[NYAGDU] Notice of NPRM

Tue Jan 28 14:27:10 UTC 2020

Ann,

Correct me if I am wrong, but your guide is named Panda?

-----Original Message-----
From: NYAGDU <nyagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Ann Edie via NYAGDU
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:08 PM
To: 'New York Association of Guide Dog Users' <nyagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Ann Edie <Annedie at nycap.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NYAGDU] Notice of NPRM

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

_______________________________________________
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