[NYAGDU] Notice of NPRM

[Albert Rizzi]

Tracey,

Thanks for asking and for allowing me the opportunity to clarify my position. First and foremost, I do not think the proposed requirements for forms and early check-in for legitimate handlers is going to fly. Pun intended. LOL. I do not support that position and as such feel it incumbent upon the community to speak out against this proposed requirement, which, after reading the proposed changes is an "option" left to the airlines to opt to enact or not. It does not sound as if it is going to be a mandate or regulation at this juncture, just a suggestion and consideration for public comment.

As I understand the proposed rules being suggested, emphasis on proposed, the NPRM proposals are as follows: 
 
*	Define a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability;
*	No longer consider an emotional support animal to be a service animal;
*	Consider a psychiatric service animal to be a service animal and require the same training and treatment of psychiatric service animals as other service animals;
*	Allow airlines to require forms developed by DOT attesting to a service animal's good behavior, certifying the service animal's good health, and if taking a long flight attesting that the service animal has the ability to either not relieve itself, or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner;
*	Allow airlines to require passengers with a disability who are traveling with a service animal to check-in at the airport one hour prior to the travel time required for the general public to ensure sufficient time to process the service animal documentation and observe the animal;
*	Require airlines to promptly check-in passengers with service animals who are subject to an advanced check-in process;
*	Allow airlines to limit the number of service animals traveling with a single passenger with a disability to two service animals; 
*	Allow airlines to require a service animal to fit within its handler's foot space on the aircraft;
*	Continue to allow airlines to require that service animals be harnessed, leashed, tethered, or otherwise under the control of its handler;
*	Continue to allow airlines to refuse transportation to service animals that exhibit aggressive behavior and that pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others; and
*	Continue to prohibit airlines from refusing to transport a service animal solely on the basis of breed.

As we all know the U.S. Department of Transportation is openly seeking Comment on these Proposed Amendments to the Regulation of Service Animals on Flights. Aligning the definition of a "service animal" with that of the ADA and the DOJ is a total step in the right direction in my opinion. For years the DOT and the ACAA did not define what constitutes a service animal, and aligning with the ADA, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Now that being said, the proposed rules that make sense to me are the following:

*	Define a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability;
*	Consider a psychiatric service animal to be a service animal and require the same training and treatment of psychiatric service animals as other service animals;
*	Require airlines to promptly check-in passengers with service animals who are subject to an advanced check-in process;
*	Allow airlines to limit the number of service animals traveling with a single passenger with a disability to two service animals. I have no opinion on this proposed rule, and know that legitimate handlers only require one service animal and not two; 
*	Continue to allow airlines to require that service animals be harnessed, leashed, tethered, or otherwise under the control of its handler;
*	Continue to allow airlines to refuse transportation to service animals that exhibit aggressive behavior and that pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others; and
*	Continue to prohibit airlines from refusing to transport a service animal solely on the basis of breed.
What I don't agree with are the following:

*	Allow airlines to require forms developed by DOT attesting to a service animal's good behavior, certifying the service animal's good health, and if taking a long flight attesting that the service animal has the ability to either not relieve itself, or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner. I would urge all the airlines to allow handlers to upload documents of this nature into an account profile  to be kept in our permanent profiles and not be harassed at the gate to produce the same. I also feel this is overkill in instances where legitimate guide dogs are involved. I would like to see this eliminated from the proposal;
*	Allow airlines to require passengers with a disability who are traveling with a service animal to check-in at the airport one hour prior to the travel time required for the general public to ensure sufficient time to process the service animal documentation and observe the animal. I take issue with this in as much as capable handlers should not be mandated or required to check in an hour early for any flight unless everyone traveling on that flight are required to do so. People using other mobility aids like a cane or a wheelchair are not required to check in early, why should we? Such information and observations can be easily addressed in a account profile, eliminating any need for such practices at the airport terminal, ticket counter or gate;


What I think needs flushing out or clarification are:

*	No longer consider an emotional support animal to be a service animal. This is a good thing in my opinion, and provided individuals requiring an emotional support animal, and do not have a defined disability as protected under the ADA, then, and at the airlines discretion, need to produce, as they are currently required, documentation from a mental health clinician, namely a psychiatrist, therapist or psychologist attesting to the fact that the animal, a dog, is needed for emotional support. Prior to that the term "animal" was not defined and people were taking advantage of the system and putting legitimate handlers and their guides, as well as the general public, at risk; 
*	Allow airlines to require a service animal to fit within its handler's foot space on the aircraft. This is not unreasonable, but not all airlines have the same space and I cannot see how a universal requirement such as this one would make sense or be easily exercised;
*	There needs to be an inclusion of miniature horses as a service animal since the goal in this proposed rule change is to align with the definition of a service animal as defined under the ADA and the DOJ.
These proposed changes are intended to ensure a safe and accessible air transportation system. It addresses concerns raised by individuals with disabilities, airlines, flight attendants, airports, other aviation transportation stakeholders, and other members of the public, regarding service animals on aircraft. The Department admittedly recognizes the integral role that legitimate service animals play in the lives of many individuals with disabilities and wants to ensure that individuals with disabilities can continue using their service animals while also reducing the likelihood that passengers wishing to travel with their pets on aircraft will be able to falsely claim their pets are service animals. Isn't that what we are all wanting? An end to the use of and attempts at falsely representing a family pet as a service animal?

So, that is my position on all the points and I hope this clearly defines my position on those points I support, those I don't, and then those I feel need further consideration. So long as the ultimate outcomes are not going to hinder our travel as handlers and eliminates the fake service animal explosion that is complicating air travel for our community, airlines and the general public. 



-----Original Message-----
From: NYAGDU <nyagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione via NYAGDU
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 12:14 PM
To: 'New York Association of Guide Dog Users' <nyagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Tracy Carcione <carcione at access.net>
Subject: [NYAGDU] Notice of NPRM

Albert, I would really like to know why you think the proposed requirements for forms and early check-in will not apply to guide dog users.  That's not how I read it.  I think GDUI is making assumptions without much basis.  But maybe you know something I don't.

Tracy

 

_______________________________________________
NYAGDU mailing list
NYAGDU at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nyagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NYAGDU:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nyagdu_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.org