[Nfbf-l] Guide dog policies and solutions
Marion Gwizdala
marion.gwizdala at verizon.net
Thu May 2 19:43:45 UTC 2019
Bill,
The National Federation of the Blind agrees with you as it pertains to the confusion created between emotional support animals (ESAs) and service animals. In May 2018, the Department of Transportation issued an advanced notice of proposed rule making (ANPRM) seeking public input on new rules to govern the carriage of service animals and emotional support animals. I was pleased to write the comments on behalf of the NFB and have pasted them below for everyone's edification.
June 29, 2018
Blane Workie
Assistant General Counsel
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
RE: Docket number DOT-OST-2018-0068
Dear Ms. Workie:
The National Federation of the Blind and its special interest division, the National Association of Guide Dog Users are pleased to submit these comments in response to the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket Number DOT-OST-2018-0068 (RIN: 2105-AE63). The National Federation of the Blind was established in 1940 and is the oldest and largest organization of blind Americans. Along with the National Association of Guide Dog Users, the National Federation of the Blind has been proactively involved in the resolution of the issues and concerns this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeks to address. We also have a vested interest in an effective resolution through this rulemaking process, since our members who use guide dogs have experienced incidents in which untrained animals on airlines and in airport terminals have behaved in such a way as to threaten the health and safety of our trained service animals.
We have comments to six of your issues. Each of these is listed below, with our comment directly following.
(1) Whether psychiatric service animals should be treated similar to other service animals
No. We believe that the Department should harmonize the implementing regulations of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) with those of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as it pertains to defining “service animal” under the ACAA; therefore, we suggest the following definitions:
“Service animal means any dog 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. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition. An airline shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.”
Since we urge that the DOT harmonize the ACAA to the ADA, this would also include limiting service animals to only dogs and miniature horses.
(2) Whether there should be a distinction between emotional support animals and other service animals
Yes. Guide dogs, like most other service animals, undergo a process of socialization and exposure to circumstances and stimuli to prepare them for their training and subsequent work. This socialization and exposure process which last for at least one year – sometimes longer – also allows the dogs to be screened to ensure the dog is sound and will not pose a threat to the safety of the disabled individual or the general public. Once this process is complete, the dog undergoes another period of specific task training that lasts three months or longer during which additional screening is performed.
This rigorous process is very different from that of an emotional support animal which may be untrained and unprepared for the unique conditions of an aircraft cabin. Therefore, we strongly urge the DOT to create specific, more restrictive conditions on the carriage of an emotional support animal in the aircraft cabin such that the safety and functionality of guide dogs and other trained service animals will be ensured.
(6) Whether an attestation should be required from all service animal and emotional support animal users that their animal has been trained to behave in a public setting
The National Federation of the Blind opposes any attestation requirement for those traveling with trained service animals. Rather, we urge the Department to continue the current policy of seeking “credible verbal assurance” from the individual traveling with a service animal. We realize that there are online resources for service animal gear and identification cards and urge the DOT to specifically assert that vests, harnesses, signs, identification cards, or other such gear should not be accepted as de facto evidence the animal is a service animal. We believe that individuals accompanied by emotional support animals which are not typically trained to perform tasks or do work for the benefit of a person with a disability, should be required to attest to the animal’s ability to behave appropriately in public. Furthermore, we urge the Department to specifically allow an air carrier to refuse transport to any animal, whether service animal or emotional support animal, that exhibits behavior that demonstrates it is out-of-control, is not housebroken, or poses a direct threat.
(7) Whether service animals and emotional support animals should be harnessed, leashed, or otherwise tethered
All service animals should be kept on a harness, leash, or other tether unless the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the work or tasks the animal is trained to perform and only during the performance of such tasks. Emotional support animals should, without exception, always be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, since there is no reason for the animal to not be properly restrained at all times.
(8) Whether there are safety concerns with transporting large service animals and if so, how to address them
The National Federation of the Blind finds this concern to be vague and subjective. Service animals of varying sizes should be permitted, especially as there is no evidence that larger dogs, for example, pose any additional safety risk. Blind people should be free to choose the trained service animal that best suits their needs, regardless of size or breed.
(9) Whether airlines should be prohibited from requiring a veterinary health form or immunization record from service animal users without an individualized assessment that the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause a significant disruption in the aircraft cabin
Airlines should be prohibited from requiring a veterinary health form or immunization record from service animal users. We believe individuals should be allowed to have their service animals accompany them in the aircraft cabin with very few exceptions. These exceptions should be limited to an individualized assessment that the service animal poses a direct threat – a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a reasonable modification of policies, practices, or procedures – or if the presence of the service animal would create a disruption in the aircraft cabin. As noted above, the size or breed of a given service animal is not an appropriate criterion by which to assess the safety risk associated with that particular service animal. Under these circumstances, a veterinary health form or immunization record would not eliminate the threat an animal might pose in an aircraft cabin, nor is a veterinarian qualified to predict the behavior of an animal in the unusual setting of an aircraft cabin. Thus, we oppose any additional requirements placed on passengers accompanied by service animals that are not imposed upon other passengers.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding traveling by air with service animals.
Sincerely,
John G. Paré
Executive Director for Advocacy and Policy
National Federation of the Blind
Frnally yours,
Marion
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbf-l [mailto:nfbf-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill Outman via Nfbf-l
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 11:33 AM
To: 'NFB of Florida Internet Mailing List'
Cc: Bill Outman
Subject: Re: [Nfbf-l] Guide dog policies and solutions
Marion's explanation of the law pertaining to airlines is informative. The distinction between service and emotional support animals does create a source of confusion, though.
Bill Outman
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbf-l [mailto:nfbf-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Janet Beyer via Nfbf-l
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 5:28 PM
To: NFB of Florida Internet Mailing List
Cc: Janet Beyer
Subject: Re: [Nfbf-l] Guide dog policies and solutions
Can you please help me with the difference of airlines some requesting travel/health certificates for my guy dog. Is that type of document also like his identification not to be provided or is this the only document that I need to provide some requirement and some don’t
Sent from J Beyer’s iPhone, Have a Bless Day!
> On May 1, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Marion Gwizdala via Nfbf-l <nfbf-l at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I have written on this topic in the past and will reiterate - very
> briefly - what I share as standard protocol, focusing upon the topic
> at hand concerning one's allergies to dog dander. First of all, the
> law classifies individuals with disabilities as a protected class,
> prohibiting discrimination on the basis of belonging to that class.
> Other protected classes protected by law include race, creed,
> ethnicity, gender, and gender identification. An individual with a
> disability accompanied by a service dog has the legal right to access
> the goods and services of a public
> (governmental) entity under Title II of the ADA, and those of private
> entities providing public accommodations under title III of the Act.
> The only exceptions would be if the presence of a service animal poses
> a direct threat, defined as "a significant risk to the health or
> safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a reasonable
> modification of policies practices, or procedures", if the animal is
> out of control and the handler does not take immediate, effective
> measures to correct the behavior, or if the animal is not housebroken.
> It is important to note here that it must be demonstrated the presence
> of the dog poses a direct threat; it cannot be assumed; furthermore, I
> do not need to prove my dog does not pose a direct threat. This is
> known as an affirmative defense. In other words, one must prove something does exist not that something does not exist.
>
> The statistical information about the prevalence of an allergy to
> dog dander that rises to the level of a disability is, as stated in my
> previous message, <0.005%, or 5 in 100,000. According to this
> research, those with such an allergy would have severe anaphylaxis
> even if the dander were present on a person's clothing, even if a dog
> were not physically present.
>
> If an individual claiming an allergy to dog dander objects to the
> presence of the dog, it is up to the individual with the allergy to
> take appropriate measures to mitigate the situation; it is not up to
> the individual with a disability to take such measures, as that person
> is a member of a protected class whose rights preempt the person not a
> member of that class. So, if I enter a restaurant in which the only
> seat is near someone claiming an allergy to my dog, it is up to the
> individual with the allergy to mitigate that situation. In the case of
> a passenger on para transit, it is understood that the transportation
> is a shared ride service and that there may be times an individual
> will be required to share that ride with someone with a service
> animal. If my ride arrives and a fellow passenger objects to the
> presence of my guide dog, it is up to the provider to make other arrangements for that passenger, not to deny my ride.
>
> If a person has an allergy to dog dander that rises to the level of
> a disability, we now have what is known as "competing interests". Two
> members of a protected class are now competing for the same
> protections. In such a case, the person first served is secured the
> right and the second person will need to mitigate the situation. In
> the para transit illustration, if I am the second person with
> competing interests, I will need to wait for another ride. This would not be considered discriminatory.
>
> In all cases involving allegations of discrimination based upon
> membership in a protected class, the first requirement is to
> demonstrate standing. This means that, should I file a complaint
> alleging discrimination based upon the presence of my guide dog, I
> would need to demonstrate two elements before the case would be heard:
> I would first need to demonstrate that I am a person with a disability
> protected by the law under which I file a complaint and that my guide
> dog meets the definition of "service animal", "any dog individually
> trained to perform tasks or do work for the benefit of a person with a
> disability". Failure to prove these two elements would cause a nolle proc or dismissal of the case.
>
> If there are any questions, I am happy to answer them so we, as
> advocates, can provide the most accurate information.
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nfbf-l [mailto:nfbf-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bill
> Outman via Nfbf-l
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: 'NFB of Florida Internet Mailing List'
> Cc: Bill Outman
> Subject: [Nfbf-l] Guide dog policies and solutions
>
> Good afternoon, list.
>
> I have noted with interest the recent discussion about guide policies
> relating to the paratransit contractor that has graciously volunteered
> to provide transportation service to those leaving the convention on
> Memorial Day.
>
>
>
> Marion, your expertise on the detials of the law is unquestioned. Yet
> I am troubled by seeming lack of consideration for those who may be
> facing a legitimate issue. I understand this issue has been used as a
> cover discriminatory actions borne out of ignorance, but I have a
> difficult time believing this is the case in every instance.
>
>
>
> Those of us who profess a Christian faith are called to not only
> consider our rights but also show due concern to the rights and needs
> of others as well. We cannot just say, "Sorry, Charlie" to those who
> may be facing difficult challenges such as an allergy that we may not always be aware of.
> The vehicle space issue, yes, has been abused, but at some point does
> have some legitimacy, as vehicles are of finite size.
>
>
>
> What I need you to do is propose an affirmative solution, not just
> state what is prohibited in law and regulation, to these issues. What
> accomodations/arrangements are permitted, and would in fact be
> adoptable as best practices, that would satisfy both the legal
> requirement for equal treatment and address the health and safety
> needs of other riders/drivers of various modes of transport?
>
>
>
> I don't want us to merely state what we are against, but what we would
> be in favor of.
>
>
>
> Bill Outman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nfbf-l mailing list
> Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Nfbf-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/marion.gwizdala%40
> verizo
> n.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nfbf-l mailing list
> Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfbf-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/janetnfb%40gmail.c
> om
_______________________________________________
Nfbf-l mailing list
Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfbf-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/woutman%40earthlink.net
_______________________________________________
Nfbf-l mailing list
Nfbf-l at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfbf-l:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbf-l_nfbnet.org/marion.gwizdala%40verizon.net
More information about the NFBF-L
mailing list