a request made less than 48
hours before the scheduled departure time of the flight.
(6) If an individual making the request does not make it 48 hours
before the scheduled departure time of the flight, the carrier shall
attempt to meet the request by asking other passengers to move to a
different seat location to accommodate the individual. No other
passenger shall be required to change assigned seats, however.
(7) If the carrier has already assigned a seat to an individual
with a disability in response to a request covered by this paragraph,
the carrier shall not reassign that individual to another seat in
response to a subsequent request from another individual with a
disability without the first individual's consent.
(8) In no case shall any passenger be removed from a flight or
denied transportation in order to accommodate an individual with a
disability under this paragraph.
5. In Sec. 382.41, paragraphs (e)(2) and (g)(2) are proposed to be
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 382.41 Stowage of personal equipment.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) In an aircraft in which a closet or other approved stowage area
is provided in the cabin for passengers' carry-on items, of a size that
will accommodate a folding, collapsible, or break-down wheelchair, the
carrier shall designate priority stowage space, as described in
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section for at least one such wheelchair
in that area.
(ii) An individual with a disability who takes advantage of a
carrier offer of the opportunity to preboard the aircraft may stow his
or her wheelchair in this area, with priority over the carry-on items
brought onto the aircraft by other passengers enplaning at the same
airport. An individual with a disability who does not take advantage of
a carrier offer of the opportunity to preboard may use the area to stow
his or her wheelchair on a first-come, first-served basis along with
all other passengers seeking to stow carry-on items in the area.
(g) * * *
(2) Whenever feasible, the carrier shall transport electric-powered
wheelchairs secured in an upright position, so that batteries need not
be separated from the wheelchair in order to comply with DOT hazardous
materials rules. However, when an electric-powered wheelchair is
designated to fold or collapse, the passenger may request that the
batteries be removed and the wheelchair be folded. The carrier shall,
in any case, take those actions (and only those actions) required by
DOT hazardous materials regulations with respect to the transportation
of batteries by air.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-27192 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-M