BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC
) Traveling By Air With Service Animals ) ) Docket OST-2018-0068 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ) )
JOINT COMMENTS OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA, THE REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION, AND THE NATIONAL AIR CARRIER ASSOCIATION
Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:
Graham C. Keithley Paul Doell Assistant General Counsel Vice President, Government Affairs and AIRLINES FOR AMERICA Security Policy 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW NATIONAL AIR CARRIER Suite 1300 ASSOCIATION Washington, DC 20004 1735 N. Lynn Street (202) 626-4000 Suite 105 [email protected] Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 358-8060 William L. Whyte [email protected] Vice President Aviation Operations & Technical Services REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION 1201 15th Street, NW Suite 430 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 367-1212 [email protected]
April 6, 2020
Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. The NPRM Correctly Aligns DOT’s Definition of “Service Animal” With DOJ’s. ... 3
A. DOT Should Exclude ESAs From Its “Service Animal” Definition...... 5
1. Use of In-Cabin Pet Containers Would Not Resolve the Unacceptable Problems Posed by Untrained ESAs ...... 8
B. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Recognize Trained PSAs as Service Animals...... 10
C. DOT Should Exclude Species Other Than Dogs From Its “Service Animal” Definition ...... 12
II. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal Requiring That Service Animals Fit Within the Handler’s Lap or Foot Space, But Should Limit the Number of Service Animals an Airline Must Accommodate In-Cabin to One Animal Per Passenger...... 15
A. DOT Should Limit the Number of Service Animals to One Per Handler...... 15
B. A Service Animal Must Fit Within the Handler’s Lap or Foot Space Onboard the Aircraft...... 16
III. DOT Should Only Require One Standard DOT Form for Service Animal Handlers to Validate a Service Animal’s Behavior, Training, and Health...... 18
A. DOT Should Consolidate the Service Animal Behavior Attestation Form and the Service Animal Health Form Into One Form, Not Require Completion by the Animal’s Veterinarian, and Require that the Service Animal Handler Travel with Proof of Rabies Vaccination...... 19
B. A Single, Consolidated Form from Individuals Traveling With a Service Animal Will Improve Airlines’ Services and Reduce the Burden on Passengers with Disabilities...... 24
C. DOT Should Give Carriers the Option to Accept Electronic Versions of its Paper Forms...... 25
D. DOT Should Allow Airlines the Option to Require Individuals Traveling With a Service Animal to Submit Documentation 48 Hours Prior to Travel...... 26
E. DOT Should Reconsider Its Service Animal Relief Attestation Form...... 27
Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068)
IV. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Require That Service Animals Be Under the Control of Their Handlers, Including By Harnessing, Leashing, or Tethering, at All Times...... 28
V. DOT Should Allow Airlines to Refuse to Transport a Service Animal Based on Valid Breed-Based or Other Risks in Order to Protect the Safety of Passengers, Crew, and Other Animals...... 30
VI. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Allow Airlines to Require Service Animal Handlers to Check-In at the Airport One Hour Before the Otherwise-Applicable Check-In Time...... 32
VII. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Align U.S. and Foreign Air Carriers’ Service Animal Obligations...... 33
VIII. Conclusion...... 34
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A Airline Trade Association Members and Representation
APPENDIX B A4A Passenger Carrier Data Concerning Service Animal Transport
APPENDIX C Consolidated DOT Form
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC
) Traveling By Air With Service Animals ) ) Docket OST-2018-0068 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ) )
JOINT COMMENTS OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA, THE REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION, AND THE NATIONAL AIR CARRIER ASSOCIATION
Airlines for America (“A4A”), the Regional Airline Association (“RAA”), and the
National Air Carrier Association (“NACA”) on behalf of their members,1 submits these
comments in strong support of the Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (“NPRM”),2 amending its regulations governing the transportation of service animals by air. We applaud DOT for a sound proposal that promotes the needs of qualified individuals with a disability to travel with a trained service animal. The NPRM addresses the extensive problems, including unacceptable risks to safety, posed by the current requirement that airlines accept untrained comfort or “emotional support” animals (“ESAs”) as service animals.
The leadership that DOT has demonstrated in this proposal will advance the rights of passengers
with disabilities, while ensuring the safety of all passengers and crewmembers. To address the
risks posed by untrained animals and ensure the safety of our passengers and crew, we urge DOT
to finalize the proposed rule as soon as possible.
1 Appendix A contains a list of our members and representation, covering all major airlines operating in the United States. 2 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 85 Fed. Reg. 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020) (“Traveling by Air With Service Animals”).
Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 2
Our members strongly support, and devote extensive resources to providing, air travel accommodations for qualified individuals with a disability who need to travel with a trained service animal, such as a seeing-eye dog or psychiatric service animal (“PSA”). If properly applied and enforced, DOT’s proposed rule changes will enhance airlines’ ability to deliver those important accommodations while honoring three legal imperatives:
(1) complying with the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”) to provide airline service to persons with a disability;
(2) protecting the safety of flight, including all passengers and crew onboard; and
(3) preventing service animal-related fraud and abuse, which has become so prevalent that it is jeopardizing the health and safety of passengers and crew and placing an unacceptable and unsustainable burden on airlines.
DOT’s proposal will facilitate a smooth and safer travel experience for qualified individuals with a disability who need to travel with a service animal. It also will align DOT’s service animal rules with those of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under the Americans With
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). DOJ’s rules have been in place since 1991 and apply (much more broadly than DOT’s rules) to places of public accommodation, including airports, other businesses in the travel industry (e.g., hotels), and all other modes of transportation.
We urge DOT to finalize the proposed rule as soon as possible so that these reforms are implemented without delay.3 In these comments, we explain the many reasons why DOT’s
specific proposed rule changes are so compelling. In addition, we address ways in which some of
3 Because DOT already issued, and received extensive comments on, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and enforcement guidance in this docket, DOT, upon receipt of comments on the NPRM, will have developed a very extensive record as a basis for finalizing its proposed rule changes. Interested parties have been afforded multiple opportunities over an extended period in which to provide information and their views on all the issues in this rulemaking. Traveling By Air With Service Animals, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 Fed. Reg. 23832 (May 23, 2018); see also Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, Interim Statement of Enforcement Priorities, 83 Fed. Reg. 23804 (May 23, 2018); Guidance on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding Service Animals, 84 Fed. Reg. 43480 (Aug. 21, 2019). Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 3
these proposals could be modified to enhance the NPRM’s many benefits and enable airlines to better serve, and ensure the health and safety of, qualified individuals with a disability, the traveling public, and airline crewmembers and employees.
I. The NPRM Correctly Aligns DOT’s Definition of “Service Animal” With DOJ’s.
We support DOT’s proposal to define a service animal as “a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability,” thereby excluding “emotional support animals, comfort animals, companionship animals, and service animals in training that are not service animals for the purposes of this Part [382].”4
DOT’s approach will “align DOT’s ACAA definition of a service animal with the service animal definition established by the [DOJ] in its rules implementing the [ADA] and thereby decrease confusion for individuals with a disability, airline personnel, and airports.”5
DOJ established the authoritative standard for the legally required scope of
accommodations for individuals with a disability in the United States. With the exception of
aircraft, DOJ’s rules cover all places of public accommodation, including hotels, restaurants,
stores, buses, trains, and airports. Under DOT’s current rules, however, airlines are required to
accommodate, in the close confines of an aircraft cabin, a wide range of species of untrained and
uncontrolled animals that DOJ’s rules exclude from places of public accommodation, including
4 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6454, 6474 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.3). Assistance Dogs International North America (“ADI-NA”) supports DOT’s proposal to align the definition of “service animal” with that of DOJ, noting that “[t]he [a]ssistance [d]og industry puts tremendous time and effort into maintaining high standards of training and behavior for its service dogs . . . . ESAs, conversely, are not required to have any training, either in working or performing tasks, nor public behavior.” Comments of ADI-NA, Mar. 26, 2020 (DOT-OST-2018-0068), at 2 (“Comments of ADI-NA”). Guide Dogs for the Blind also supports this definitional alignment. See Comments of Guide Dogs for the Blind, Mar. 25, 2020 (DOT-OST-2018-0068), at 1 (“Comments of Guide Dogs for the Blind”). 5 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6458. Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, DOJ defines a “service animal” as “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.” Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 4
the airports through which passengers must transit to access air travel. The NPRM would remedy
this anomaly, aligning DOT’s rules with those of DOJ by only requiring airlines to accept the
same types of service animals onboard aircraft that U.S. airports are required to accommodate
before or after a flight.
DOT’s proposed definition, if properly applied and enforced, will curb the pervasive
abuse that currently exists whereby individuals who do not have a disability falsely claim that
their animals (usually pets) of a wide variety of species—including turkeys, peacocks, and
rabbits—are ESAs. Airlines have experienced an enormous increase in the number of passengers
traveling with animals that they falsely claim to be ESAs, which has outpaced the rate of
increase in the number of passengers traveling with pets or legitimate service animals.
For example, A4A member airlines experienced a modest 2.8% increase in the number of
passengers traveling with trained service animals (other than ESAs) from 2018 to 2019. The number of passengers traveling with pets, meanwhile, increased by 5.97% during the same time
period. The number of passengers traveling with ESAs, by contrast, increased by more than
10.7% in the course of that one-year period (2018-2019).6 In fact, one A4A member saw a
27.9% year-over-year increase of passengers traveling with ESAs, while the carrier’s increase in
total passengers was just 6.1% over the same period.7 Many of these passengers are not
“qualified individuals with a disability,”8 nor are their animals trained to perform work or tasks for the benefit of any such individual. Instead, these passengers seek to transport untrained pets
6 The number of passengers traveling with ESAs jumped from 1.02 million in 2018 to 1.13 million in 2019, which is almost double the increase in the number of passengers traveling with pets. 7 See Appendix B for additional data regarding A4A passenger carrier service animal transport. 8 See 14 C.F.R. § 382.3 (defining “individual with a disability” for purposes of qualifying a passenger for accommodation under the ACAA and DOT’s disability accommodation regulations). Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 5
or other animals under the guise of an ESA (typically by relying on false or fraudulent credentials) so that their animal can accompany them in-cabin free of charge.9
As explained in Section I.A below, the NPRM would establish a clear and well-justified
distinction between legitimate service animals that are trained to do work or perform tasks for
the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability and a pet or other animal that has no such
training and whose handler,10 in the vast majority of such cases, is not a qualified individual with
a disability.11
A. DOT Should Exclude ESAs From Its “Service Animal” Definition.
Under DOT’s proposal, because ESAs are not trained to do work or perform tasks, they
will “not be recognized as service animals.”12 We strongly support DOT’s proposal to exclude
ESAs from the definition of “service animal.” Like most pets, ESAs have no such formal (or
9 The increase in the number of untrained ESAs traveling by air has also negatively impacted other passengers. U.S. airlines experienced an increase in the number of customer complaints related to ESAs from 2018 to 2019, with one A4A member experiencing a 26% increase that resulted in payment of more than $63,000 in compensation to customers. The same carrier experienced 115 employee complaints per month during the same time period regarding disruptive behavior by ESAs. ESAs have also disrupted the travel of other passengers. In one instance, an ESA soiled the forward cabin wall and carpet of an aircraft, which required an A4A carrier to remove the aircraft from service on two flights to undergo 13 hours of cleaning and carpet replacement at a total disruption cost of approximately $38,000. 10 “Service animal handler” is a defined term in the NPRM. Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6462-63, 6474 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.3). We support DOT’s proposed definition of “service animal handler” as “a qualified individual with a disability who receives assistance from a service animal(s) that does work or performs tasks that are directly related to the individual’s disability, or a safety assistant, as described in section 382.29(b), who accompanies an individual with a disability traveling with a service animal(s).” Id. at 6462-63, 6474 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.3). 11 Not all disorders and conditions, including many of those described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”), constitute “disabilities” under the ADA or ACAA. DOT defines “individual with a disability” as “any individual who has a physical or mental impairment that, on a permanent or temporary basis, substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.” 14 C.F.R. § 382.3. Many passengers who seek to travel in cabin with an animal on the basis that it is a service animal (usually an ESA) do not have a “disability” or “impairment” that “substantially limits one or more major life activities.” See Comments of A4A, July 9, 2018 (DOT-OST-2018-0068), at 33-38 (discussing the distinction between a disability – which is cognizable under ADA/ACAA – as opposed to disorders and conditions described in the DSM, which are not. For example, fear of flying is not a “disability” under the ADA or ACAA.). 12 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6458. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 6
any) training and the claimed benefit of comfort or emotional support to a passenger by their mere presence is neither “work” nor a “task.”
DOJ has long followed the same approach and excluded ESAs from its definition of
“service animal” under the ADA, noting that “the provision of emotional support, well-being,
comfort, or companionship do[es] not constitute work or tasks . . . .”13 DOJ stipulates that to be
classified as a service animal, the animal must perform work or tasks “directly related to the
individual’s disability,” which can include “assisting individuals who are blind or have low
vision with navigation and other tasks [or] alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to
the presence of people or sounds . . . ,” among other tasks.14
In the vast majority of cases, ESAs are not trained to behave appropriately in places of
public accommodation, such as an airport terminal or onboard an aircraft. It is particularly appropriate to exclude ESAs from DOT’s definition of “service animal” because an aircraft
cabin poses daunting challenges for animals that are not trained to behave in such a disorienting
and unfamiliar environment.15 Simply put, aircraft have never been, are not, and cannot
reasonably be designed to safely carry untrained animals in cabin when uncontained.16 Aircraft
in flight are in a state of constant movement, are noisy, and place passengers, crew, and animals
in close proximity to one another. For safety reasons, which are of paramount importance, it is
essential that all passengers and any animals that accompany them in-cabin comply with specific
13 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. 14 Id. 15 According to Guide Dogs for the Blind, “[e]motional support animals are in reality pets and should be defined and considered as such under the ACAA.” Comments of Guide Dogs for the Blind, at 1. ADI-NA agrees that “public environments, specifically stressful ones, such as air travel, prove overwhelming to ESAs resulting in disruptive behavior that can include aggression to people or other animals and damage to property.” Comments of ADI-NA, at 2-3. 16 As explained in section I.A.1 below, transportation of a service animal in a container is not a feasible option. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 7
Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) rules regarding their location and their ability to move about in the cabin. For example, an aircraft cannot push back from the gate until everyone is seated; passengers may not use the lavatory unless the seatbelt sign is off; and cabin crew must be seated during takeoff and landing. Service animals that have been trained to perform specific work or tasks for an individual with a disability are better suited for air travel because they remain under their handler’s control and have been trained to behave appropriately.
ESAs, by contrast, as demonstrated by countless incidents onboard aircraft and in airports, are substantially more likely to misbehave17 during a flight due to the stressful and challenging aircraft environment. Such ESA misbehavior poses a substantial risk to flight safety.
It is very difficult or impossible for airline crew—who are not trained to identify or distinguish legitimate service animals from ESAs or handle an animal in the event of an incident—to isolate an aggressive, agitated animal. ESAs repeatedly interrupt cabin service and threaten flight safety
when crew are forced to deviate from their primary duties to address these animals’ disruptive
behavior, including aggressive conduct, barking, defecation and urination, interference with
other passengers, and intrusion into the aisle or other passengers’ seat or foot space. ESAs have
physically harmed crew, other passengers, and legitimate service animals18 during uncontrolled
interactions that involved attacking, biting, jumping, or scratching.19 Because a crewmember’s
17 ADI-NA agrees that ESAs are more likely than trained service animals to misbehave because of their lack of training, noting that “training overall sets up a system of expectations and structure for an animal. The relationship becomes that of the human being the leader and the dog seeking the leader’s approval, demonstrated in rewards, such as treats, praise, tactile (petting) and other ‘payoff’s’. An ESA, by definition, benefits its partner by its mere existence. This can include many variations in the human-animal relationship. While its partner may derive benefit from the ESAs companionship, this is inadequate to succeed in air travel.” Comments of ADI-NA, at 3. 18 Guide Dogs for the Blind notes that “[t]he alarming increase of fraudulent use of ESAs for public access has confused the public and caused legitimate service animal handlers undue hardship.” Comments of Guide Dogs for the Blind, at 1. 19 See “American Airlines flight attendant bitten by emotional support dog, requires five stitches,” USA Today, July 23, 2019, available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2019/07/23/american-flight-attendant- bitten-emotional-support-dog-dallas-north-carolina-stitches/1808632001/. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 8
primary duty is to ensure the safety of all passengers, any animal-related attacks or injury to a crewmember threatens the safety of all passengers for the remainder of the flight. Consequently,
DOT’s proposed treatment of ESAs as pets is appropriate because ESAs, like pets, are not trained to perform work or tasks to mitigate a passenger’s disability.20 Airlines may transport
these animals as pets pursuant to their pet policies (e.g., in-cabin in a container or in the cargo hold) when doing so will not undermine flight safety or pose a risk to the health and safety of other passengers, legitimate service animals, and crew.21
1. Use of In-Cabin Pet Containers Would Not Resolve the Unacceptable Problems Posed by Untrained ESAs.
DOT requests comment on whether airlines should be allowed to require that ESAs be transported in an FAA-approved animal container or carrier in the airport or on the aircraft if
DOT adopts a final rule that continues to recognize ESAs.22 First, as explained in Section I.A,
untrained ESAs are not service animals under the ADA and should be treated as pets. Thus, there
is no basis for requiring airlines to accommodate ESAs as service animals, regardless of whether
an ESA is placed in a container.
Second, DOT should reject the requirement to accommodate ESAs in a container because
such an approach would not resolve the fraud and safety problems posed by untrained ESAs.
Airlines cannot distinguish between pets and ESAs, and experience has shown that passengers
20 ADI-NA agrees that ESAs should be excluded from the definition of “service animal” because “ESAs’ lack of training is what makes them problematic in air travel. Therefore, we feel they should be treated as pets.” Comments of ADI-NA, at 3. 21 If ESAs are treated as pets, airlines would apply their individual pet policies to any request to transport appropriately contained emotional support dogs, cats or some other small animals as pets in-cabin for a fee. Such policies may limit the species and the number of pets airlines may accept per flight, which in some cases may be route-specific due to state agriculture or other laws. 22 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 85 Fed. Reg. 6448, 6459 (Feb. 5, 2020). Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 9
falsely claim to have a disability to transport their pet as an ESA for the purpose of avoiding an airline’s pet policy.
Also, their transport becomes problematic when their owners remove them from their containers, which poses safety issues, or the animal engages in other disruptive behavior (e.g., urinating, defecating, or persistent, uncontrollable and disruptive barking), which disturbs other passengers and may jeopardize safety, including by making it difficult for passengers to hear in- cabin announcements and other safety-critical information from crewmembers.23 Airlines can only mitigate these issues through strict application of their pet transportation policies, which include a limitation on the number allowed per flight to mitigate potential concerns.
By excluding ESAs from its definition of “service animal,” DOT will appropriately
enable qualified individuals with a disability to be accompanied by animals that are trained to do
work or perform tasks to assist them. If properly enforced, the rule also will curb abuse of DOT’s
disability accommodation regulations by those who would fraudulently claim a disability and
need to travel with their animal in-cabin. Such abuse poses a risk of flight disruptions that can
jeopardize safety.24
23 By contrast, trained service animals are well behaved and therefore do not need to be transported in a container. In addition, if an animal was actually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability, the animal likely could not do so while in a container. Therefore, a rule that would enable persons traveling with an untrained ESA to bring the animal in the cabin in a container would undermine safety while not serving any disability accommodation purpose. 24 There is no form of ESA documentation that would prevent ESA-related fraud and the harm caused by such behavior. Documentation from a licensed mental health professional does not ensure that an animal is suitable for travel in an aircraft cabin. Airlines’ experience has demonstrated that self-certification provides little-to-no meaningful check against individuals who are willing to engage in fraud and misrepresentation. See Section III.A (discussing how DOT’s proposed form of behavior attestation could be modified to provide more robust assurance that service dogs are trained and will behave appropriately). Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 10
B. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Recognize Trained PSAs as Service Animals.
We support DOT’s proposal to recognize PSAs as service animals because they are
trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.25 As DOT noted, this
approach would “harmonize DOT’s ACAA service animal definition with DOJ’s ADA service
animal definition.”26
However, airlines have serious concerns that, upon finalization of DOT’s proposed rule
(and its exclusion of ESAs from the definition of “service animal”), the extensive fraud that
airlines have experienced involving individuals who do not have a disability but falsely claim
that their pet or other animal is a service animal will migrate to another service animal category
(e.g., PSA or seizure-alert animal). DOT acknowledged concerns about “passengers who falsely
claim to have a mental health condition that may require the use of a service animal” and
“unscrupulous passengers [who] may also falsely claim to have other hidden disabilities such as seizure disorder or diabetes to pass off their pets as service animals and avoid paying airline pet fees.”27
We suggest that DOT address this problem with a limited modification to one of its
existing rule proposals. As discussed in Section III, DOT would allow airlines to require that
individuals traveling with a service animal provide documentation attesting to the service animal’s behavior, training, health, and relief abilities. The need for such documentation is
sufficiently important that DOT should allow airlines the option to require passengers to provide forms at least 48 hours before travel. Airlines anticipate that the fraud will migrate to the PSA
25 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6460, 6474 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.3). 26 Id. at 6460. 27 Id. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 11
category, but by allowing the airlines to require that passengers provide the forms at least 48 hours in advance, airlines will be better able to validate that a passenger’s dog is trained to do work or perform a task and will behave appropriately during air travel.
DOT has already proposed another measure that may assist in detecting and, ultimately,
preventing fraud and abuse. The NPRM states that DOT will monitor the experience of airlines
in accommodating PSAs following the issuance of a final rule so that DOT may consider
whether additional requirements are needed, such as measures to combat an increase in passengers falsely representing that their pets or other animals are PSAs.28 We appreciate DOT’s
commitment to an ongoing review and ask that DOT address specifically how it will conduct this
review and that DOT include airlines in the review process. Such a review will enable airlines
and DOT to determine if the number of passengers seeking accommodation for service animals
such as PSAs increases dramatically, including whether those who previously claimed that their
animals were ESAs assert that these animals are PSAs. To assist DOT with this review, airlines
are prepared to collect data during the first year following the effective date of DOT’s final rule
on the number of service animals that are accommodated.29 If, at the conclusion of the review
period, evidence shows that the problems associated with fraudulent ESAs have migrated to the
service animal category, DOT should be prepared to take immediate steps to curb such continuing abuse.30
28 Id. 29 Some airlines are also willing to track the number of incidents in which a passenger may falsely claim their pet or other animal is service animal. Further, if DOT allows airlines the option to require passengers to provide forms at least 48 hours before travel, airlines could retain copies of submitted forms and better assess service animal volume and training data, which may not be possible if forms are presented only at the airport. 30 As noted in Section III.A, for the safety of passengers and crew, we propose that DOT allow airlines to require that the passenger certify that an accredited training organization trained the service animal or evaluated the service animal to validate its training. If, however, DOT does not provide for such certification in the final rule, then we request that DOT commit to reconsider that decision if evidence emerges during the post-final rule review period that ESA fraud is indeed continuing in a modified form. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 12
C. DOT Should Exclude Species Other Than Dogs From Its “Service Animal” Definition.
We applaud DOT’s proposal to adopt a definition of “service animal” that excludes
species other than dogs.31 This is consistent with DOJ’s definition,32 and recognizes that the vast
majority of trained service animals are dogs. As DOT noted, “[d]ogs…have both the
temperament and ability to do work and perform tasks while behaving appropriately in a public
setting and while being surrounded by a large group of people.”33 Under DOT’s current rules,
passengers have attempted to travel in-cabin with animals of a wide variety of species— including wild animals—based on claims that these are emotional support animals.34 Airlines
have seen passengers attempt to travel with pigs, kangaroos, crabs, rabbits, peacocks, and other
birds in-cabin as service animals.35 The current rules fail to recognize that cats and wild animals
have neither the “temperament” nor “ability” to be trained to do work or perform tasks to assist
an individual with a disability or to behave appropriately in an aircraft cabin. Moreover, certain
animals may pose health risks to other passengers and crew, including allergies and the spread of
communicable diseases. The NPRM would correct this dangerously flawed approach, which has
31 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6454, 6474 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.3). ADI- NA also supports DOT’s proposal that service animals should be limited to dogs. Comments of ADI-NA, at 2. 32 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (“Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability…”) (emphasis added). 33 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6454. 34 See “Emotional support peacock denied flight by United Airlines,” NBC News, Jan. 30, 2018, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airplane-mode/emotional-support-peacock-denied-flight-united-airlines- n842971. Such incidents occur because DOT’s current rules identify a far-too-limited number of wild and/or untrainable species that airlines are never required to accept for transportation in-cabin, including “snakes, reptiles, ferrets, rodents, sugar gliders, and spiders.” 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(f). For all other species, airlines have been required to make an individualized, case-by-case assessment whether to transport the animal in-cabin, but were prohibited from categorically excluding other species. 35 See Comments of American Airlines, Inc., June 7, 2018 (DOT-OST-2018-0067-0079) at 6. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 13
undermined the safety of flight, other passengers, crew, and legitimate service animals, in some cases resulting in devastating, life-altering injuries.36
We also support DOT’s proposal to exclude miniature horses from the definition of
“service animal.”37 DOJ’s definition recognizes that, in some places of public accommodation,
miniature horses may function as “service animals” in limited circumstances and only where
they do not pose a safety risk.38 Those limited circumstances do not apply to air travel. While
miniature horses may be trained to perform tasks or do work on behalf of an individual with a
disability, their size, weight, and inability to curl up in a passenger’s allotted foot space pose a
substantial risk to flight safety, including the safety of passengers and crew.39 The presence of
miniature horses in an aircraft cabin would pose a serious risk of injury to passengers and crew
during moderate to severe turbulence or an emergency situation due to these animals’ weight and
size. In addition, in some cases miniature horses are unable to be trained to control their
elimination functions, which presents a health concern for passengers and crew onboard aircraft.
All of these concerns warrant the exclusion of miniature horses from DOT’s definition of
“service animal.”
36 See “Delta passenger bitten by emotional support dog couldn’t escape, says attorney,” Atlanta Journal Constitution, June 8, 2017, available at https://www.ajc.com/travel/delta-passenger-bitten-emotional-support-dog- couldn-escape-says-attorney/nYtlgO1rGbVMv68XekCWUL/. 37 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6454. 38 DOJ’s ADA regulations provide for accommodation of miniature horses by state and local government facilities, but only in limited circumstances. Those regulations require that such facilities, “in determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility …consider…[w]hether the miniature horse’s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.136(i)(2). As explained above in text, however, the presence of miniature horses in an aircraft cabin would “compromise[] legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation” of flights, and therefore DOT prudently decided to exclude miniature horses from its “service animal” definition. 39 See Section II.B for additional discussion of animal size limitations. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 14
We also support DOT’s proposal to exclude capuchin monkeys from the definition of
“service animal” because of the risk of disease transmission and these animals’ known risk of aggressive and anti-social behavior, urination, defecation, and the related risks of interference
with flight safety.40 As DOT noted, capuchin monkeys “may present a safety risk to other
passengers as they have the potential to transmit diseases and may exhibit ‘unpredictable
aggressive behavior.’”41 Additionally, in most cases, when capuchin monkeys travel by air, they are accompanied by a qualified trainer as opposed to an individual with a disability, usually for purposes of transporting the animal for delivery to an individual with a disability for the first time.42 Further, individuals acquiring a capuchin monkey as a service animal are unlikely to need to travel with them by air because they may be prohibited from taking the monkey outside the home under their contract with the training organization due to the risk that these animals will manifest aggressive or anti-social behavior. Moreover, DOJ’s regulations do not recognize capuchin monkeys as service animals and airports are not required to accommodate them as such.43 Consequently, we support DOT’s proposal to exclude capuchin monkeys from its
definition of “service animal.”
40 ADI-NA similarly supports a prohibition on the transport of closed-colony capuchin monkeys in carriers with a qualified trainer. Comments of ADI-NA, at 2. 41 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6454, quoting Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 75 Fed Reg. 56164, 56194 (Sept. 5, 2010) (DOJ recognized the risks associated with the use of nonhuman primates as service animals). Such risks are magnified in the confines of an aircraft cabin. 42 We recognize that capuchin monkey trainers need to transport such monkeys for purposes of delivering them to the individuals with a disability that they will serve. Some A4A member carriers accept capuchin monkeys in-cabin (in containers) when accompanied by a qualified handler, where the handler is familiar with the appropriate procedures to enable the safe transport of these monkeys without incident. 43 See 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A (defining “service animal”). Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 15
II. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal Requiring That Service Animals Fit Within the Handler’s Lap or Foot Space, But Should Limit the Number of Service Animals an Airline Must Accommodate In-Cabin to One Animal Per Passenger.
We support DOT’s proposal to limit the number of service animals per handler and the size of service animals that airlines must accommodate.44 We urge DOT to also limit the number
of service animals to one per handler and specifically require that the animal fit within the
handler’s own45 lap or foot space in order to be accommodated in cabin. Such requirements are
critical to ensuring the safety of flight because even a trained service animal can present safety
concerns when there is more than one animal with a handler or if the animal’s size exceeds the
limited space available onboard the aircraft.
A. DOT Should Limit the Number of Service Animals to One Per Handler.
DOT proposes to allow a qualified individual with a disability to bring up to two service
animals in-cabin on the condition that the animals will fit within the handler’s lap or foot space
on the aircraft.46 We urge DOT to limit the number of in-cabin service animals to one per
44 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6461-62 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.73, 382.77). To be clear, we are not proposing that DOT limit the total number of service animals on a given flight, but rather only the number of service animals per handler. 45 DOT notes in the NPRM that its “guidance on the issue of a service animal’s encroaching on the foot space of a passenger is not clear. . . . DOT has also stated that a service animal may need to use a reasonable portion of an adjacent seat’s foot space that does not deny another passenger effective use of the space for his or her feet by taking all or most of the passenger’s foot space.” Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6460, n.83 (citing Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 27614, 27634 (May 13, 2008). We urge DOT to clarify in the final rule that the animal must fit solely within the handler’s own lap or foot space. 46 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6461-62 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. §§ 382.73, 382.77). DOT states that airlines would be permitted to require that passengers seeking to travel with two service animals “complete two separate attestation forms, one for each animal, to verify that each qualified for appropriate accommodation as a service animal to accompany the passenger on the flight.” Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6462. While we welcome DOT’s proposal to allow airlines to obtain such documentation, the attestation form would not address the control and safety concerns identified in this section. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 16
qualified individual with a disability for safety reasons.47 Generally, it is not possible to accommodate multiple animals safely within a single passenger’s lap or foot space.48 Inevitably,
passengers traveling with multiple animals cause situations where the animals encroach into the
seat or foot space of other passengers or the aircraft aisle, obstructing flight attendant duties. This
raises serious safety problems, including the risk of flight disruption.
In addition, because it may be difficult for an individual to control two animals at the
same time (even if the animals are tethered),49 the transport of more than one animal per handler
poses a risk of harm to passengers, particularly if either or both animals behave in an erratic or
dangerous manner. The transport of more than one service animal per handler also could impede safe and orderly flight operations.
B. A Service Animal Must Fit Within the Handler’s Lap or Foot Space Onboard the Aircraft.
We support DOT’s proposal to allow airlines to place reasonable limits on the size of dog
that an airline must accept for transportation in-cabin as a service animal. DOT would require
that service animals (1) fit within the handler’s foot space on a particular aircraft or (2) be no
larger than a lap-held child that can be safely placed on the passenger’s lap.50 We strongly
47 ADI-NA also urges DOT to limit the number of service animals per handler to one, noting that it “surveyed its member organizations asking if any of them trained more than one [s]ervice [d]og for a client. All of the organizations responded that they only train a single service dog at a time for a client. If a client has multiple disabilities, ADI, NA organizations train the single dog to perform tasks to mitigate the client’s full range of disabilities, when possible. When it is not possible, they discuss with the client which behaviors the dog can perform successfully and continue with training the single service dog to perform those tasks.” Comments of ADI-NA, at 5. 48 DOT’s current rules do not require an airline to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one purchased by the passenger to accommodate a passenger traveling with a service animal. 14 C.F.R. § 382.7(f). DOT should retain this rule. 49 Under the ADA, service animals must be under the control of the handler at all times. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section, Frequently Asked Questions About Service Animals and the ADA, Question 27, July 25, 2015, available at https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html. ADI-NA agrees that “even an experience[d] trainer would have trouble safely managing two service dogs at a time in any public environment, especially those encountered in air travel.” Comments of ADI-NA, at 6. 50 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6461. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 17
support DOT’s related proposal to allow airlines to refuse transportation to service animals that are too large to meet these requirements. These size restrictions would not prevent travel in-cabin with breeds of dogs that are commonly deployed as trained service animals because those animals can fit, and have been trained to remain, within such confined spaces.51
Absent robust animal size restrictions, crewmembers (under DOT’s current rules) are
forced to grapple with challenges that may undermine the safety of flight for other passengers
and crew. These include relocating passengers onboard the aircraft prior to departure to
accommodate a large animal (such accommodation may not be possible due to a full flight) and
asking other passengers to surrender or share their foot space. While other passengers may
cooperate, many feel pressured to comply with a request to switch seats or forfeit their own
space when asked to do so in front of other passengers, and may later regret their acquiescence
once the flight is airborne. Others who find themselves seated in uncomfortably close proximity
to a large animal may feel nervous or threatened, particularly if they have a fear of, or an allergy
to, dogs.
DOT seeks comment on several proposals whereby airlines would be required to make
prescribed, specific accommodations if a service animal is too large to fit within the passenger’s
lap or foot space.52 Airlines should be required only to make reasonable accommodation efforts in a manner consistent with the safety of passengers, crew, the animal, and the capacity
constraints of a particular flight. A performance-based standard would allow airlines to devise
the best, operationally feasible alternative, including but not limited to seating the passenger
traveling with a service animal next to an empty seat within the same class of service, if such a
51 Id. 52 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6461. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 18
seat is available; providing the passenger with the option to transport the animal in the cargo hold if possible;53 or offering to transport the passenger on a later flight with more room if available.
DOT, however, should not impose specific accommodation requirements for service animals that are too large to safely travel in-cabin. By implementing a performance-based standard, airlines may determine how to best accommodate their customers within the constraints of a particular aircraft and consistent with their animal transport policies.
III. DOT Should Only Require One Standard DOT Form for Service Animal Handlers to Validate a Service Animal’s Behavior, Training, and Health.
Under DOT’s proposal, as a condition of travel, airlines may require that a passenger
with a service animal provide three DOT-approved forms attesting to the service animal’s (1)
behavior and training, (2) veterinary health, and (3) relief abilities on flight segments lasting
eight hours or more.54 DOT also requests comment on the content and layout of its proposed
forms.55
We have engaged in an extensive and productive dialogue with organizations
representing the service animal community to discuss the costs and benefits of these forms.
Based upon these discussions, we recognize the need to streamline the service animal validation
53 Airlines have different policies with respect to the transport of animals in the cargo hold: some allow transport year-round, while others have restrictions due to external temperatures at airports they serve or other factors. Certain aircraft do not allow for transport of pets in the cargo hold. In other cases, there may not be last-minute cargo space available on short notice and may require rebooking of the service animal and handler. Some smaller aircraft (e.g., regional jets) inevitably offer more limited foot space in-cabin per passenger. If a qualified individual with a disability has a service dog that is too large to fit in the aircraft cabin in compliance with DOT’s proposed rules, the airline should be permitted (but not required) to offer to transport the animal in the cargo hold if the airline offers such service. 54 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6464, 6475 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.75). These forms would be the only documentation that an airline could require from a passenger traveling with a service animal. Id. at 6464. 55 Id. at 6465, 6467, 6469. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 19
and documentation process while preserving airlines’ ability to limit fraud and ensure safety. As a result, we recommend that DOT:
• combine the behavior and training attestation and the health forms into a single standard attestation by the service animal handler, subject to certain qualifications; and
• forego its proposal to require a relief attestation form.
This proposal strikes an appropriate balance that provides airlines with sufficient information to protect the health of passengers and crewmembers and prevent fraud, while substantially reducing the burden on service animal handlers. We strongly urge DOT to accept this proposal.56
A. DOT Should Consolidate the Service Animal Behavior Attestation Form and the Service Animal Health Form Into One Form, Not Require Completion by the Animal’s Veterinarian, and Require that the Service Animal Handler Travel with Proof of Rabies Vaccination.
Service animals travel in close proximity to passengers and crew in cabin. For the sake of
the health of passengers and crew and the safety of a flight, and particularly in the event of an
incident involving the animal, airlines require evidence that the animal has been properly trained
and vaccinated and does not pose a health hazard to the crew, passengers, and other animals,
including service animals. To accomplish this, we recommend that DOT utilize a single form
that combines elements of DOT’s proposed animal behavior and training attestation form57 and
the service animal health form.58 Our proposed consolidated form is included in Appendix C
(“Consolidated DOT Form”).
56 If DOT elects to retain the three forms, we strongly suggest that our recommendations regarding the content of those forms be incorporated in the final rule, for the reasons explained below. 57 Id. at 6465, 6475 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.75). 58 Id. at 6467, 6475 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.75). Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 20
The Consolidated DOT Form uses DOT’s Service Animal Behavior and Training
Attestation Form as the template form but proposes the following changes (from the top of the form downward):
1. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 notice is moved to the bottom so that the top heading is the important warning that it is a federal crime to submit the form with knowingly false or fraudulent information. This will highlight the serious nature of the representations made when completing the form and hopefully dissuade persons from fraudulently attesting that their pet is a service animal.
2. The form is renamed the “United States Department of Transportation Service Animal
Air Transportation Form,” reflecting that this would be the only DOT-mandated (and permitted) form for service animal air transportation.
3. The animal identification information from the health form is added, with the
following modifications: (i) the service animal’s weight is added, and (ii) the age of the service
animal is provided by listing the animal’s date of birth (month and year). Weight is included to alert an airline that the service animal may be large and crewmembers may have to confirm that the service animal is able to fit in the service animal handler’s foot space. Age is expressed by date of birth to better determine the age of the animal.
4. The service animal handler certifies that an accredited organization trained the service animal or evaluated the service animal to validate the service animal’s training.59 The service
animal handler provides the name of the accredited organization and phone number.
59 We are aware of at least one leading, reputable canine training organization that is prepared to conduct such certifications and assessments of self-trained service animals. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 21
DOT’s form should require that passengers specify the name of the accredited organization and be able to present evidence of training or evaluation by such an organization.60
Without this requirement, airlines would have no reliable assurance that the animal is trained or
will behave appropriately once onboard the aircraft. This limited change to the form will
substantially reduce the risk of fraud and abuse, while minimizing the burden on qualified
individuals with a disability to provide a reliable form of attestation. Additionally, owners of
service animals that are trained by accredited organizations receive certification of training
documentation with their service animal. Evidence of receipt of such documentation (or that an
accredited organization has validated the animals’ training and behavior) would satisfy the
requirements of the amended form we are proposing. This will also facilitate airlines acceptance of service animals, which are known to be trained by or evaluated by accredited organizations. If
the accredited organization is unfamiliar to the airline, the service animal handler is unable to
provide documentation of training or evaluation, or if certain behavior calls into question the
service animal’s training, the name and phone number of the accredited organization will help
airlines to validate the service animal’s training or evaluation.
5. As discussed in Section IV, the service animal handler certifies that he or she
understands that the service animal must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered at all times.
6. DOT proposed that the service animal handler certify that “I understand that if my service animal engages in disruptive behavior that shows that it has not been successfully trained to behave properly in a public setting, the airline may treat the animal as a pet in accordance with
60 Airlines’ experience with ESAs has demonstrated that self-certification of an animal’s training and behavior by its handler is not an effective way of preventing abuse and the consequential risk to flight safety. Therefore, in order for DOT’s form to serve its intended purpose, passengers traveling with a service animal must be required to provide airlines with evidence that an accredited training or evaluating entity has certified the animal’s training and behavior. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 22
the airline’s pet transportation policies or deny boarding.” This statement is amended to include a
certification that the service animal handler understands that carriage as a pet is subject to the
airline’s pet transportation policy and that disruptive behavior may result in denied boarding.
7. The handler certifies that the service animal is vaccinated for rabies and provides (i)
the rabies vaccination expiration date; (ii) the veterinarian’s name; (iii) the veterinarian’s phone
number; (iv) the veterinarian’s license number; and (v) the state where the veterinarian is
licensed.61 The form also notes that a service animal handler should have proof of vaccination
on-hand while traveling. This form of certification would relieve the service animal handler from
having to obtain a veterinarian-signed form before travel. The information would be sufficient
for the airline to quickly validate the rabies vaccination in the event of an incident. The proof of
rabies vaccination should include the name and address of owner; date of rabies vaccination; date
the vaccine expires; and name, license number, address, and signature of veterinarian who
administered the vaccination.62
8. The form includes important reminders to the service animal handler, including the validity period for the form, that other forms may be required to enter certain jurisdictions,63 and
that the form is subject to the privacy policies of the airlines.
61 In the alternative, DOT should finalize the Health Form. We support DOT’s proposal that the form be deemed valid for one year from the date of issuance, but no longer than the date of expiration of the animal’s rabies vaccine. 62 See CDC, What is a Valid Rabies Vaccination Certificate? (Oct. 8, 2019) available at https://www.cdc.gov/importation/bringing-an-animal-into-the-united-states/vaccine-certificate.html. 63 For example, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) requires that animals entering Hawaii have a valid health certificate (CVI) that is dated with 14 days of arrival (or 30 days if pre-registered under the HDOA service dog program). HDOA has indicated that they will not accept a DOT health form with a validity date of one year in lieu of the CVI. As a result, there could be passenger confusion when traveling to Hawaii regarding applicable government forms and requirements. As proposed, passengers flying to Hawaii would need to bring both DOT’s health form (dated within a year) and a health certificate (dated within 14/30 days). To account for this limited circumstance, we propose that DOT amend the health form to include a disclaimer that “certain states or countries may require an additional health certificate or other documentation.” Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 23
We propose that the form be deemed valid until (the sooner of) the date of the expiration of the rabies vaccination or three years from the date of certification. This will reduce the burden on passengers to repeatedly complete the form for multiple trips and give the airlines flexibility to develop systems to retain the form, access the form for subsequent flights, and avoid repeatedly requesting the form from the individual.64
DOT requests comment on whether there are privacy concerns associated with the use of standardized documentation.65 To the extent that any information provided on DOT’s proposed forms could raise personal privacy issues, DOT should address this issue in its final rule by making clear that:
1) passengers traveling with a service animal are required to provide all of the information contained on the forms;
2) such passengers, by submitting these forms, consent to the airlines’ use of the forms, and all information contained therein, for purposes of validating the passenger’s claim to travel with a service animal; and
3) airlines, consistent with their privacy policies, may retain the forms as necessary, including for purposes of facilitating the passengers’ future travel with the same animal.66
We propose that DOT include the following statement on the Consolidated DOT Form:
“By submitting this form, you agree to the airline’s use of the information provided on this form,
consistent with the airline’s privacy policy, in connection with your travel.”
64 DOT should acknowledge, however, that if the form is submitted at the airport, the airlines cannot readily retain the form for future use. 65 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6465. 66 DOT regulates privacy issues with respect to air carriers and ticket agents. See Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 85 Fed. Reg. 11881, 11884 (Feb. 28, 2020) (DOT uses “its general authority [under 49 U.S.C. § 41712] to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices of air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents to conduct oversight in the area of airline privacy.”) . Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 24
B. A Single, Consolidated Form from Individuals Traveling With a Service Animal Will Improve Airlines’ Services and Reduce the Burden on Passengers with Disabilities.
We support DOT’s proposal to create standardized, government-issued forms and
appreciate that DOT agrees that “airline personnel are often unable to observe service animals
sufficiently prior to a flight in the fast-paced airport environment to determine whether the
service animal would be a direct threat to the health or safety of others.”67 The use of standard forms (preferably a single, consolidated form) is vital to an airline’s assessment of an animal’s status as a service animal and whether it may pose a threat to public safety or health, and can be
used to convey such information to any airline on which a customer would travel.68 We also believe that consistency will facilitate a smoother travel experience for persons with disabilities, particularly those who make multiple trips and travel with different airlines.
The proposed Consolidated DOT Form will serve as a valuable information collection tool for carriers seeking to ensure the safe transport of service animals. We are also cautiously optimistic that use of standardized government forms “would be effective in...deterring individuals from misrepresenting their pets as service animals onboard aircraft.”69 We are also
hopeful that standard forms will “serve as a deterrent for individuals who might otherwise seek
to claim falsely that their pets are service animals, as those individuals may be less likely to
falsify a Federal form.”70
67 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6465. 68 DOT should not require airlines to rely on verbal assurances regarding a service animal’s training, health, relief, or behavioral status. Verbal assurances do not prevent the type of service animal-related (primarily ESA-related) fraud and abuse that airlines have experienced in recent years, nor do they allow airlines to adequately assess whether the animal would pose a threat to passenger safety or health. 69 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6465. 70 Id. We urge DOT to include the proposed warning language on the Consolidated DOT Form as proposed in Section III.A above: “Warning: It is a Federal crime to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements, entries or representations knowingly and willfully on this form to secure disability accommodations provided under regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (18 U.S.C. § 1001).” Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 25
We remain concerned, however, that fraud will migrate and individuals who previously
claimed their pet was an ESA will claim that their pet is a service animal. These passengers may
not be sufficiently deterred from falsifying a federal form for purposes of transporting their pet
under the guise of being a service animal. While language on DOT’s proposed forms cautioning
the user about the legal consequences of submitting a form containing false or fraudulent
information may deter some such abuse, the warnings would be more effective if DOT specified
the penalties for violations. We also suggest that DOT establish specific procedures regarding
how airlines may report incidents of fraud with respect to service animal documentation and
describe the steps the U.S. government will take in response to allegations of fraud. Currently,
airlines have no ability to combat abuse of these rules. We strongly urge DOT to address this
important issue in the final rule.
C. DOT Should Give Carriers the Option to Accept Electronic Versions of its Paper Forms.
Because we appreciate that forms for legitimate service animals deviate from current
practice, we wish to minimize the burden for passengers to provide forms to the airlines. Over
the years, airlines have automated the booking and check-in process to allow passengers to have
a seamless and more efficient travel experience. Accordingly, DOT should give carriers the
option to receive the passenger’s submission electronically, whether by an electronic version of
DOT’s form or submission of the identical information electronically. However, just as the paper
DOT forms carry a penalty for supplying false or fraudulent information, any electronic
submissions should carry the same penalties for supplying false or fraudulent information.
Allowing carriers to implement such a performance-based electronic submission standard would
help to minimize the burden on both the individual and carrier. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 26
D. DOT Should Allow Airlines the Option to Require Individuals Traveling With a Service Animal to Submit Documentation 48 Hours Prior to Travel.
While we strongly support DOT’s proposal to allow validation through the use of a
standard form, we also believe that both airlines and passengers traveling with a service animal
would benefit if airlines have the option to require that service animal users provide documentation in advance of travel. While DOT would allow airlines (as a condition of travel) to require passengers traveling with a service animal to check-in at the airport one hour before the
otherwise-applicable check-in time for a flight, this option alone would still require airlines to
review and validate the documentation, but in a very compressed timeframe.71 This is cumbersome, especially during the peak travel season, because airlines have largely automated
the check-in process, which, while allowing passengers to proceed directly to the gate, has resulted in less personnel staffing in the check-in area. If DOT allows airlines the flexibility to
require passengers to submit a complete copy of the service animal documentation 48 hours in advance of travel, this will allow airlines to use a performance-based standard and choose the option that is most suitable to their operations and conducive to an efficient check-in process for qualified individuals with a disability traveling with a service animal.
If airlines are permitted to require that passengers submit complete documentation at least
48 hours prior to travel, airlines may have sufficient time to review and validate that documentation, as well as ask passengers to address any issues identified with the documentation
(e.g., missing or inconsistent information). Passengers with a disability may also benefit because the advance submission of documentation will allow airlines to clear passengers who have submitted complete and satisfactory documentation so that they may proceed directly to the gate
71 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6471. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 27
upon arrival at the airport, without requiring in-person airport check-in.72 If, however, DOT
prohibits airlines from requiring the submission of documentation 48 hours prior to travel,
airlines would be more likely to require that all passengers traveling with a service animal check-
in one hour prior to the otherwise-applicable check-in time for a flight.
We recognize the need for passengers traveling with a service animal (like all passengers)
on occasion to make last-minute travel arrangements. For passengers that book within 48 hours
before their flight, DOT’s proposed section 382.76 would require that airlines accommodate
passengers with a disability seeking to travel with a service animal—even if the passenger does
not meet the check-in requirements—if the airline can do so by making reasonable efforts
without delaying the flight. We support this proposal. The flexibility that we seek regarding
obtaining forms in advance is simply intended to enable airlines to make the experience of
passengers traveling with a service animal more convenient, including the ability of such
passengers to use advance electronic check-in and proceed directly to the gate upon arrival at the
airport. Airlines continue to work towards creating better solutions to facilitate an efficient and
seamless travel experience for passengers who travel with service animals.
E. DOT Should Reconsider Its Service Animal Relief Attestation Form.
DOT proposes to allow airlines to require, as a condition of travel on flights lasting eight
hours or more, that passengers traveling with a service animal “confirm that the animal will not
need to relieve itself on the flight or that the animal can relieve itself in a way that does not create a health or sanitation issue on the flight by providing a DOT Service Animal Relief
72 In addition, if airlines receive a passenger’s complete and validated form in advance, they may be able to retain the form for a period of time and decide it is no longer necessary to require the passenger to resubmit the form each time he/she travels during that period of time. Such retention would facilitate carrier recordkeeping abilities and reduce fraud, thereby improving the safety of passengers, crewmembers, and individuals traveling with a service animal. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 28
Attestation Form.”73 We recommend that DOT forego its proposed Relief Attestation Form
because an animal cannot relieve itself in a way that does not create a health or sanitation issue
onboard aircraft, even with the use of an improvised relief area. Further, revocation of this form
will minimize the burden on a passenger traveling with a trained service animal. We recommend
that DOT provide public information to educate service animal users that they should select an
itinerary that takes into account the service animal’s ability to control its elimination functions
(e.g., taking two six-hour connecting flights in lieu of one 12-hour flight), not only for the health
and safety of passengers, crew, and employees, but for the comfort of the service animal.
IV. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Require That Service Animals Be Under the Control of Their Handlers, Including By Harnessing, Leashing, or Tethering, at All Times.
We support DOT’s proposal to allow airlines to require that service animals be under the
handler’s control at all times, including by harnessing, leashing, or tethering. For the reasons
explained below, DOT should not allow use of voice, signals, or other measures because they are
not effective at controlling a service animal onboard an aircraft.
First, we support DOT’s proposal to allow airlines to require that a service animal be
under the control of its handler at all times. Uncontrolled service animals pose serious risks to
the safe operation of aircraft and the health and well-being of passengers, crew, and other
animals onboard. During critical phases of flight (take-off, landing, taxiing, and during
turbulence), FAA requirements strictly limit the movement of passengers and crewmembers.
Uncontrolled animals undermine compliance with these FAA-imposed safety requirements,
73 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6475 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.75). To the extent DOT does not allow airlines to gather information about accredited organizations, we recommend that DOT consider retaining this form. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 29
especially if crewmembers or other passengers are forced to place the safety of themselves and others at risk by moving about the cabin in an effort to restrain an animal during these critical phases of flight. During turbulence, an uncontrolled animal could become a dangerous projectile that poses a risk of serious injury to passengers and crew in the cabin.
Second, such animals must be secured using a harness, leash, or tether during air transportation because these are the only effective methods of control that reduce (but do not eliminate) the risk of harm to passengers and crewmembers. The use of voice, signals, or other measures are not effective at controlling a service animal within an aircraft cabin, nor do they mitigate the risk of interference with flight operation and safety.74 While we recognize that
DOJ’s rules under the ADA permit control of service animals through the use of voice, signals,
or other measures, the nature of the aircraft cabin justifies a different, safety-focused approach in
the unique context of air travel. For example, the ADA allows businesses to request that a service
animal be “removed from the premises” when “a service animal is out of control and the handler
does not take effective action to control it.”75 However, airline crewmembers are unable to take
similar action and remove an animal from an in-flight aircraft if efforts to control the animal
through voice or other measures fail.76 Additionally, crewmembers will not know the animal- specific voice, signal, or other measures to control an animal that does not have a harness, leash,
74 Even if an animal might normally respond to voice, signal or other such commands in a familiar setting (e.g., at home), an animal may become distracted, stressed or disoriented in the unfamiliar, noisy, crowded environment of an aircraft cabin and consequently fail to respond promptly (or at all) to such remotely communicated commands. For the sake of safety (which is the paramount concern on any flight) and to assure control of an animal, it is essential to keep animals harnessed, leashed or tethered at all times. 75 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section, Frequently Asked Questions About Service Animals and the ADA, Question 28, July 25, 2015, available at https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html. 76 DOT, in promulgating regulations, including under Part 382, should ensure that those regulations do not undermine the effectiveness of, and compliance with, FAA safety requirements and the universally shared creed that aviation safety is the industry’s and government’s highest priority. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 30
or tether in the event that the passenger with the disability is not present or is unable to give the control commands, particularly during an safety-related or emergency situation.
Therefore, we request that DOT modify its proposed rule to clarify that, in the interest of safety, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered at all times.77
V. DOT Should Allow Airlines to Refuse to Transport a Service Animal Based on Valid Breed-Based or Other Risks in Order to Protect the Safety of Passengers, Crew, and Other Animals.
DOT proposes to continue to prohibit airlines from restricting transport of service animals based on breed or generalized type of dog.78 We are concerned that this limitation would
increase the risk of animal misbehavior, which could result in serious injury to other passengers,
crew, and service animals. Certain breeds of dog, which account for a small minority of the total
dog population, are not suited to function as trained service animals.79 Some airlines have
experienced incidents of aggressive behavior by such breeds, which have resulted in extremely
serious injuries to passengers, crew, and other animals.80 We urge DOT to reconsider this proposed limitation, recognizing that airlines need the regulatory latitude to act to protect the traveling public from the risks associated with allowing certain dog breeds onboard aircraft in close proximity to other passengers, crew, and animals.
77 The NPRM does not explain or provide any specific example of how it would be necessary for a service animal to be untethered in-cabin in order to perform work or a task. In most cases, trained service animals can perform their tasks and work while on a leash or tether (e.g., a seeing-eye dog). 78 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6454-55 & n.42 (citing Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding Service Animals, 84 Fed. Reg. 43480 (Aug. 21, 2019)). 79 Statistica.com, available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/198100/dogs-in-the-united-states-since-2000/ (there are 89.7 million dogs in the U.S.); Kenneth M. Phillips, Dogbitelaw.com, available at https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures (estimating that there are 4.5 million pit bulls in the U.S.). 80 One A4A member airline banned pit bull type dogs (including mixed breeds) due to its experience with such dogs and statistics regarding pit bull attacks. See C. Bailey, MD et al., A review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature (Oct. 2, 2017) (stating that since 2001, pit bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in medical literature). Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 31
If DOT is not willing to allow airlines to prohibit specific dog breeds from traveling in- cabin as service animals, it becomes even more important that DOT allow airlines to require that passengers, no later than 48 hours prior to travel, provide the airline with a training and behavior attestation form that includes a certification by an accredited organization as to an animal’s behavior and training.81 This would be a minimally necessary measure to protect the safety of the
traveling public, crew, and other animals.
Certain breeds raise legitimate fears from other passengers and animals, including other
service dogs and handlers. We respectfully request that DOT recognize such fears and consider
them in this rulemaking. We also understand that some accredited service dog training
organizations counsel against using certain breeds that are not suited for public interaction,
82 which is required to navigate air transportation.
In addition, as a means of backstopping other proposed safeguards, we support DOT’s
proposal to continue to allow airlines to conduct an individualized assessment of a service
animal’s behavior to determine whether the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of
others.83 The opportunity for airline staff to conduct such individualized assessments, however,
is not an adequate alternative to robust documentation that includes accredited third-party validation of the animal’s training and behavior.84 Airline staff do not make decisions regarding
misbehavior lightly, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and full scope of
81 See Section III.A (describing our proposed modifications to the behavior attestation requirements). 82 Moreover, many countries prohibit the entry of certain breeds into their jurisdiction. If an airline were to be required to accommodate those breeds on a flight to such a country, the airline would be required to transport the passenger and his/her dog back to the United States if the dog were denied entry into that country. 83 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6476 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.79). ADI-NA also supports DOT’s proposal to allow airlines to determine whether the animal poses a direct threat, noting that “airline personnel are in the best position to assess the individual animal’s behavior in the airport environment.” Comments of ADI-NA, at 2. 84 See note 68 and accompanying text. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 32
exhibited behavior. If a service animal misbehaves or poses a risk to safety at any time during transport, airlines must be permitted to refuse transport of the animal (including future travel),
even if the qualified individual with a disability has submitted a behavior attestation. DOT
should extend airline staff, who are the frontline of safety, broad deference for their good-faith
determinations regarding direct threats.
VI. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Allow Airlines to Require Service Animal Handlers to Check-In at the Airport One Hour Before the Otherwise-Applicable Check-In Time.
DOT proposes to allow airlines to require handlers to check-in at the airport one hour before the otherwise-applicable check-in time for a flight, as long as the airline also requires similar or more stringent advance check-in for passengers traveling with a pet in-cabin.85 While
the rule “would also permit airlines to require that the check-in take place at any designated
airport location including the terminal lobby,” DOT “propose[es] to require airlines to make an
employee trained to handle disability-related matters available in-person at the airline’s
designated airport location to process service animal documentation promptly.”86
Airlines must be able to validate that all service animals that are accepted for
transportation in-cabin are trained, vaccinated, and will behave appropriately. Therefore, airlines
85 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6475 (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. § 382.76). DOT’s proposed rule affords an airline the option to require advance check-in for passengers traveling with a service animal. In some cases (e.g., where an airline only operates one flight per day at an airport) the airline may opt not to require advance in-person check-in. 86 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6471 (emphasis added). While the preamble to DOT’s NPRM would “permit” airlines to require check-in at a designated airport location, DOT’s proposed regulation would only allow airlines to “require a passenger with a disability to check-in at the airport one hour before the check-in time at the airport for the general public as a condition of travel with a service animal to allow time to process the service animal documentation and observe the animal so long as: (1) You designate a specific location at the airport where the passenger could be promptly checked-in…” Id. at 6475 (proposed 14 C.F.R. § 382.76) (emphasis added). DOT, in finalizing the rule changes, should revise the text of § 382.76 to permit, but not require, that airlines designate a specific location at the airport for check in by passengers traveling with service animals. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 33
need to be able to require a passenger traveling with a service animal to arrive early for in-person check-in at the airport, especially if the airline has not had an advance opportunity to do so.
However, some airlines would like to avoid or minimize the need to require such early in-person check-in for individuals with a disability traveling with a service animal if at all possible. To minimize this burden, we propose that DOT allow airlines to require (not merely request) passengers traveling with a service animal to provide a completed copy of the documentation form discussed in Section III.D at least 48 hours in advance.87 This could afford airlines the opportunity to review those documents and “clear” some passengers of any need to undergo
advance in-person check-in at the airport. If airlines cannot require passengers to provide such
documentation in advance, airlines will need to conduct in-person advance check-in of service animals at the airport at least one hour before the regular check-in time for a flight for all passengers traveling with a service animal.88
VII. DOT Should Finalize Its Proposal to Align U.S. and Foreign Air Carriers’ Service Animal Obligations.
We strongly support DOT’s proposal to exclude species other than dogs from its “service
animal” definition.89 Under DOT’s current regulations, U.S. carriers are required to transport a
broad range of service animal species, while foreign carriers must only transport dogs. DOT’s
proposal would eliminate the confusion that arises from applying different requirements to U.S.
87 We recognize that an individual with a disability traveling with a service animal may not always purchase a ticket for travel 48 hours in advance. In those circumstances, we would ask the passenger to provide his/her completed forms as promptly as possible, but such passengers may be required to undergo in-person advance check-in at the airport. 88 If an airline requires that an individual traveling with a service animal check in at the airport at least one hour before the otherwise-applicable check-in time for a flight and the passenger fails to comply with this requirement, we will make reasonable efforts to accommodate the passenger and his/her service animal on the flight, but such accommodation cannot be assured if the passenger’s late arrival at the airport does not afford sufficient time to review documentation and check in the passenger and his/her service animal. 89 Traveling by Air With Service Animals, 85 Fed. Reg. at 6472. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 34
and foreign carriers. In addition, it would resolve the current anomaly and unfairness whereby a
U.S. carrier that places its code on the flights of a foreign carrier may be held responsible for the
foreign carrier’s failure to meet an accommodation standard that does not directly apply to
foreign carriers.90 U.S. carriers should not be liable in such circumstances, and we appreciate that
DOT’s proposal would remedy this problem.
VIII. Conclusion.
A4A, RAA, and NACA strongly support DOT’s proposed rule changes and urge DOT to finalize them as soon as possible. In doing so, we request that DOT consider our specific comments (as set forth above) on how to make DOT’s service animal regulations even more effective for the benefit of qualified individuals with a disability traveling with a service animal and the health and safety of the traveling public and airline personnel.
[NO FURTHER TEXT THIS PAGE – SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
90 DOT’s current position is that a “a U.S. carrier that code-shares with a foreign carrier could legally be held liable for its foreign codes-share partner’s failure to transport other service animal species on code-share flights.” Traveling By Air With Service Animals, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 Fed. Reg. 23832, 23842 (May 23, 2018). DOT has wisely used its prosecutorial discretion not to pursue enforcement action against U.S. carriers when their foreign air carrier codeshare partners do not accept service animals other than dogs. Id. at 23833 n.6. If DOT, over our strong objection, were to abandon its proposed approach and adopt a broader definition of “service animal” that recognizes species other than dogs as service animals, DOT, at a minimum, should provide carriers with needed legal certainty by clarifying that U.S. carriers will not be held liable for their foreign carrier codeshare partners’ failure to transport service animals other than dogs. Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA (OST-2018-0068) Page 35
Respectfully submitted,
______Graham C. Keithley Paul Doell Assistant General Counsel Vice President, Government Affairs and AIRLINES FOR AMERICA Security Policy NATIONAL AIR CARRIER ASSOCIATION
______William L. Whyte Vice President Aviation Operations & Technical Services REGIONAL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION
Dated: April 6, 2020
APPENDIX A
Airline Trade Association Members
A4A’s members are: Alaska Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines Group, Inc.; Atlas Air, Inc.; Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Federal Express Corp.; Hawaiian Airlines; JetBlue Airways Corp.; Southwest Airlines Co.; United Continental Holdings, Inc.; and United Parcel Service Co. Air Canada is an associate member.
RAA’s members are: Air Wisconsin; CommutAir; CapeAir; Compass Airlines; Empire Airlines; Envoy; Endeavor Air; ExpressJet; GoJet Airlines; Grand Canyon Scenic Airlines; Horizon Air; Jazz; Mesa Airlines; New England Airlines; PenAir; Piedmont; Ravn Alaska; PSA Airlines; Republic Airways; Seaborne Airlines; and SkyWest Airlines.
NACA’s members are: Allegiant; AmeriJet; Air Transport International; Atlas Air Worldwide; Everts Air Cargo; Frontier Airlines; Kalitta Air; Lynden Air Cargo; Miami Air International; Northern Air Cargo; OAI; Spirit Airlines; Sun Country Airlines; SwiftAir; USA Jet Airlines; WGA; and World Atlantic Airlines.
APPENDIX B
A4A Passenger Carrier Data Concerning Service Animal Transport
Originating Passengers* (in Millions) Traveling With Animals in U.S. Airline Cabins Increase in Travel With Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) Has Outpaced Other Categories
1.42 1.34 1.23 1.13 1.02 1.02 0.86
0.54 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.28
Pax with Pets Pax with Service Animals Pax with ESAs
2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Alaska, Allegiant, American, Delta, Frontier, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit and United plus A4A estimates * Numbers reflect PNRs with animals and do not capture multiple animals per PNR
2 Year-Over-Year Change (%) in Passengers* Traveling With Animals in U.S. Airline Cabins
(30) (20) (10) 0 10 20 30 40 (2.6) Alaska 9.3 Pax with Service Animals Allegiant (2.7) (2.1) Pax with ESAs 1.8 American 7.6 16.1 Delta 27.9 0.0 Frontier 7.1 1.8 Hawaiian 11.5 1.7 JetBlue 14.5 2.9 Southwest 16.5 (9.4) Spirit (26.5) (1.3) United 4.6 3.0 Total 11.1
Source: Data from Alaska, Allegiant, American, Delta, Frontier, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit and United * Numbers reflect PNRs (not segments) with animals and do not capture multiple animals per PNR.
3 Year-Over-Year Change (%) in Passengers* Traveling in U.S. Airline Cabins
(30) (20) (10) 0 10 20 30 40 9.3 Alaska 2.0 Passengers with ESAs Allegiant (2.1) 9.2 Total Passengers 7.6 American 5.6 27.9 Delta 6.1 Frontier 7.1 11.5 Hawaiian (0.8) 14.5 JetBlue 1.4 16.5 Southwest (0.6) (26.5) Spirit 17.8 4.6 United 2.6 11.1 Total 3.0
Source: Data from Alaska, Allegiant, American, Delta, Frontier, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit and United * Numbers reflect PNRs (not segments) with animals and do not capture multiple animals per PNR.
4 APPENDIX C: CONSOLIDATED DOT FORM
WARNING: It is a Federal crime to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements, entries or representations knowingly and willfully on this form to secure disability accommodations provided under regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (18 U.S.C.§ 1001).
United States Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation Form
Service Animal Handler Name: ______Address:______Phone Number: ______Email Address:______
Animal Identification Information Name / Number or Breed—common or Color, Distinctive Sex (M, F, Weight DOB Other Identification scientific name Marks, Microchip MN, FS) (lbs.) (MM/YY)
Check the following boxes to certify and complete the following information: I certify that my animal has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks to assist me with my disability and has been trained to behave well in a public setting without aggression towards humans or other animals.** I certify that I have proof that the following accredited organization trained my service animal or evaluated my service animal to validate its training: Name: ______Phone: ______
I understand that my animal must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered. I understand that if my service animal engages in disruptive behavior that shows that it has not been successfully trained to behave properly in a public setting, the airline may treat the animal as a pet in accordance with the airline’s pet transportation policies or deny boarding. I understand that airlines may charge passengers with disabilities traveling with service animals for the costs to repair any damage caused by a passenger’s service animal so long as the airline charges passengers without disabilities for the same kind of damage. I understand that I am committing fraud by knowingly making false statements to secure disability accommodations provided under regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation. I certify that my animal is vaccinated for rabies: Rabies Vaccination Expiration Date: ______Veterinarian Name: ______Phone: ______License No.: ______State: ______A service animal handler must have proof of vaccination on-hand while traveling.
Service Animal Handler Signature:______Date: ______Important Information for Service Animal Handlers • This form is valid for the earlier of the date of vaccination expiration or three years from the date of signing. • Certain states (e.g., Hawaii) and foreign jurisdictions may require additional documentation for entry. • By submitting this form, you agree to the airline’s use of the information provided on this form, consistent with the airline’s privacy policy, in connection with your travel. ** A service animal that is trained to behave in a public setting will remain under the control of its handler. It does not run freely around an aircraft or an airport gate area, bark or growl repeatedly at other persons on the aircraft, bite, jump on, or cause injury to people, or urinate or defecate in the cabin or gate area. An animal that engages in such disruptive behavior shows that it has not been successfully trained to behave properly in a public setting, and airlines are not required to treat it as a service animal, even if the animal performs an assistive function for a passenger with a disability. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection is ______.