[NYAGDU] Notice of NPRM

[Ann Edie]

Hi, Albert and Everyone,

I have a few thoughts to add to your analysis of the proposed changes in the
regulations of the ACAA regarding the carriage of service animals in
airplane cabins.

First of all, thank you for pointing out that, along with dogs, miniature
horses are acknowledged and accommodated in the most recent revision of the
ADA definition of service animals, and that, therefore, they should likewise
be included in the definition of service animals used by the ACAA. As a
guide horse user myself, I feel that the omission of miniature horse service
animals from the proposed new definition of service animals is the greatest
flaw among the proposed changes to the ACAA regulations.

This change certainly constitutes a denial of the equal access rights of
people with disabilities who choose to use miniature horses as their service
animals. The people who use miniature horse service animals are qualified
persons with disabilities, and miniature horse service animals are highly
trained, just like service dogs, and they perform the same functions as
guide dogs or mobility service dogs, and to a high level of excellence. They
are not pets that unqualified persons misrepresent as service animals in
order to have their pets travel with them in the airplane cabin. Other guide
horse users and I will certainly be submitting comments to the DOT stating
our strong objection to this proposed change. I hope that organizations of
people with disabilities, as well as individuals, will join us in preventing
this violation of our right to equal access to travel from becoming
established in law.

I was dismayed to read GDUI's press release which enthusiastically supported
all of the proposed rule changes to the ACAA and urged the organization's
members to do likewise. In contrast, back in 2008 NAGDU supported the
inclusion of miniature horse service animals in the definition of service
animals during the last revision of the ADA regulations, which, I believe,
added credibility and weight to the testimony of individual service horse
users, and helped to bring about the continued inclusion of miniature horse
service animals in the provisions of this landmark law. Without the support
of large and powerful groups such as NAGDU, I fear that the voices of guide
and service horse users who are small in number may not be heard in this
discussion. I hope NAGDU, unlike GDUI, will not throw us under the bus in
order to gain relief from the problem of unpleasant and sometimes dangerous
encounters with untrained and ill-behaved pets being represented as service
animals in airplane cabins and in airports.

I also agree with you that the proposed size restriction provision in the
NPRM is problematic. Under this provision, an airline could refuse passage
to a qualified disabled person traveling with a dog that the airline feels
is too large to fit in the foot space of the seat that the passenger has
purchased. The passenger may be forced to pay for a seat with more space, or
to pay for an additional seat, or to take a later flight, or be refused
passage altogether. This provision would also result in permitting airlines
to reject all miniature horse service animals for travel in the cabin on the
basis of size alone, and it is therefore discriminatory and unacceptable.

On the subject of the provision which permits the airlines to require
persons with disabilities who are traveling accompanied by trained service
animals to arrive an extra hour before flight time compared to the general
flying public and to fill out three forms, here are my thoughts:
I do not see the filling out and presenting of the three forms at check-in
as a major inconvenience or burden, as long as once they are filled out they
apply for at least one year, and as long as they can be presented along with
other documentation, such as the passenger's ticket and appropriate
identification, at the regular check-in location. The health form should be
one which we can have the veterinarian complete at the time of our service
animals regular annual visit and should not be an added expense or require
an extra trip to the vet. Although I understand the objection of many
handlers to the requirement of this additional paperwork on the grounds that
the service animal's task training, good behavior, and appropriate relieving
capabilities are inherent in the definition of a service animal, I see the
value of having the handler put his/her signature on the form, understanding
that there are penalties in the law for persons who fraudulently
misrepresent themselves as persons with disabilities, or their animals as
trained service animals.
There is one point on which I am not clear about the paperwork provision.
That is, on the form attesting to the animal's task training and appropriate
behavior, is there an item that requires the handler to state  that the
animal was trained by an approved program or by one of a list of
"established" programs? If this is the case, I would have strong objections
to this item, as it would discriminate against those who train their own
service animals, as well as those whose animals may have been trained by
lesser-known, newer, or smaller programs.

I do feel that the requirement to arrive an additional hour before a flight
is burdensome and discriminatory. The standard one and a half or two hours
that applies to the general flying public should suffice for the checking of
documents and assessment of the animal's behavior. The requirement to arrive
an additional hour before the flight does restrict the access of persons
with disabilities to air travel, and it seems unnecessary to me.

On the subject of the status of emotional support animals under the proposed
new regulations to the ACAA, I support the change that would no longer
consider emotional support animals to be service animals and would,
therefore, no longer require airlines to allow these animals to be carried
in the passenger cabins of aircraft without additional charge. It is my
understanding that this means that there would no longer be a special
category of "emotional support animals", and that these animals would be
transported under the same conditions as "pets", for indeed, that is exactly
what they are. This provision should substantially reduce the number of
untrained and ill-behaved animals that handlers of legitimate service
animals should encounter during air travel.

Albert, although it is true that these rule changes are at present
"proposed" rule changes, I believe they must be taken very seriously and
must receive our immediate attention and response. These changes have
already been under discussion for years, and NAGDU and other organizations
and individuals have weighed in to influence DOT's decisions on this matter.
It was only due to the efforts of folks like NAGDU that the paperwork and
other restrictive rules were not imposed on service animal users before this
point. DOT is now at the end of the regulatory process, and the proposed
rule changes will go into effect substantially as presently proposed unless
we strenuously object to provisions that we feel restrict or deny us equal
access to air travel without justification. We must make a strong case for
preserving our free access to air travel, or our hard-won rights will surely
be eroded away.

And, yes, most of the provisions in the NPRM are worded as, "the airlines
*may* do such and such...", rather than, "the airlines *will*...." But I
will not willingly trust the preservation of my equal rights to travel to
the good will of the airlines. If we want the right to travel on equal terms
as our fellow citizens, to choose our method of independent mobility, to use
the same options of check-in for our flight, to be spared the need to arrive
even earlier than our fellow travelers at the airport, and to select the
type of seating we will use, then we must stand together and let our voices
be heard on this matter while it is still open for discussion.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this thoughtful discussion.

Best,
Ann

-----Original Message-----
From: NYAGDU [mailto:nyagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Albert Rizzi
via NYAGDU
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 1:09 PM
To: New York Association of Guide Dog Users
Cc: Albert Rizzi
Subject: Re: [NYAGDU] Notice of NPRM

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

_______________________________________________
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/annedie%40nycap.rr.com