[Wasagdu] air carrier change

[Debby Phillips]

This is important and i do hope you all will read it. It will change some things, hopelly for the better, in some cases  NFB is involved in these meetings.   Debby 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Becky Frankeberger via WASAGDU <wasagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes I know this is from the other group. But this is vital you read and
> re-read to understand the change that will take place.
> 
> Becky and Jake 
> 
> Dear GDUI Members and Friends, The information included in Jenine
> Stanley's update below will be interesting to everyone who travels via
> U. S. air carriers with their guide dogs. I thank Jenine Stanley for
> sharing this update with our members. It will also be included in the
> upcoming PawTracks issue. Please don't hesitate to contact Jenine, or
> me, or Tony Stephens with any concerns or suggestions that you may
> have. We're closing in on the date of the final committee meetings, by
> which time we will either succeed in improving the regulations that
> guarantee our civil rights when we fly or the RegNeg process will end
> in a stalemate. I hope that the disability community succeeds in
> improving the regulations which implement the Air Carrier Access Act.
> Making the kind of progress that will diminish the number of
> encounters with untrained pets we may have to endure while traveling
> through airports and flying is especially important to those of us who
> depend on our guide dogs and service animals to improve our safety and
> comfort in all environments, whether on the ground or in the air.
> 
> [BEGINNING OF ARTICLE]
> An Update Regarding the Air Carrier Access Act Regulations-Negotiations
> Process
> Jenine Stanley
> 
> [GDUI President's Introduction: Early in 2016, the U. S. Department of
> Transportation announced and convened a formal process for negotiating
> changes in the regulations which implement the Air Carrier Access Act
> (ACAA), the law that guarantees certain civil rights protections to
> people with disabilities who wish to fly on American air carriers, and
> allows people with disabilities to acquire the accommodations they
> need in order to fly safely. Although GDUI applied for membership - as
> a stakeholder - on the formal committee which is negotiating changes
> in ACAA regulations, the Department did not grant our request to
> participate as members of the formal committee. Fortunately, Anthony
> Stephens, Director of Advocacy and Legislation for the American
> Council of the Blind, and Jenine Stanley, a former president of GDUI
> and an employee of the Guide Dog Foundation, have been representing
> our needs and our positions admirably at formal committee meetings and
> during the negotiations process. I have been participating as a member
> of the Service Animals Working Group, which meets via conference call
> in-between formal committee meetings and which serves to advise
> committee members.
> 
> The first formal ACAA RegNeg Committee meeting was held in early May,
> and the Committee has been meeting for several days each month since
> then. The U. S. Department of Transportation  ruled, from the very
> beginning, that all negotiations would be completed in October. The
> next, and final  committee meeting will take place on October 12-14.
> 
> Below is Jenine's summary of the negotiation process that has taken
> place thus far. GDUI appreciates hers and Tony's active participation
> and advocacy on our behalf. By the time you read this article, the
> negotiation process will have ended, and hopefully, we will be able to
> anticipate changes in the regulations regarding Service Dogs,
> Psychiatric Service Animals, and Emotional Support Animals that will
> make flying safer and more comfortable for us and for our guide dogs.
> Below you will find Jenine's update. I encourage you to contact me or
> Tony Stephens or Jenine, or the U. S. Department of Transportation,
> with any concerns that you may have about the negotiations or their
> outcome. Thank you, Jenine, for your hard work on our behalf and for
> providing this update for PawTracks readers.]
> 
> Several people have asked about the meetings I'm participating in
> regarding the Air Carrier Access Act changes. Here's the long and
> short of this process which began in May.
> 
> The Department of Transportation (DOT) put out a call for
> representatives of the disability community, organizations and
> airlines to take part in a Negotiated Regulation process called,
> strangely enough, a "Reg-Neg process." This system is designed to pull
> together experts in the subject matter to craft proposed regulatory
> language for the DOT to review and use in its Notice of Proposed Rule
> Making (NPRM) for given issues. This particular Reg-Neg is unusual in
> that there are 3 separate issues being discussed, access to In-Flight
> Entertainment (IFE), provision of accessible lavatories on
> single-aisle aircraft (Lav) and definition of Service Animals (SA).
> The reason I'm using abbreviations here is that this is how we refer
> to the 3 groups.
> 
> In this Reg-Neg, 25 people have been convened to form the ACCESS
> Committee. I represent the Guide Dog Foundation and America's VetDogs
> and in essence, the organized service animal training community. Other
> representatives include American Council of the Blind, National
> Federation of the Blind, Psychiatric Service Dog partners and National
> Alliance on Mental Illness, among a host of others from the airline
> industry. If any one would like a link to the site established for
> this committee, let me know privately. I do not think I have the
> authority to post it here.
> 
> In the beginning of this process we assembled based on several
> factors. DOT recognizes that the system of defining service animals
> under the ACAA is not working in practice. As a result, safety
> concerns regarding service animal handlers, fraud by members of the
> public who either do not have qualifying disabilities or just want to
> fly their pets at no cost, and the erosion of civil rights for people
> with disabilities who work with service animals are rampant.
> 
> Our goal on the 19-member Service Animal Working Group (that's 19
> voting members) is to come up with a proposal that changes the
> definition of service animal in ways that eliminate as much risk of
> fraud, while minimizing damage to our animals and our civil rights.
> The Working Group (SAWG) is made up of voting members of the ACCESS
> Committee and many others from the service animal community. The list
> of SAWG members is available. There are 5 people serving as co-chairs
> of this committee from the "Advocate" side, me among them. The groups
> represented besides mine are: Paralyzed Veterans of America,
> Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, National Alliance of Mental Illness
> and Independent Association of Canine Professionals. (We've been
> working from a list of around 15 points involving this definition for
> the past 5 months now. Below, I will try to explain the key, or tent
> pole issues of this list and why it's taking so long to do something
> you'd think was not rocket science.
> 
> Before we get started, let's get one thing clear. The ADA does not
> apply in any way, other than for comparison, to what we will discuss.
> The Air Carrier Access Act is the set of regulations to which we
> refer. OK, got that? Got it.
> 
> So, why is the ACAA service animal definition broken you ask? Right
> now it allows for animals of a wide variety of species to be
> recognized as service animals. This means turkeys, birds and yes, even
> pigs, fly...free...as service animals, if the passenger says they are
> service animals.
> 
> That's at least true for the majority of animals trained to do work or
> perform tasks to help with someone's disability. This training also
> includes public exposure or access training so the animal not only
> does things for us but also is accustom to behaving properly in public
> places and chaotic environments like airports and airplane cabins.
> 
> There are 2 subcategories of the broad definition of service animal
> that some people may not understand. Each of these has different
> requirements.
> 
> Psychiatric Service Animals (PSAs) are exactly like my guide dog in
> that they have been trained to do work and perform tasks to help
> someone with a psychiatric disability. They have also had public
> access/exposure training as part of their ability to be with their
> handlers in public places. Nowhere else in civil rights access law are
> people who work with dogs that perform such functions forced to
> provide the proof they are under the ACAA. PSA handlers must provide
> the airline with a letter, on the letterhead of a mental health
> professional, which includes a stated diagnosis from the Diagnostic
> and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V (DSm5) as a justification
> for the animal.
> 
> This same letter must be provided if someone has the last category of
> animal, and Emotional Support Animal or ESA. ESAs have no formal
> training to do work or tasks and though some may have degrees of
> public access/exposure training, not all do. ESAs do though help their
> users through their presence, keeping the person calm, grounded, etc.,
> during the stressful time of flying or during activities at their
> destination.
> 
> Given those definitions, you can see how confusing this is already.
> Add to that a growing industry of on-line providers of vests,
> certificates, medical letters and more to be able to get your pet
> deemed a PSA or ESA or even a standard service animal, to avoid the
> $150 and up fees for bringing pets aboard air carriers, and you have a
> recipe for disaster.
> 
> There is also very little ability to enforce control over animals that
> misbehave either at the airport or on the plane due to fear of social
> media reprisal against the airlines.
> 
> We've identified 3 tent pole issues in this situation. A tent pole
> issue is one that is critical to continuing the process, i.e., we
> can't go to sleep until we put up the tent and we can't put up the
> tent until we find and work together to erect the tent poles. Hope
> that makes sense because many people aren't familiar with that term in
> a process like this apparently.
> 
> Our 3 issues are: Species limitations, whether or not to even include
> ESAs, and what type of documentation/verification/justification people
> would provide to claim their accommodation of having an animal travel
> with them.
> 
> Species limitations sounds like a simple thing on which to agree. Not
> so. There have been several proposals put forward by both airlines and
> advocates. Both industry and advocate groups agreed initially that
> Psychiatric Service Dogs (PSAs) should be melted into the general
> definition of service animal without documentation requirement. Both
> sides also agreed that there should be 2 distinct and separate
> definitions, one for "service animal" and one for Emotional Support
> Animal (ESA). This would allow for different treatment of each type of
> animal and lessen the confusion and stigma associated for ESA and PSA
> users. DOT also provided us with "springboard language" from which to
> work. Unfortunately, DOT did not see our distinction of separating the
> definitions but does say that if this is something both sides support,
> it can't be ignored.
> 
> All of these proposals limit the types of animals to dogs. Some
> proposals add cats as there seem to be some advocates who can cite
> examples of service cats.
> 
> The side that opposes adding cats does ask for a specific timeline for
> DOT to review the use of other species. DOT can review aspects of
> regulations any time it wants but by making a specific request to do
> so within a time period, it's more likely to happen.
> 
> I'm on the no cats for now side and base my logic on the 2010 update
> to species in the ADA. The Department of Justice chose dogs for a
> number of reasons.
> 
> I can say with a fair amount of certainty that most service dog
> training programs agree with this view.
> 
> We have also given handlers of miniature horses some access similar to
> what is done under the ADA definition, because it has been done. We
> included Capuchin Monkeys as having similar limited access so they may
> fly with their handlers. Such monkeys are professionally trained to
> provide disability mitigation in a person's home. The monkey *must*
> remain in its carrier throughout the flight though as they do not have
> public access/exposure training.
> 
> OK, that's issue 1. We all seem to agree on service animals having the
> ADA type definition, doing work and performing tasks and having public
> access/exposure training, and also being at the very least, dogs,
> miniature horses and Capuchin monkeys.
> 
> Emotional Support Animals, should they be included and if so, what
> species should be allowed?
> The species question is, in part, key to the initial question, should
> there still be a category of ESA?
> 
> Early in this process we asked the airlines to show us the scope, from
> their data, of problems or incidents involving any type of "service
> animal". We learned several things from this information. 1. Airlines
> do not keep records of incidents involving service animals of any
> stripe. They need to tease this information out of all incident
> reports in many cases, which is why we don't call it data.
> 
> 2. Airlines often don't distinguish or even know the difference
> between an ESA, a PSA and a service animal. They specifically have
> difficulty between the first two types of animals as they both require
> the same level of documentation, something the gate and flight crews
> rarely see.
> 
> 3. The number and severity of incidents involving "ESAs" was
> significantly higher than it was for traditional service animals.
> Incidents primarily involved arguments about proper documentation but
> also involved animal misbehavior, including biting flight crews and
> other passengers. People with traditional service animals report
> having their animals growled at, lunged at and yes, attacked by
> animals whose owners claim they are ESAs.
> 
> This would tell many people that ESAs are a bad idea and should be
> removed from consideration. Many airlines and advocacy groups have
> this view, based on the fraud or lack of education of ESA owners.
> 
> The SAWG though wants to be sure not to penalize those who truly do
> need an ESA and handle their animals responsibly. We are including
> them but under a separate definition.
> 
> In our first straw pole on the issue, it appeared the airlines agree
> with this point.
> 
> Where we all disagree is in the number of species represented and the
> restrictions placed upon ESAs that are not placed upon traditional
> service animals. Remember, we've pretty much agreed that Psychiatric
> Service Animals are now included in the traditional service animal
> definition.
> 
> There are several positions among the Advocates about species and
> containment of ESAs. I'll outline them here with the designation AP1,
> etc., as they are in our materials.
> 
> AP1. ESAs are dogs, cats and rabbits. All ESAs must fit into
> FAA-approved pet carriers and must be in those carriers unless
> providing disability mitigation. When doing so, they must be on the
> person's lap and connected to the person by a leash or tether. If the
> animal is not behaving according to the behavior standards laid out in
> the ACAA (which are already there by the way, the flight crew can
> require that the animal be put back into the pet carrier for the
> remainder of the flight.
> 
> AP2. ESAs are dogs, cats and rabbits. Cats and rabbits must be in
> FAA-approved pet carriers but can come out for disability mitigation.
> They also can be required by the flight crew to be put back into the
> carriers if misbehaving. Dogs have no size limitation but if they are
> well-behaved, they can enter the aircraft and remain outside a
> carrier. If they are knowingly not well behaved, they must remain in
> the carrier, with the same rules as for cats and rabbits.
> 
> AP3. Only dogs that can fit into FAA-approved carriers are ESAs. ESAs
> cannot be removed from carriers.
> 
> The DOT has a position in its "springboard document" similar to AP3
> but dogs have no size limitation and no carrier restriction.
> 
> All animals, service or ESA, must be under the control of their owners
> and must have leashes or tethers unless providing disability
> mitigation that prohibits them, such as distance retrieves. (This is
> taken almost directly from the 2010 ADA wording on control, by the
> way.)
> 
> Now, guess which position I hold? Yes, AP1. It makes little sense not
> to allow animals whose purpose is to assist through their presence,
> i.e., being able to hold and pet them. The rules for pet carriers are
> the same as those for baggage that goes under the seats, so the
> animals would not be available during the most stressful parts of the
> flight. Requiring them to remain in carriers defeats their purpose and
> stigmatizes them as "pets who fly free" or "fakes".
> 
> AP1 also allows for the animal to be returned to the carrier if it is
> not providing a service to the person. Since most incidents we've
> heard involve ESAs, we want a means of controlling them and removing
> them from other service animals, passengers and flight crew. This
> cannot be done for larger dogs if allowed.
> 
> Honestly, this particular aspect of the regulation definition has
> split the Advocates in several directions. I'd urge anyone considering
> commenting to remember why this Reg-Neg was convened. Safety for
> service animal teams was one of the paramount concerns expressed by
> advocates. Given that fraud, either intentional or through lack of
> education, is also an issue, particularly with ESAs, we regret that
> AP1 limits access for those with larger dogs as ESAs, but something
> has to give to achieve the goals here. We do appreciate your support
> for AP1.
> 
> Documentation/Verification/Attestation
> This is by far the most controversial part of the entire definition.
> The current state of play is that if you have a traditional service
> animal, you are not required to do anything, other than possibly
> answer the two questions allowed under the ADA as well as the ACAA,
> which are:
> "Is that a service animal required because of a disability?"
> "How does that animal assist you with your disability?"
> These two questions can be asked by airline staff. They cannot ask,
> however, anything specific, such as "What is your disability?", "Can
> you demonstrate the dog's work?", "What's the dog's breed, weight,
> size, training provider,.
> 
> If you have a PSA or ESA, you must provide a letter, 48 hours in
> advance of your flight, stating your diagnosis and that the animal is
> necessary. This letter must be on the letterhead of a licensed mental
> health professional and must include their name, address and license
> number. The letter is good for 1 year.
> 
> In theory this sounds good enough to prevent fraud. In practice, it's
> just the opposite. Many reading this post can show lots of examples of
> where to get credentials for your pet on line to transform it into
> either and ESA, with a real doctor's note, or a traditional service
> animal.
> 
> AP1. Since the airlines feel more secure with some type of assurance
> that we are who we say we are and that our animals are what we claim,
> traditional service animals or ESAs, we have come up with a decision
> tree concept. This is a form that goes something like this:
> 
> I am traveling with an animal. Yes/No
> 
> If yes: My animal is a(n( Pet/ESA/Service Animal
> 
> If Service Animal, then some language would appear that says you
> attest to the fact that you do have a qualifying disability, not what
> that disability is, but that you have one, and you require this animal
> to assist with said disability.
> 
> You will also attest to the fact that the animal has been trained and
> will remain under your control, and that you are responsible for
> damages caused by the animal.
> 
> This short data form would be filled out as soon after your ticket
> purchase has been confirmed as possible. Just how that will happen is
> not yet clear but suggestions include the form being part of the
> ticket reservation process on an airline's web site or 3rd party
> ticket seller's site, an email being sent with the confirmation of
> ticket purchase with a link to the form on the airline's entry site,
> etc.
> 
> This data form would need to be completed by anyone traveling with a
> service animals or ESA no less than 12 hours prior to the flight. If
> you don't get it done prior to the flight, you may be required to do
> so at the airport, may be asked for additional documentation or may be
> asked to take another flight, giving you time to complete the form.
> 
> If you have done so ahead of time though the airline cannot ask you
> anything else about your animal (dog in most cases). This does not
> apply to any other type of assistance requested or offered by the
> airline involving your disability, such as meet and assist. It just
> means you won't get questions about your dog from the airline staff.
> 
> Arguments on this point are quite vehement. People with traditional
> service animals have not been asked to do anything extra to gain
> access to flights with their animals. Many people feel that this is
> discriminatory and that identifying themselves ahead of time to the
> airlines as a person with a disability primes the staff for
> inappropriate and often infantilizing treatment.
> 
> I can't argue that. It happens.
> 
> Unfortunately we are at the point though where the regulations
> involving animals on flights have come to a tipping point of safety.
> Cabin space is at a premium. In order to secure our rights, sadly, we
> are going to have to start notifying the airline of a need for the
> accommodation of having our service animals with us.
> 
> The airlines would rather we *all* got a 3rd party to verify that we
> have disabilities and that we need our animals for said disability
> mitigation.
> 
> What do we get by checking boxes on this form? Good question.
> 
> We, not a 3rd party, are responsible for the accommodation request.
> The airlines can deal with us directly if there is any question about
> our animals. Completing the form holds someone who is fraudulently
> representing themselves or their animals to a legal standard for which
> they can be punished by law if found guilty. For many people that
> threat is enough to stop them from completing the form and taking
> their pet, who has never been out of their yard, on an airplane.
> 
> The airlines do truly want to stop people who *are not disabled* from
> claiming accommodations designed for those who are. Yes, there's a
> financial component on their side but the people we deal with on the
> ACCESS Committee and SAWG are very angry that people would disrespect
> people with disabilities and the work that goes into maintaining the
> training of a service dog, just to get something free. They see much
> more of this rampant fraud than we do directly.
> 
> My final word on this is that we need to realize, unfortunate as the
> "group slap" mentality is, that we are going to have to justify our
> need for our animals in some form, across the board. People who use
> other assistive devices have to do so as well under certain
> conditions. No, a national registry of "legitimate service dogs" will
> not work.
> 
> The airlines are looking into ways of voluntarily keeping your
> information about your animal in some type of passenger profile, be it
> your frequent flyer account or other information so you don't have to
> check every box, every time. They are also looking at how you would
> deal with canceled flights or stand-by situations, even switching
> airlines during a trip. Trust me, thanks to discussing this with many
> different people, we've tried to think of everything.
> 
> Finally, if we don't agree to this concept in some form, it will be
> forced upon us by DOT. That's not necessarily a threat. It's just a
> reality.
> 
> I appreciate any
> questions regarding this process. the final meetings for this Reg-Neg
> will take place October 12 - 14 in Washington, DC. The public is
> welcome to attend.
> 
> Jenine Stanley
> <Jeninems at icloud.com>
> NG
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WASAGDU mailing list
> WASAGDU at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wasagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for WASAGDU:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/wasagdu_nfbnet.org/semisweetdebby%40gmail.com