[Nyagdu] NFB & NAGDU Comments on AMPRM

[NAGDU President]

Dear All,

 

                Since I was away at convention shortly after we submitted
our comments to the Department of Transportation’s advance notice of
proposed rule making, I wasn’t sure if they had been posted to the list. The
comment period closed last Monday, July 9 and these comments were submitted
on June 28. I have pasted them below.

 

Fraternally yours,

Marion

 

 

Marion Gwizdala, President

National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc. (NAGDU)

National Federation of the Blind

(813) 626-2789

President at NAGDU.ORG

Visit our website <http://nagdu.org/> 

Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/nagdu> 

The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the
characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise
expectations because low expectations create barriers between blind  people
and our dreams. You can live the life you want! Blindness is not what holds
you back.

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.”[1] 

 

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

 


  _____  

[1] Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (Section 35.136)