understanding of blindness and acceptance on terms of equality for all of our citizens who are blind. I feel we have made great progress, but much remains to be done. Our nation's laws governing travel and the use of public accommodations by the handicapped lack specific mandates or are otherwise a patchwork quilt to the extent that they exist at all. I have already mentioned the White Cane Laws which exist in many states. The following states have enacted most provisions of our model law or reasonable facsimiles thereof: Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. from this model and a few other laws which now exist in the several states, there is no generally applicable, universal mandate designed to ban discrimination on the basis of blindness or handicap in the use of travel facilities and public accommodations.

But, aside

Mr. Chairman, we are badly in need of such a mandate. The regulation (or failure to regulate) discrimination in the commercial aviation industry in our country is a classic example of why Congress should step in now to provide an overall federal mandate. A little over ten years ago, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were asked by some groups representing the handicapped to make regulations which would prohibit discrimination. We were not part of this. By and large blind people were being left alone

and were, for the most part, treated respectfully and without restriction by the airlines. But, handicapped persons (particularly those using wheelchairs) were having difficulty. Some were refused air travel altogether. This was wrong.

The upshot of it all was that in April, 1977, the FAA made some rules. More accurately, the FAA purported to make some rules. You will find the rule or purported rule to which I am referring at 14 CFR 121.586. I refer to this as only a purported rule because of its character and effect. First, note the title: "Authority To Refuse Transportation." Now that is a positive approach. Here is a rule which was supposed to be intended to eliminate or reduce discrimination on the basis of handicap. exists today as the most comprehensive rule (if you can call it a rule) on discrimination against the handicapped in air travel. So, here it is, "Authority To Refuse Transportation."

It

Sadly, and to our disadvantage, the weaknesses of this purported rule do not stop with its title. 14 CFR 121.586 says that no air carrier may refuse to transport a handicapped person unless the carrier has procedures for providing transportation to handicapped persons, and the person in question cannot be carried in accordance with the airline's procedures, or if the person fails to comply with the notice requirements which may be stated in the procedures. If either circumstance occurs--that is, (1) the handicapped person cannot be carried in accordance with the airline's procedures, or (2) the handicapped person fails to comply with the airline's notice requirements--the carrier has authority under 121.586 to refuse transportation; in other words,

to discriminate.

Notice how the FAA completely ducked the opportunity which it had in making these rules to articulate a consistent, clear, and universally applicable federal policy. The rule does not identify prohibited conduct and places no restraint upon airline discretion in making the procedures, other than the fact that if they exist they must be filed with the FAA. Big deal. This is no protection, because the FAA has not established any criteria or parameters for evaluating the procedures which are filed by the carriers. Moreover, we suspect FAA does not evaluate the procedures at all. You might asked them to explain their process for doing so and to identify which, if any, procedures have ever been rejected and for what reasons. I predict that the inevitable result of such questioning will be the conclusion that FAA is not regulating discrimination on the basis of handicap in the commercial aviation industry. Its regulations merely grant authority to refuse transportation on the basis of handicap, provided certain conditions are met and the airlines determine

the conditions. Some protection.

True,

As for the CAB, it has taken a similar lack luster approach to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap. the CAB does have regulations on this subject (14 CFR Part 382) but these have limited applicability. A principal problem relates to a very narrow definition of what constitutes "federal financial assistance." We have argued that, since air carriers receive the services of federal personnel (both FAA and CAB), all airlines are recipients of federal financial assistance.

However, the current position of the regulators is that

assistance must be tied strictly to grants or payments of money, as in the case of subsidized air routes. Even more, it has been argued that on routes other than those that are subsidized, an air carrier is not a recipient of federal financial assistance. This narrow view results in a lack of federal jurisdiction (you might say, a convenient lack of jurisdiction) over most carriers under most circumstances. After all, if there is no

jurisdiction, there is no power to regulate discrimination and the airlines are free to adopt and exercise their own policies with minimal federal oversight or intrusion.

This in a nut shell is the current status of the law on prohibiting discrimination against blind and handicapped people in air travel. The lack of a consistent and clearly articulated federal policy has fostered uncertainty, tension, and in some instances even hostility on the part of airlines in their dealings with blind and handicapped people. We have been forced to litigation in several instances. But, these confrontations could have been avoided or certainly minimized if there had been stronger federal leadership by the agencies responsible for safeguarding the interests of the public, including blind and handicapped taxpaying citizens. Nor have such difficulties been limited strictly to commercial aviation. Cruise ships, lodging places, eating establishments, and amusement parks have also on occasion sought to block our entry or otherwise to limit our Occurrences of this sort are admittedly less

participation.

common than the acts of discrimination which take place in commercial air travel. However, a comprehensive federal policy should address the entire spectrum of the travel industry, both

35-248 O - 84 - 7

transportation and public accommodations.

Mr. Chairman, our experience in utilizing the White Cane

Laws in the states which have them has been enormously successful and might well be instructive in charting a course of action at the federal level. Most significant of all is the fact that the White Cane Laws have served us well as a shield against discrimination, as a sort of preventative barrier. Seldom has it been necessary for us to resort to litigation under these statutes. We have found the travel industry to be capable of `responding positively when we could show that a law exists to protect us. But, in all too many instances which still occur today, we remain unable to make this showing. When we are left unprotected by a mandate from Congress or a state or local legislative body, the results which can be achieved by negotiation or attempts to persuade are far more doubtful and often not satisfactory.

When we talk of discrimination on the basis of blindness or handicap in the travel industry, I want to be clear with you about what we mean. In its essential terms, the word "discrimination" as used in connection with human rights and the repression of minorities or women means unreasonable and detrimental classification. It implies, of course, prejudice, denial of opportunity, unequal treatment, or treatment which is different from that accorded to others. To be discriminatory, the classification must be both unreasonable and detrimental.

The discriminations against blind or handicapped people are often not recognized as such. They cloak themselves in many