[nagdu] Official NAGDU Comments on NPRM

Fri Jan 1 18:16:04 UTC 2010

Dear All,
    I received a message off-lis asking if NAGDU had made an official comment to the Department of Justice's Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM). Since these commentw were made more than a year ago, I thought it would be appropriate to send these comments to the list again. they are attached to this message and pasted below.

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala, President
National Association of Guide Dog Users
National Federation of the Blind 

National Association of Guide Dog Users

National Federation of the Blind

1003 Papaya Drive Tampa, Florida 33619

August 18, 2008

RE: Notice of Proposed Rule making on service animals

Docket I.D.: DOJ-CRT-2008-0015

            The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is the oldest and largest organization of the blind in the United States. In order to address the issues of particular concern to its members who use guide dogs, the NFB has organized a special interest division of its Organization, the National Association of Guide Dog Users (NAGDU). The following comments are made to the Department of Justice on behalf of the National Association of Guide Dog Users. 

            The National Association of Guide Dog Users commends the Department of Justice for their efforts to clarify the definition of "service animal". We believe that a clearer definition will assist public entities and private entities that provide public accommodations to better understand the purpose and scope of a service animal, as well as the rights and responsibilities of both the entities and the disabled community. 

We particularly applaud the Department's specific effort to clarify the difference between a service animal and a comfort animal. At the same time, we believe that the practical issues of service animal use, including some of the misconceptions about the role of a service animal in the disabled person's life are ill-served by some of the proposed changes to the Department's language and rules.

            One concern is the proposed change in the definition of "service animal" to include animals that are individually trained "to do work or perform tasks that benefit a person with a disability". The Department is clearly aware of the misunderstanding that the term "service animal" includes those animals whose mere presence provides comfort to a person with a disability. We believe that including the term "do work or perform tasks" is redundant, creating confusion about the intent of the law to protect an individual's right to be accompanied by a service animal trained to perform specific tasks that ameliorate the person's disability. We believe that the redundancy opens the doors to abuse of the provision by raising questions about the actual intent of the provision. Therefore, we suggest that the phrase "do work" be stricken from the Department's definition of "service animal". 

            On the question concerning the language "minimal protection" in the examples of tasks for which a service animal can be trained to perform, the Association believes such a description is not only unnecessary but promulgates the myth that service animals are routinely trained to protect its users through aggressive behavior. Even though the Department asserts in its Business Brief Frequently Asked Questions About Service Animals that "allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals", it is the experience of our members that one of the most common barriers to access seems to be a fear of our animals. We believe that this term only serves to confuse lay people whom may not be able to differentiate between "protecting an individual having a seizure" and the type of protection provided by attack animals, thus creating an issue that may not otherwise exist. Furthermore, we are concerned that some disabled people may also use this terminology to justify their right to be accompanied by an animal that is so trained in places in which the public is invited. For these reasons, NAGDU strongly urges the removal of the term "minimal protection" from any definition of "service animal" and from any examples of the types of tasks for which a service animal might be trained to perform. 

Regarding the Department's intent to exclude specific species of animals under the definition of "service animal", NAGDU is supportive of this change, with one exception. Though we agree that wild animals, including reptiles, non-human primates, and rodents, as well as  most farm animals, may not be appropriate as service animals, at least one of our members seems to be successfully using a miniature horse as a guide animal and has submitted comments on the Department's Notice of proposed Rule Making. In spite of the unconventional choice to use a miniature horse as a service animal, we would urge the Department to keep an open mind and study the use of this particular species more closely before making a final decision. At the same time, the Association agrees that, no matter what species is deemed acceptable as a service animal, all such animals must adhere to socially acceptable norms of hygiene and high standards of behavior 

            Concerning the question of placing size and weight restrictions on service animals, the Association would appreciate a clearer understanding of the Department's grounds and intent for such a restriction, as none have been given in the document. Due to the variety of tasks a service animal may perform, including pulling a wheelchair or supporting a person with balance issues, it seems apparent that some service animals may necessarily need to be larger and heavier in order to have the strength to perform such tasks. Even though the purview of the National Association of Guide Dog Users is the use of service animals to guide those who are blind, some blind people may also have concomitant disabilities that may require the use of a service animal to perform other tasks, such as pulling a wheelchair or providing balance. In order to adequately comment on this item, we would appreciate more information. Therefore, we would like to suggest that the Department refrain from making any rules that would restrict the size and/or weight of a service animal until such rules can be specifically formulated and input can be solicited from the public. Otherwise, such rules may be arbitrary and counterproductive by placing unnecessary and unrealistic restrictions upon service animal users. 

            If you have any further information to share or would like additional comments from the National Association of Guide Dog Users, please feel free to get in touch with us. Our contact information is below our signatures.

Sincerely,

Marion Gwizdala, President

Michael Hingson, Vice President

Sherrill O'Brien, Secretary

Antoinette Whaley, Treasurer

Elizabeth Campbell, Board Member

Marsha Lindsey, Board Member

Meghan Whalen, Board Member

(813) 626-2789

Blind411 at verizon.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NAGDU Comments on NPRM.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 32256 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nagdu_nfbnet.org/attachments/20100101/e2b1bd62/attachment.doc>