[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79742-79776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26679]



[[Page 79741]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 238

December 10, 2020

Part III





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





14 CFR Part 382





Traveling by Air With Service Animals; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 79742]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0068]
RIN No. 2105-AE63


Traveling by Air With Service Animals

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is 
issuing a final rule to amend the Department's Air Carrier Access Act 
(ACAA) regulation on the transport of service animals by air. This 
final rule is intended to ensure that our air transportation system is 
safe for the traveling public and accessible to individuals with 
disabilities.

DATES: This rule is effective January 11, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maegan Johnson, Senior Trial Attorney, 
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC, 20590, 202-
366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected] (email). You may 
also contact Blane Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of 
Aviation Consumer Protection, Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC, 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 
(fax), [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    This final rule defines a service animal as a dog, regardless of 
breed or type, that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks 
for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including 
a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental 
disability.\1\ It allows airlines to recognize emotional support 
animals as pets, rather than service animals, and permits airlines to 
limit the number of service animals that one passenger can bring 
onboard an aircraft to two service animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department's ACAA definition of a service animal in this 
final rule is similar to the definition of a service animal in the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations implementing the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 CFR 35.104 and 28 CFR 36.104. 
Although DOT has chosen to closely align its ACAA service animal 
definition with DOJ's service animal definition under the ADA, the 
substantive requirements in this final rule differ from DOJ's 
requirements for service animals under the ADA in various areas, 
e.g., allowing airlines to require service animal documentation and 
prohibiting the use of voice control over a service animal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also allows airlines to require passengers with a 
disability traveling with a service animal to complete and submit to 
the airline a form, developed by DOT, attesting to the animal's 
training and good behavior, and certifying the animal's good health. 
For flight segments of eight hours or more, the rule allows airlines to 
require passengers to complete and submit a DOT form attesting that the 
animal has the ability either not to relieve itself on a long flight or 
to relieve itself in a sanitary manner. In addition, this final rule 
allows airlines to require a service animal user to provide these forms 
up to 48 hours in advance of the date of travel if the passenger's 
reservation was made prior to that time. As an alternative, airlines 
may require a passenger with a disability seeking to travel with a 
service animal in the cabin to provide the forms at the passenger's 
departure gate on the date of travel. However, the final rule prohibits 
airlines from requiring that a passenger physically check-in at the 
airport solely on the basis that the individual is traveling with a 
service animal, thus ensuring that service animal users are not 
prevented from enjoying the same convenience-related benefits provided 
to other passengers, such as online and curbside check-in. Service 
animal users may use the online check-in process available to the 
general public.
    This final rule also better ensures the safety of passengers and 
crewmembers by allowing carriers to require that service animals are 
harnessed, leashed, or otherwise tethered onboard an aircraft and 
includes requirements that would address the safe transport of large 
service animals in the aircraft cabin. Further, it specifies the 
circumstances under which the user of a service animal may be charged 
for damage caused by the service animal and addresses the 
responsibilities of code-share partners.

1. Statutory Authority

    The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705, prohibits 
discrimination in airline service based on disability. When enacted in 
1986, the ACAA applied only to U.S. air carriers. On April 5, 2000, the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 
(AIR-21) amended the ACAA to include foreign carriers. The ACAA, while 
prohibiting discrimination by U.S. and foreign air carriers in air 
transportation against qualified individuals with disabilities, does 
not specify how carriers must act to avoid such discrimination. The 
statute similarly does not specify how the Department should regulate 
with respect to these issues. In addition to the ACAA, the Department's 
authority to regulate nondiscrimination in airline service on the basis 
of disability is based in the Department's rulemaking authority under 
49 U.S.C. 40113, which states that the Department may take action that 
it considers necessary to carry out this part, including prescribing 
regulations.
    The current rulemaking has presented questions about how the ACAA 
is reasonably interpreted and applied to require airlines to 
accommodate the needs of individual passengers whose physical or mental 
disability necessitates the assistance of a service animal in air 
transportation. In approaching these questions, the Department 
recognizes that the ACAA's nondiscrimination mandate is not absolute. 
The statute requires airlines to provide accommodations that are 
reasonable given the realities and limitations of air service and the 
onboard environment of commercial airplanes. Animals on aircraft may 
pose a risk to the safety, health, and well-being of passengers and 
crew, and may disturb the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. 
Any requirement for the accommodation of passengers traveling with 
service animals onboard aircraft necessarily must be balanced against 
the health, safety, and mental and physical well-being of the other 
passengers and crew, and must not interfere with the safe and efficient 
operation of the aircraft.

2. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    The purpose of this final rule is to revise the Department's Air 
Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulation on traveling by air with service 
animals (formerly 14 CFR 382.117) in 14 CFR part 382.\2\ This final 
rule is prompted by a number of compelling needs to revise these 
regulations: (1) The increasing number of service animal complaints 
received from, and on behalf of, passengers with disabilities by the 
Department and by airlines; (2) the

[[Page 79743]]

inconsistent definitions among Federal agencies of what constitutes a 
``service animal;'' (3) the disruptions caused by requests to transport 
unusual species of animals onboard aircraft, which has eroded the 
public trust in legitimate service animals; (4) the increasing 
frequency of incidents of travelers fraudulently representing their 
pets as service animals; and (5) the reported increase in the incidents 
of misbehavior by emotional support animals. In addition, DOT has 
received multiple requests for the Department to regulate in this 
area.\3\ Each of these purposes underlying this rulemaking, as well as 
the requests for rulemaking, were discussed in depth in the 
Department's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued on February 5, 
2020.\4\ Please refer to that discussion for additional background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2008, the Department amended 14 CFR 382 by adding 14 CFR 
382.117, a provision dedicated to the transport of service animals 
on aircraft. The Department's 2008 amendment codified prior DOT 
guidance, which allowed airlines to require emotional support animal 
and psychiatric service animal users to provide a letter from a 
licensed mental health professional of the passenger's need for the 
animal, and permitted airlines to require 48 hours' advance notice 
of a passenger's wish to travel with an emotional support or 
psychiatric service animal to give airlines sufficient time to 
assess the passenger's documentation. This final rule removes 14 CFR 
382.117 and adds a new subpart, Subpart EE, on service animals.
    \3\ See, e.g., Psychiatric Service Dog Society, DOT-OST-2009-
0093-0001, 1-2, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2009-0093-0001 (Apr. 21, 2009); Comment from Airlines for America at 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2751 (Dec. 
4, 2017); Comment from International Air Transport Association at 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-269 (Dec. 
1, 2017); Comment from Kuwait Airways at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2679 (Dec. 1, 
2017); and Comment from National Air Carrier Association at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2771 (Dec. 4, 
2017).
    \4\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, ``Traveling by Air with Service Animals,'' 85 FR 6448 
(Feb. 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule also responds to a congressional mandate. The FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the FAA Act) requires the Department to 
conduct a rulemaking proceeding on the definition of the term ``service 
animal'' and to develop minimum standards for what is required for 
service and emotional support animals.\5\ Congress also required the 
Department to consider whether it should align DOT's ACAA definition of 
a service animal with the service animal definition established by the 
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its rule implementing the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA).\6\ In response, and as described in more 
detail below, the Department has chosen to revise its service animal 
definition under the ACAA to be more closely aligned with DOJ's service 
animal definition under the ADA, although the substantive requirements 
in DOT's ACAA service animals rule differ from DOJ's requirements for 
service animals under the ADA in a number of respects. This final rule 
is responsive to, and fulfills the requirements found in, the FAA Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-254, 
Sec. 437 (Oct. 5, 2018).
    \6\ See DOJ's ADA definition of a service animal in 28 CFR 
35.104 and 28 CFR 36.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Recent Rulemaking Activities

    On May 23, 2018, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) titled ``Traveling by 
Air with Service Animals.'' \7\ In the ANPRM, the Department sought 
comment on how to amend the Department's ACAA regulations to address 
concerns raised by individuals with disabilities, airlines, flight 
attendants, airports and other aviation stakeholders regarding service 
animals on aircraft. On February 5, 2020, a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) on Traveling by Air with Service Animals was 
published in the Federal Register.\8\ The Department sought in the NPRM 
to propose a rule that would ensure passengers with disabilities can 
continue traveling with service animals in air transportation while 
also reducing the likelihood that there would be safety or health 
issues at the airport or onboard aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 23832 (May 23, 2018).
    \8\ Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 85 FR 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department received approximately 15,000 comments on the 
NPRM.\9\ While most of the comments received in response to the NPRM 
were from individual commenters, the Department also received many 
comments from disability rights advocacy organizations, airlines, 
airports, transportation worker associations, animal health and 
training organizations, and a number of other special-interest 
organizations. The Department has carefully reviewed and considered all 
of the comments received and is issuing this final rule to ensure 
access to individuals whose physical or mental disability necessitates 
the assistance of a service animal in air transportation, while also 
considering the realities, risks, and limitations associated with 
transporting animals on aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Summary of the Major Provisions

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subject                            Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Service Animal......  A service animal is as a dog,
                                     regardless of breed or type, that
                                     is individually trained to do work
                                     or perform tasks for the benefit of
                                     a qualified individual with a
                                     disability, including a physical,
                                     sensory, psychiatric, intellectual,
                                     or other mental disability.
Emotional Support Animals.........  Carriers are not required to
                                     recognize emotional support animals
                                     as service animals and may treat
                                     them as pets.
Treatment of Psychiatric Service    Psychiatric service animals are
 Animals.                            treated the same as other service
                                     animals that are individually
                                     trained to do work or perform a
                                     task for the benefit of a qualified
                                     individual with a disability.
Species...........................  Carriers are permitted to limit
                                     service animals to dogs.
Health, Behavior and Training Form  Carriers are permitted to require
                                     passengers to remit a completed
                                     hardcopy or electronic version of
                                     the Department's ``U.S. Department
                                     of Transportation Service Animal
                                     Air Transportation Form'' as a
                                     condition of transportation.
Relief Attestation................  Carriers are permitted to require
                                     individuals traveling with a
                                     service animal on flights eight
                                     hours or longer to remit a
                                     completed hardcopy or electronic
                                     version the Department's ``U.S.
                                     Department of Transportation
                                     Service Animal Relief Attestation''
                                     as a condition of transportation.
Number of Service Animals per       Carriers are permitted to limit the
 Passenger.                          number of service animals traveling
                                     with a single passenger with a
                                     disability to two service animals.
Large Service Animals.............  Carriers are permitted to require a
                                     service animal to fit on their
                                     handler's lap or within its
                                     handler's foot space on the
                                     aircraft.
Control of Service Animals........  Carriers are permitted to require a
                                     service animal to be harnessed,
                                     leashed, or otherwise tethered in
                                     areas of the airport that they own,
                                     lease, or control, and on the
                                     aircraft.
Service Animal Breed or Type......  Carriers are prohibited from
                                     refusing to transport a service
                                     animal based solely on breed or
                                     generalized physical type, as
                                     distinct from an individualized
                                     assessment of the animal's behavior
                                     and health.

[[Page 79744]]

 
Check-In Requirements.............  Carriers are not permitted to
                                     require a passenger with a
                                     disability to physically check-in
                                     at the airport, rather than using
                                     the online check-in process, on the
                                     basis that the individual is
                                     traveling with a service animal.
                                     Airlines may require a passenger
                                     with a disability seeking to travel
                                     with a service animal to provide
                                     the service animal form(s) at the
                                     passenger's departure gate on the
                                     date of travel.
Advance Notice Requirements.......  Carriers may require individuals
                                     traveling with a service animal to
                                     provide a U.S. Department of
                                     Transportation Service Animal Air
                                     Transportation Form and, if
                                     applicable, a U.S. Department of
                                     Transportation Service Animal
                                     Relief Attestation up to 48 hours
                                     in advance of the date of travel if
                                     the passenger's reservation was
                                     made prior to that time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Summary of the Economic Analysis

    The Department has prepared a regulatory evaluation in support of 
the final rule to amend the ACAA service animal regulations. Under this 
final rule, a service animal is limited to a dog, regardless of breed 
or type, that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for 
the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability. It allows 
airlines, for the first time, to recognize emotional support animals 
(ESAs) as pets rather than service animals. Because airlines charge 
passengers for transporting pets, and are prohibited from charging 
passengers traveling with service animals, passengers previously had an 
incentive to claim their pets were ESAs. Airlines and other passengers 
have also reported increased incidence of misbehavior by ESAs on 
aircraft and in the airport. The misbehavior has included animals' 
urinating, defecating, and in some instances, harming people and other 
animals at the airport or on the aircraft. The primary economic impact 
of this rule is that it will eliminate a market inefficiency. Treating 
ESAs as service animals amounts to a price restriction that sets the 
price of accommodating passengers who travel with ESAs at zero dollars, 
despite the fact that airlines face non-zero resource costs to 
accommodate those passengers.
    Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the regulatory evaluation. The 
final rule creates a potential burden on passengers who travel with 
service animals as it allows airlines to require such passengers to 
submit two U.S. DOT forms. We estimate that the forms could create as 
much as 74,000 burden hours and $1.1 million in costs per year in 2018 
dollars.
    Evaluating other impacts was more difficult due to data 
limitations. To gauge the potential magnitude of these impacts, we 
combined the limited data with reasonable assumptions about ESA 
transport that could occur under the final rule and a demand elasticity 
from a surrogate market. The analysis indicates that the final rule 
could be expected to generate annual cost savings to airlines between 
$15.6 million and $21.6 million and annual net benefits of $3.9 to 
$12.7 million.

        Table ES-1--Summary of Economic Impacts Due to Final Rule
                        [2018 Dollars, millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Impact                            Annual value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Paperwork burden for passengers    $1.1.
     traveling with service animals.
    Cost savings to airlines           -$21.6 to -$15.6.
     associated with providing ESA
     travel.
Benefits:
    Lost benefits to individuals who   -$10.6 to -$7.8.
     no longer travel with ESAs.
    Reduction in negative              Not quantified.
     externalities caused by ESAs.
Transfers:
    Increased fees paid by passengers  $54.0 to $59.6.
     travelling with ESAs to airlines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net benefits (benefits minus       $3.9 to $12.7.
     costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

1. Definition of a Service Animal

    In developing the definition of a service animal, the Department 
carefully considered whether emotional support animals should be 
treated as service animals, whether psychiatric service animals should 
be treated the same as other service animals, whether to limit service 
animals to certain species of animals, whether certain breeds or 
generalized physical types of animals should not be considered service 
animals, and whether the Department's definition of a service animal 
under the ACAA should be similar to the DOJ definition of a service 
animal under the ADA. Each of these issues is discussed in turn below.
A. Emotional Support Animals
The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department explained that the ACAA regulations 
currently recognize two types of service animal: (1) Any animal that is 
individually trained or able to provide assistance to a qualified 
person with a disability; and (2) emotional support animals, defined as 
``any animal shown by documentation to be necessary for the emotional 
well-being of a passenger.'' Emotional support animals are intended to 
mitigate a passenger's disability by their presence, and are expected 
to be trained to behave in public, but are not individually trained to 
do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a passenger with a 
disability.
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to allow airlines to treat 
emotional support animals as pets, rather than service animals. The 
Department proposed to do so by redefining a ``service animal'' as a 
dog that is individually trained to do work or perform a task for the 
benefit of a qualified individual with a disability. Under the 
Department's proposed definition, airlines would not be required to 
recognize comfort animals, companionship animals, or any other non-
task-trained animals as service animals. The Department indicated that 
the proposal was intended to align the definition of a service animal 
under the ACAA with the DOJ's definition of a

[[Page 79745]]

service animal under the ADA.\10\ One purpose of this alignment was to 
reduce confusion for individuals with disabilities, airline personnel, 
and airports (which are generally subject to the ADA rather than the 
ACAA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See DOJ's ADA definition of a service animal at 28 CFR 
35.104 and 28 CFR 36.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the Department sought comment on how its proposed 
service animal definition would impact individuals with disabilities 
who rely on emotional support animals when traveling on aircraft. 
Furthermore, although airlines could choose to continue to recognize 
emotional support animals and transport them for free pursuant to an 
airline's established policy, the Department specifically sought 
comment on whether individuals with disabilities who use emotional 
support animals to mitigate their disabilities would be less likely to 
travel by air if they were no longer permitted to travel with their 
emotional support animals. In addition, since the Department proposed 
that airlines would be permitted to treat emotional support animals as 
pets, the Department sought comment on whether individuals would be 
able to transport emotional support cats or other small animals as pets 
in the cabin for a fee, and whether the limits on the number of pets an 
airline would allow per flight could impact their transport.
    The Department also requested comment in the NPRM on whether 
emotional support animal users could train their animals to do work or 
perform tasks to assist them with their disability, thereby 
transforming the animal from an emotional support animal to a 
psychiatric service animal.
    Although the Department proposed not to treat emotional support 
animals as service animals, the Department also sought comment on 
whether it should recognize emotional support animals as a separate and 
distinct accommodation for passengers with disabilities. Specifically, 
the Department sought comment on whether to allow airlines to mandate 
stricter medical documentation requirements for individuals traveling 
with emotional support animals; whether airlines should be allowed to 
require that emotional support animals be contained in an FAA-approved 
in-cabin pet carrier in the airport and on the aircraft; and whether 
limiting emotional support animals to one per passenger would mitigate 
a passenger's disability sufficiently on a flight or at the passenger's 
destination. The Department did so as part of the mandate in the FAA 
Act, which required the Department to conduct a rulemaking proceeding 
on the definition of the term ``service animal,'' and to develop 
minimum standards for what is required for service and emotional 
support animals.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-254, Sec. 
437 (Oct. 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Of the approximately 15,000 comments in response to the NPRM, more 
than 10,000 of those comments concerned the transport of emotional 
support animals. More than 3,000 individuals submitted comments in 
support of DOT's proposal to exclude emotional support animals from the 
ACAA definition of a service animal and to allow airlines to treat 
emotional support animals as pets. Furthermore, a large majority of 
airline industry stakeholder organizations that submitted comments on 
this issue (i.e., airlines and airline organizations, airports, flight 
attendants, and other transportation worker organizations), expressed 
their support for DOT's proposal to allow airlines to treat emotional 
support animals as pets. Furthermore, approximately half of the 
disability rights advocacy organizations that submitted comments on 
this issue (mainly those organizations that represent individuals with 
allergies and individuals with visual impairment who use guide dogs) 
also supported DOT's proposal to allow airlines to treat emotional 
support animals as pets.
    Supporters of DOT's proposal to exclude emotional support animals 
from the service animal definition primarily expressed safety concerns. 
They described incidents of misbehavior by emotional support animals, 
including acting aggressively toward people and other service animals 
by biting, growling, and lunging; and urinating, defecating, and 
otherwise failing to be under the control of their handler. Commenters 
expressed general safety concerns for travelers and airline crew given 
these disturbances. Some commenters expressed the view that many 
emotional support animal users may not actually be individuals with 
disabilities, but instead are individuals who are misrepresenting their 
pets as service animals to avoid paying airline pet fees.
    Airlines for America (A4A), the Regional Airline Association, and 
the National Air Carrier Association jointly commented \12\ that 
numerous incidents on aircraft have demonstrated that emotional support 
animals are substantially more likely to misbehave during a flight due 
to the stressful and challenging aircraft environment.\13\ These 
organizations emphasized that emotional support animal misbehavior 
poses a substantial risk to flight safety, and that aircraft cannot 
reasonably carry untrained animals in the cabin that are uncontained. 
Similarly, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) 
commented that ``emotional support animals have been known to bite 
passengers and Flight Attendants, urinate, defecate, cause allergic 
reactions and encroach on the space and comfort zone of other 
passengers who have purchased tickets,'' and that an untrained 
emotional support animal can put passengers at risk during an emergency 
evacuation.\14\ The California Chapter of the American Council of the 
Blind (ACB California) also commented that emotional support animals 
pose a risk to people and other service animals as its members have 
reported that their guide dogs have been barked at and growled at on 
many occasions.\15\ Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical 
Association (AVMA) commented that untrained emotional support animals 
``are often not acclimated to various stressful situations in the same 
manner that service animals are trained,'' which ``puts the safety and 
well-being of both the animal and those sharing the animal's space at 
risk.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For ease of reference we will refer to these organizations 
collectively as ``A4A.''
    \13\ Comment from Airlines for America (A4A), the Regional 
Airline Association, (RAA), and the National Air Carrier Association 
(NACA) (collectively referred to as A4A) at https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \14\ Comment from Association of Professional Flight Attendants 
(APFA), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19238.
    \15\ Comment from California Chapter of the American Council of 
the Blind (ACB California), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19145.
    \16\ Comment from American Veterinary Medical Association 
(AVMA), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second concern most frequently expressed by commenters in 
support of DOT's proposal related to those individuals who misrepresent 
their pets as service animals, and the growing number of online mental 
health professionals willing to provide pet owners with emotional 
support animal and psychiatric service animal documentation for a fee. 
American Airlines commented that the ``increase in the availability of 
fraudulent ESA credentials has enabled people who are not truly in need 
of animal assistance to abuse the rules and evade airline policies 
regarding animals in the

[[Page 79746]]

cabin.'' \17\ Similarly, Open Doors Organization commented that 
airlines can show evidence of letters written by certain mental health 
professionals on the web that result from fee-based online evaluations 
or consultations with minimal therapeutic interaction between the 
health professional and the traveler.\18\ Likewise, the Association of 
Late Deafened Adults commented that people who falsely claim their pets 
are service animals can purchase a fake service animal vest for their 
pet online without the pet going through any period of training.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Comment from American Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138.
    \18\ Comment from Open Doors Organization, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19305. https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19305.
    \19\ Comment from Association of Late Deafened Adults, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters also support DOT's proposed service animal 
definition, limiting service animals to task-trained animals, because 
they believe that only service animals trained to do work or perform 
tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability can effectively 
function as service animals. The American Association of Airport 
Executives (AAAE) commented that disability mitigation training, which 
enables an animal to know how to guide individuals with vision 
impairments, retrieve items for individuals with mobility impairments, 
and perform other tasks and functions for individuals with 
disabilities, is critical to mitigating potential risks and to ensure 
safety of passengers in the terminal.\20\ An individual commenter 
remarked that ``a critical part of a service animal's training includes 
a systematic socialization process that gradually and humanely exposes 
the dog to a variety of public places and settings . . . [which] 
ensures that service animals can both reliably perform their essential 
duties in all types of settings, and that venues like busy airport and 
crowded aircraft cabins will not trigger behaviors that are unsafe for 
the disabled handler, or for others to be around.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Comment from American Association of Airport Executives, 
(AAAE), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19196.
    \21\ Comment from Ginger G.B. Kutsch, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also received a significant number of comments from 
individuals suffering from allergies, or individuals and organizations 
commenting on behalf of allergy sufferers, in support of the proposal 
to allow airlines to treat emotional support animals as pets. These 
commenters describe how the recent increases in the number of service 
animals on aircraft, ostensibly emotional support animals, has created 
an untenable environment for allergy sufferers in the aircraft cabin. 
Furthermore, these commenters believe that DOT's proposed rule would 
result in an overall decrease in the number of service animals on 
aircraft, which would improve the level of unwanted fur-related 
allergens on aircraft. The Asthma and Allergy Network commented that a 
training requirement for service animals would help mitigate the number 
of animals on aircraft.\22\ The Asthma Allergy Foundation of America 
also commented that it supports DOT's proposal, which permits airlines 
the flexibility to treat emotional support animals as pets, because it 
will ``reduce the risk of animals triggering asthma attacks or severe 
allergic reactions.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Comment from the Allergy and Asthma Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17955.
    \23\ Comment from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, more than 6,000 commenters either supported the 
Department's continued recognition of emotional support animals as 
service animals, or supported a rule allowing emotional support animals 
to be recognized as a separate accommodation for individuals with 
disabilities. The individual commenters who support the Department's 
continued recognition of emotional support animals as service animals 
include individuals who suffer from autism, debilitating depression, 
anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a range of other mental 
and emotional disabilities. One individual commenter indicated that she 
believed that DOT's proposal is discriminatory toward veterans with 
disabilities and those with mental health problems, stating: ``ESAs 
like mine are prescribed by [a] healthcare professional in order to 
ease stress, anxiety, depression and PTSD. I have PTSD and anxiety and 
I will testify to the benefit of my ESA. It is far better than 
dangerous and harmful drugs that I would otherwise need to take.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Comment from Gabrielle Ruiz, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other individual commenters described their disabilities and how 
they are able to travel and, in some cases, complete everyday functions 
because of the presence of their emotional support animals. Some of 
these commenters described how certain individuals with disabilities 
would no longer be able to fly if the Department passed its proposed 
definition of a service animal, since many individuals suffering from 
mental and emotional disabilities have low incomes and can barely 
afford the cost of their own ticket for air transportation. For 
example, a joint comment from Paralyzed Veterans for America (PVA) and 
other advocacy organizations noted that even if a passenger's emotional 
support animal is able to travel as a pet, these fees can cost upwards 
of $175 each way, and that ``people with disabilities are 
disproportionately low income and these fees would likely make it very 
difficult for emotional support animals users to travel[.]'' \25\ 
Several individual commenters also described the inconceivability of 
leaving their emotional support animals behind, as many are either 
unable to fly without their emotional support animal, or unable to 
function without their emotional support animal at their destination 
for long periods of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Joint Comment from PVA, Access Living of Metropolitan 
Chicago, American Association of People with Disabilities, Bazelon 
Center for Mental Health Law, Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, 
the National Council on Independent Living, National Disability 
Rights Network, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429. For ease of 
reference we will refer to these organizations collectively as 
``PVA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also received comments from licensed mental health 
professionals and other health care workers who describe the harmful 
impact that DOT's rule would have on individuals who suffer from mental 
and emotional disabilities. These commenters describe their patients, 
many of whom were prescribed an emotional support animal to help 
accommodate a serious mental or emotional disability, and how the 
Department's proposed rule appears to have a disproportionately 
negative impact on individuals with mental disabilities, in comparison 
to those with physical disabilities.
    Half of disability rights advocacy organizations that commented on 
the NPRM opposed the Department's proposal to treat emotional support 
animals as pets. They argue primarily that emotional support animals 
provide a vital accommodation for many individuals suffering from a 
wide range of serious mental and emotional disabilities. The Autistic 
Self Advocacy Network commented that emotional support animals ``can 
assist with sensory regulation, anxiety, and provide focus for social 
communication'' and without the calming effect of an emotional support 
animal, individuals with autism or other mental disabilities

[[Page 79747]]

may be unable to function without the assistance of an ESA for several 
days or weeks, which may result in their inability to travel.\26\ The 
Disability Rights Education Defense Fund (DREDF) similarly commented 
that the ``use of an emotional support animal may be the only option 
for effective mitigation of their mental health symptoms'' because for 
some individuals with psychiatric disabilities, ``medications are 
ineffective and few or no other clinical mental health interventions 
are available or successful for them.'' \27\ The DREDF further 
commented that ``[f]requently, an emotional support animal is the 
primary intervention that enables a person with a psychiatric 
disability to succeed with daily activities--and sometimes to stay 
alive.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Comment from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232.
    \27\ Comment from the Disability Rights Education Defense Fund 
(DREDF), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19264.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the disability rights advocates that supported DOT's 
continued recognition of emotional support animals either (1) expressed 
support for stricter requirements on the transport of emotional support 
animals, or (2) supported DOT recognition of emotional support animals 
not as service animals, but as a separate accommodation for individuals 
with disabilities with its own distinct set of regulations. Commenters 
that favored stricter requirements for service animal users, such as 
Disability Rights of Florida and PVA, submitted comments in support of 
a rule that would allow carriers to require behavior attestations from 
emotional support animal users, although these organizations rejected 
measures such as the mandatory containment of emotional support animals 
in pet carriers.\29\ Similarly, the Oklahoma Disability Law Center 
commented that it would also support a rule that allowed carriers to 
require behavior attestations, as well as a rule that would allow 
airlines to require emotional support animal users to produce 
documentation from a licensed mental health professional following an 
in-person visit.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Comments from Disability Rights Florida, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19336, and PVA, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429.
    \30\ Comment from the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Organizations that supported a DOT ACAA rule treating emotional 
support animals as a separate accommodation from service animals, such 
as PVA, commented that the ``Department should recognize emotional 
support animals as an accommodation because emotional support animals 
are different from service animals in that they are not trained to 
perform work or tasks to mitigate a disability.'' \31\ The Humane 
Society of the United States commented that DOT should adopt a rule 
that would allow emotional support animals as a separate accommodation 
known as an ``assistance animal,'' \32\ regulated separately from 
service animals, similar to the Fair Housing Act rule of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).\33\ Opening Doors, PLLC, 
another interested stakeholder that commented in support of DOT's 
treating emotional support animals as a separate accommodation, stated 
that a ``benefit of aligning the definition of `emotional support 
animal' with `assistance animal' is that [the Fair Housing Act (FHA)] 
already has a framework in place for evaluating reasonable 
accommodation requests.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Comment from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429.
    \32\ The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 
which enforces the Fair Housing Act regulations, recognizes two 
types of assistance animals: (1) Service animals, and (2) other 
trained or untrained animals that do work, perform tasks, provide 
assistance, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for 
individuals with disabilities (``support animal''). See Service 
Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in 
Housing and HUD-Funded Programs, FHEO Notice: FHEO-2020-01, https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf 
(Jan. 28, 2020), and https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24-20.pdf.
    \33\ Comment from the Humane Society of the United States 
(Humane Society), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19184.
    \34\ Comment from Opening Doors, PLLC, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-7322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Department's request for comment on the 
feasibility of turning an emotional support animal into a psychiatric 
service animal, U.S. Support Animals commented that ``requiring a 
person with an emotional disability to train their emotional support 
animal to be a psychiatric service dog would be incredibly burdensome 
on most disabled people and often an impossible standard to meet.'' 
\35\ U.S. Support Animals further commented that ``emotional support 
animals should not be trained to perform a specific task'' because the 
benefit of an emotional support animal is the animal's presence; 
``there is often no task that can even be defined for the animal to 
perform that would help alleviate the symptoms that the passenger 
exhibits.'' \36\ In addition, PVA, using rabbits as an example, 
commented that it ``does not believe that it is possible to convert all 
emotional support animals into service animals.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Comment from U.S. Support Animals, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19248.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Comment from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department recognizes that whether to require airlines to 
recognize emotional support animals as service animals is a contentious 
question, with strongly held views on all sides, and with no perfect 
solution likely to satisfy all stakeholders. After careful review of 
the comments in this area, the Department has determined that the most 
appropriate course is to adopt a definition of service animal that 
covers only dogs, regardless of breed or type, that are individually 
trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified 
individual with a disability. This definition excludes all non-task-
trained animals, such as emotional support animals, comfort animals, 
and service animals in training.
    The Department recognizes several benefits to adopting this 
definition. First, the rule is expected to reduce confusion among 
airlines, passengers, airports, and other stakeholders by more closely 
aligning the Department's definition of a service animal with DOJ's 
definition of a service animal under the ADA, which applies to a broad 
array of entities, including airports, and which covers only dogs that 
are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of 
an individual with a disability. The Department has long recognized 
that under its prior rule, air transportation was the only mode of 
transportation on which emotional support animals must be 
accommodated.\38\ Indeed, under the ADA, emotional support animals are 
not required to be accommodated in public spaces such as restaurants, 
hotels, theaters, or airports. This mismatch between the Department's 
ACAA regulation and the DOJ's ADA regulation was particularly striking

[[Page 79748]]

given that passengers in air transportation are confined with service 
animals in the narrow space of an aircraft cabin for the duration of 
the flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ We acknowledge that emotional support animals are permitted 
as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability under 
the Fair Housing Act. However, we note that the large space 
available to the animal and the limited number of other individuals 
in close proximity to the animal differs significantly when compared 
to the confined space on an aircraft cabin and the many other 
passengers in close proximity to the animal on aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, after reviewing the comments submitted during both the 
ANPRM and NPRM, we find persuasive the view of advocates who commented 
that task-trained service animals are also generally provided enhanced 
training in how to behave in public, while emotional support animals 
may not have received this degree of training. We also find persuasive 
the information provided by airlines and other stakeholders indicating 
that emotional support animals, or animals being presented to the 
airline as emotional support animals, are responsible for a significant 
percentage of the incidents of animal misbehavior onboard aircraft. 
Finally, it is reasonable to predict that the Department's definition 
will result in an overall reduction in the number of uncrated animals 
onboard aircraft, thereby reducing the overall number of animal 
misbehavior incidents (and the overall number of potential allergic 
reactions) onboard aircraft.
    For many of these same reasons, we have declined to adopt a process 
to accommodate emotional support animals onboard, not as service 
animals, but as a separate accommodation for individuals with 
disabilities with its own distinct set of requirements, such as 
stricter documentation standards, containment in a pet carrier, etc. In 
our view, allowing emotional support animals with a stricter set of 
requirements would perpetuate tiered systems that give rise to 
confusion and the continued opportunity for abuse and increased safety 
risk. As such, the final rule allows airlines to treat emotional 
support animals as pets. We note, however, that airlines may choose to 
continue to transport emotional support animals without charge at their 
discretion. Furthermore, even if airlines decide after the effective 
date of this rule to charge pet fees for emotional support animals, 
this change would not impact the ability of individuals with 
psychiatric or mental health disabilities to continue to travel with 
their psychiatric service animals onboard aircraft without being 
charged a pet fee. This rule requires airlines to recognize animals 
that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the 
benefit of individuals with mental health disabilities as service 
animals, including psychiatric service animals.
    We solicited comment on the specific question whether and at what 
cost emotional support animals could be task-trained, and could 
therefore qualify as psychiatric service animals. We received few 
comments on this issue. PVA, for example, commented that an emotional 
support rabbit could not be individually trained to perform a task or 
function, but does provide emotional support for the individual by its 
presence.\39\ U.S. Support Animals stated that ``requiring a person 
with an emotional disability to train their emotional support animal to 
be a psychiatric service dog would be incredibly burdensome on most 
disabled people and often an impossible standard to meet.'' \40\ While 
we understand PVA's concern that there are currently emotional support 
animals such as rabbits that cannot be trained, the Department's final 
rule recognizes only dogs as service animals, and it is our 
understanding that the vast majority of emotional support animals are 
dogs, and dogs can be task-trained to perform many different tasks and 
functions. We also note that the rule does not require service animal 
users to incur the cost of training by third party schools or 
organizations; service animal users are free to train their own dogs to 
perform a task or function for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Comment from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429.
    \40\ Comment from, U.S. Support Animals at https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Psychiatric Service Animals
The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to change its service animal 
requirements to ensure that psychiatric service animals would be 
treated the same as other service animals. Psychiatric service animals 
are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual 
with a psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. In the 
NPRM, the Department proposed to remove requirements for psychiatric 
service animal users that allowed airlines (1) to require psychiatric 
service animal users to provide a letter from a licensed mental health 
professional of the passenger's need for the animal,\41\ (2) to require 
48 hours' advance notice of a passenger's intent to travel with a 
psychiatric service animal to give airlines sufficient time to assess 
the passenger's documentation, \42\ and (3) to require check in one 
hour before the check-in time for other passengers. The Department's 
proposed definition of a service animal sought to ensure that 
individuals with mental and psychiatric disabilities who rely on 
psychiatric service animals would be treated the same as individuals 
with physical disabilities who rely on task-trained service animals. 
The Department's proposal was based on the fact that there is no valid 
basis for allowing airlines to treat certain tasked-trained service 
animals differently from other task-trained animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 14 CFR 382.117(e).
    \42\ 14 CFR 382.27(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the Department indicated that it was aware of concerns 
about passengers who falsely claim to have a mental health condition 
that may require the use of a service animal. We recognized that it was 
this specific concern that originally led the Department to adopt 
heightened documentation and check-in requirements for users of both 
emotional support animals and psychiatric service animals. We noted in 
the NPRM, however, that ``unscrupulous passengers may also falsely 
claim to have other hidden disabilities such as seizure disorder or 
diabetes to pass off their pets as service animals and avoid paying 
airline pet fees.'' \43\ In other words, the concerns that led the 
Department to adopt heightened documentation and check-in requirements 
for users of psychiatric service animals is not unique to psychiatric 
service animals. For these reasons, the proposed final rule did not 
draw distinctions between psychiatric service animals and other types 
of service animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 85 FR 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, we indicated that if the rule were adopted as 
proposed, the Department would monitor the experience of airlines in 
accommodating the use of psychiatric service animals, particularly 
given the concern that unscrupulous passengers may attempt to pass off 
their pets as psychiatric service animals. We indicated that we would 
``consider revisiting whether it is reasonable and appropriate to allow 
additional requirements for the use of such animals if there is a 
demonstrated need--for example, if there is a notable increase in 
instances of passengers falsely representing pets as mental-health-
related service animals.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 85 FR 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Most individuals, disability rights organizations, airlines, and 
other stakeholders who commented on these topics supported the 
elimination of regulatory distinctions between psychiatric service 
animals and other service animals. Commenters generally observed that 
the Department's prior

[[Page 79749]]

approach unfairly discriminated against individuals with particular 
types of disabilities. Some commenters also noted that the proposed 
rule harmonizes DOT's approach with that of other Federal agencies in 
this respect. In contrast, four airlines (Air Canada, Allegiant 
Airlines, Asiana Airlines, and Spirit Airlines) and one advocacy 
organization \45\ (the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council) 
recommended that the Department retain heightened documentation 
requirements for psychiatric service animal users because of concerns 
that individuals who wish to travel with their pets in the cabin for 
free may start misrepresenting their pets as psychiatric service 
animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Comments from Air Canada Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19328; Allegiant Air, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19164; Asiana 
Airlines https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19340, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19340; 
Spirit Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19221; and the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to monitoring potential falsification of pets as 
psychiatric service animals, we received a range of responses. A4A 
expressed concern that ``the fraud will migrate to the PSA category,'' 
and urged the Department to explain how it would collect data to 
monitor the issue.\46\ All Nippon Airways (ANA) expressed a similar 
view.\47\ American Kennel Club urged the Department to monitor fraud 
with respect to psychiatric service animals.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \47\ Comment from All Nippon Airways (ANA), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19025.
    \48\ Comment from American Kennel Club, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PVA expressed concerns about the Department's stated intent to 
monitor potential fraud by individuals who attempt to pass off their 
pets as psychiatric service animals. PVA indicated that ``the 
Department provides no information about why suspicion should be cast 
on psychiatric service animal users versus animals that assist 
passengers with other non-apparent disabilities.'' \49\ PVA also noted 
that without a clear sense of how that monitoring would take place, the 
public would not know whether any conclusions are based on accurate 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Comment from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department agrees with commenters who expressed the view that 
it is inappropriate to allow airlines to impose greater burdens on 
psychiatric service animal users than on individuals who utilize 
service animals that are trained to do work or perform tasks for the 
benefit of individuals with physical or other types of disabilities. 
Accordingly, the Department will no longer draw a distinction between 
psychiatric service animal users when traveling in air transportation 
and other service animal users. This means that psychiatric service 
animals will be subject to the same regulations as other service 
animals. Most notably, psychiatric service animal users will no longer 
be required to provide a letter from a licensed mental health 
professional detailing the passenger's need for the animal, nor will 
they be required to check in one hour before the check-in time for 
other passengers.
    The Department will, however, monitor whether unscrupulous 
individuals are attempting to pass off their pets as service animals 
for non-apparent disabilities, including (but not limited to) 
psychiatric disabilities. This process is not intended to single out or 
unduly burden psychiatric service animal users. Indeed, in the NPRM, 
the Department noted the possibility that individuals could also 
attempt to pass off their pets as service animals for non-apparent 
physical disabilities, such as diabetes. The Office of Aviation 
Consumer Protection welcomes the input and assistance of airlines, 
disability advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders on how best 
to conduct the monitoring to ensure accurate data.
C. Species
The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to limit the species of 
animals that airlines would be required to recognize as service animals 
to dogs. Under the Department's proposal, while airlines could choose 
to transport other species of animals that assist individuals with 
disabilities in the cabin for free pursuant to an established airline 
policy, they would only be required under Federal law to recognize dogs 
as service animals. The Department's proposal considered the fact that 
dogs are the most common animal species used to assist individuals with 
their disabilities, both on and off aircraft, and that dogs have both 
the temperament and ability to do work and perform tasks while behaving 
appropriately in a public setting and while being surrounded by a large 
group of people.
    The Department decided against adopting a proposal that would 
include other species as service animals, including miniature horses 
and capuchin monkeys. However, the Department requested specific 
comment on whether it should recognize those animals under its 
definition of a service animal.
Comments Received
    The Department received approximately 1,100 comments on this topic 
from individuals with disabilities. Commenters generally support dogs 
as service animals, which is unsurprising as dogs have been, and 
continue to be, the most common species of service animal relied upon 
by individuals with disabilities.\50\ The AAAE commented that dogs 
represent approximately 90 percent or more of animals traveling on 
aircraft, and supported recognizing dogs exclusively as service animals 
because they are easily trained, and can hold their elimination 
function for extended periods of time.\51\ Assistance Dogs 
International, North America (ADI-NA) noted that dogs have both the 
temperament and the capability to assist individuals with disabilities 
by mitigating their disabilities through the performance of tasks.\52\ 
American Airlines also noted that limiting the species of service 
animals to dogs provides greater predictability and access for most 
people with disabilities.\53\ The International Air Transport 
Association (IATA) and individual foreign airline commenters also 
support including dogs exclusively as service animals. These commenters 
argued that requiring all carriers, both domestic and foreign, to 
recognize only dogs, would bring the regulations for the domestic 
carriage of service animals in alignment with those for international 
carriage, since foreign carriers have only been required under DOT's 
ACAA regulation to transport dogs as service

[[Page 79750]]

animals.\54\ Air Canada also commented that no country other than the 
United States has required the acceptance of service animals other than 
dogs.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ In response to the ANPRM, Assistance Dogs International 
(ADI) noted specifically that dogs have been assisting individuals 
with disabilities for over 100 years. Comment from Assistance Dogs 
International, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4409.
    \51\ Comment from AAAE, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19196.
    \52\ Comment from Assistance Dogs International, North America 
(ADI-NA), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915.
    \53\ Comment from American Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138.
    \54\ Comment from International Air Transport Association 
(IATA), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041.
    \55\ Comment from Air Canada, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More than 400 individual commenters, however, supported also 
including miniature horses in the Department's definition of a service 
animal. These commenters noted that some individuals with disabilities 
may not be able to use dogs to accommodate their disability because of 
allergies or religious and/or cultural reasons. Furthermore, these 
commenters note that excluding miniature horses runs counter to DOT's 
mission of promoting consistency among Federal regulations, as DOJ 
requires regulated entities, in certain circumstances, to recognize 
miniature horses as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.\56\ The 
DREDF commented that DOT's proposal to ``eliminate access for miniature 
horses is particularly concerning because these animals have access to 
public accommodations as a reasonable accommodation under the 
Department of Justice's Americans with Disabilities Act.'' \57\ 
Similarly, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network commented that DOT's 
proposal to limit service animals to dogs is arbitrary and inconsistent 
with DOT's stated goal of harmonizing Federal regulatory requirements, 
and that DOT's proposal to exclude miniature horses is more restrictive 
than DOJ's regulations implementing Title III of the ADA, which allow 
people with disabilities to use miniature horses on an individualized 
basis.\58\ Finally, The Disability Coalition (New Mexico) commented 
that by diverging from the ADA, DOT would be promoting confusion rather 
than reducing it.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ DOJ, while not recognizing miniature horses as service 
animals, requires entities covered by the ADA to make reasonable 
modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures to permit 
an individual with a disability to use a miniature horse that has 
been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the 
benefit of the individual with a disability. DOJ sets forth four 
assessment factors to assist entities in determining whether 
reasonable modifications can be made to allow a miniature horse into 
a specific facility--(1) whether the miniature horse is housebroken; 
(2) whether the miniature horse is under the owner's control; (3) 
whether the facility can accommodate the miniature horse's type, 
size, and weight; and (4) whether the miniature horse's presence 
will compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe 
operation of the facility. See 28 CFR 35.136(i); 28 CFR 
36.302(c)(9).
    \57\ Comment from DREDF, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19264.
    \58\ Comment from Autistic Self Advocacy Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232.
    \59\ Comment from The Disability Coalition (New Mexico), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disability rights advocates that commented in support of including 
miniature horses in DOT's ACAA definition of a service animal commented 
that space on the aircraft should not be a concern when considering 
whether a miniature horse can be accommodated in an aircraft cabin. The 
commenters argued that the Department's ACAA rule has always required 
airlines to allow miniature horses to accompany an individual with a 
disability on aircraft, subject to aircraft size limitations and FAA 
safety regulations. Psychiatric Service Dog Partners commented that 
many miniature horses are comparable in size to a St. Bernard, and that 
many can fold their legs and lie down more easily than their larger 
equine counterparts.\60\ Similarly, Starfleet Service Dogs commented 
that the height of a miniature service horse, from its withers, should 
generally be 34 inches or shorter, and that in most cases a Great Dane 
will be larger and take up more room than a miniature horse.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092.
    \61\ Comment from Starfleet Service Dogs, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airlines and other industry stakeholders who oppose the inclusion 
of miniature horses argue that miniature horses are too big to be 
accommodated in the cabin of an aircraft, and that potential safety 
concerns could arise from transporting miniature horses in the aircraft 
cabin. A4A asserted that a miniature horse's size, weight, and 
inability to curl up in a passenger's allotted foot space poses a 
substantial risk to flight safety, including the safety of passengers 
and crew, and that the presence of miniature horses in an aircraft 
cabin would pose a serious risk of injury to passengers and crew during 
moderate to severe turbulence or an emergency situation due to these 
animals' weight and size.\62\ American Airlines likewise commented that 
miniature horses are classified as livestock, have hooves, are not as 
flexible as dogs, are unable to manage their elimination functions the 
way a trained service dog can, and that a miniature horse's hooves 
could puncture an aircraft evacuation slide in the event of an 
evacuation, potentially disabling it.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \63\ Comment from American Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138.https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A smaller number of disability advocacy organizations support the 
inclusion of cats and other animal species as service animals. 
Ethiopian Airlines commented that only dogs and cats should be 
permitted as service and emotional support animals.\64\ Similarly, the 
Transport Workers Union of America recognizes that while dogs are the 
most common service animals, other types of animals may also be trained 
to provide needed assistance to individuals with disabilities.\65\ The 
Autistic Self Advocacy Network commented that cats can be trained to 
perform tasks, such as detecting seizures.\66\ Conversely, A4A 
commented that cats have neither the temperament nor ability to be 
trained to do work or tasks to assist an individual with a disability 
or to behave appropriately in an aircraft cabin.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Comment from Ethiopian Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-10984.
    \65\ Comment from Transport Workers Union, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19183.
    \66\ Comment from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232.
    \67\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also specifically sought comment on whether it 
should recognize capuchin monkeys in its revised service animal 
definition. Several advocacy organization commenters argued that 
capuchin monkeys deserve special treatment under DOT's ACAA rule and 
that DOT should require airlines to transport these animals, so long as 
they remain in a carrier, because of the invaluable accommodations 
these animals provide to individuals with disabilities. Helping Hands: 
Monkey Helpers for the Disabled commented that its capuchin monkeys are 
transported in pet carriers, often undetected, and wear diapers so that 
the possibility of bodily fluids escaping the carrier are de minimis, 
and the possibility of disease transmission is prevented.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Comment from Helping Hands: Monkey Helpers for the 
Disabled, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airlines and other organizations such as AVMA continue to believe 
that other animal species, and capuchin monkeys in particular, should 
not be included in DOT's definition of a service animal because of 
animal welfare concerns, the

[[Page 79751]]

potential for serious injury, and zoonotic risks.\69\ ADI-NA commented 
that capuchin monkeys are not domesticated animals and subjecting these 
animals to stress in the air travel environment increases the chance of 
their behaving aggressively or at least disruptively during air 
travel.\70\ Finally, A4A commented that capuchin monkeys would likely 
accompany a qualified trainer on an aircraft, for the purposes of 
transporting the animal for delivery to an individual with a 
disability, instead of accompanying an individual with a disability, 
which ultimately brings the transport of capuchin monkeys beyond the 
scope of DOT's existing ACAA rule.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Comment from AVMA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19283.
    \70\ Comment from ADI-NA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915.
    \71\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department has considered the comments received and has decided 
to adopt, as proposed, a rule limiting the species of service animals 
to dogs only. This decision considers that dogs are the most common 
animal species used by individuals to mitigate disabilities both on and 
off aircraft. A rule requiring airlines to accept trained service dogs 
will permit the vast majority of service animal users to travel with 
their service animals while also minimizing confusion and safety 
concerns for airlines, airports, and individuals with disabilities. 
Overall, dogs have the temperament and ability to be trained to do work 
and perform tasks while behaving appropriately in a public setting, and 
while being surrounded by a large group of people in the close confines 
of an aircraft cabin. Although airlines may choose to transport other 
species of animals, such as cats, miniature horses, and capuchin 
monkeys, that assist individuals with disabilities in the cabin for 
free pursuant to an established airline policy, they would only be 
required under Federal law to recognize trained dogs as service 
animals.
    Although some service animal users would prefer to, and in fact do, 
use miniature horses instead of dogs as service animals, the number of 
individuals that use trained miniatures horses as service animals is 
quite small compared to that of service animal dog users.\72\ The 
number of miniature horses transported in the cabin by airlines 
annually is also exceptionally small, and airlines are free to 
accommodate the transport of miniature horses for passengers if they 
choose to do so. There are also practical concerns related to the 
carriage of miniature horses that may make it difficult for airlines to 
accommodate these animals on small aircraft safely. While one commenter 
noted that miniature horses are more flexible than large horses, as a 
practical matter they are far less flexible than dogs and are unable to 
curl up at the feet of the handler and fit into the space directly in 
front of the service animal user's seat, like most dogs. In certain 
instances, miniature horses may need to occupy the space in front of 
more than one seat to be accommodated on an aircraft, and in some 
instances, they may need to occupy the space in front of an entire row 
of seats to be accommodated in the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ AAAE commented that dogs represent approximately 90 percent 
or more of animals traveling on aircraft and according to 
Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, miniature horses are substantially 
less common.
    Miniature horses are not at all common as pets, nor is there 
reason to think they would become so. Generally, a person is unable 
to and does not acquire a miniature horse without deliberate 
planning. Further, if someone is to travel with a large animal with 
needs like that of a mini-horse, the training and planning that 
travel requires carries with it greater assurances of handler 
responsibility than do the tag-along possibilities of many pets. 
There is no good reason to believe that allowing access with service 
miniature horses would translate to any increase in the public 
trying to bring an assortment of pets with them as service animals.
    See comment from Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department was also unpersuaded that airlines should be 
required to carry capuchin monkeys. As the Department stated in its 
proposal, although trained capuchin monkeys can assist persons with 
limited mobility with their daily tasks, capuchin monkeys may present a 
safety risk to other passengers as they have the potential to transmit 
diseases and may exhibit ``unpredictable aggressive behavior.'' 
Further, capuchin monkeys fall outside of the regulatory framework 
because qualified trainers, rather than individuals with disabilities, 
typically travel by air to deliver the monkeys to an individual with a 
disability, and would not be accompanied by the service animal user.
D. Breed or Type of Dog
The NPRM
    The Department proposed to continue to prohibit carriers from 
refusing to transport a trained dog as a service animal based solely on 
breed or generalized physical type. Under the Department's proposal, 
airlines would continue to assess each animal individually to determine 
whether a specific animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety 
of others, instead of determining whether to transport a service animal 
based on stereotypes or generalized assumptions about how a breed or 
type of dog may or may not behave. The Department also specifically 
sought comment on whether the unique environment of a crowded airplane 
cabin in flight justifies permitting airlines to prohibit pit bull-type 
dogs, or any other particular breed or type of dog, from traveling on 
aircraft under the ACAA, even when those dogs have been individually 
trained to perform as service animals to assist a passenger with a 
disability.
Comments Received
    The Department received nearly 700 comments on whether airlines 
should be permitted to restrict service dogs based on breed or type. 
Most commenters supported the Department's proposal, opposing a 
departmental regulation that would categorically exclude any specific 
dog breed or type. These commenters noted that individuals with 
disabilities use a wide range of dog breeds as service animals to 
accommodate a variety of disabilities, and airlines should not be 
permitted to refuse transportation to certain breeds or types of dogs 
as long as the dogs do not pose a direct threat and are individually 
trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual 
with a disability. Most, if not all, disability advocates supported the 
Department's proposal to prohibit dog breed or type restrictions, 
arguing that the determination of whether a particular service animal 
poses a direct threat should be based on an individualized, observed, 
and objective assessment by the airline, and should not be based on 
generalized assumptions or stereotypes about the dog's type or breed. 
Disability advocates also expressed support for DOT's proposal because 
it is consistent with DOJ's ADA regulations, with respect to 
prohibiting regulated entities from limiting a service animal to a 
specific breed. Various commenters also cited studies that have 
concluded that environmental factors, rather than a dog's breed, 
determine a dog's propensity to harm a person or animal.
    Regarding a specific breed, the Department received the most 
feedback in the comments about pit bulls. According to Wisdom Panel, a 
pit bull DNA testing organization, the term ``pit bull'' does not refer 
to a single recognized breed of dog, but rather to a genetically 
diverse group of breeds that are associated by similar physical

[[Page 79752]]

traits.\73\ Wisdom Panel explains that pit bull-type dogs have 
historically been bred by combining guard-type breeds with terriers for 
certain desired characteristics, and, as such, they may retain many 
genetic similarities to their original breeds and other closely related 
breeds.\74\ According to the Humane Society, 46 percent of dogs in the 
United States were of mixed breed as of 2012.\75\ The American 
Temperament Test Society found that more than 85 percent of pit bull-
type dogs have tested with above average temperaments (85.6 percent of 
Golden Retrievers and 85 percent of German Shepherds tested the 
same).\76\ According to the Humane Society, an AVMA study found that 
physical breed standards/visual identification as a way of identifying 
a dog's breed, which is the method used by airlines to identify dog 
breed, is seriously flawed. \77\ Furthermore, the Humane Society states 
that an American Journal of Sociological Research study found that 
animal professionals, veterinarians, and animal control officers were 
unable to identify correctly dog breeds visually when compared with DNA 
evidence, and that dogs with blocky heads and thick necks were commonly 
misidentified as pit bulls because there is no clear definition or set 
of characteristics that define a ``pit bull'' type.\78\ Commenters also 
cited a growing body of evidence suggesting that pit bulls do not have 
a stronger bite strength than similar-sized dogs. According to a study 
cited by the Humane Society, which looked at 150 scientific papers from 
1969 to 2009, and two legal cases, many claims about the jaw strength 
of pit bull-type dogs are based on misinterpretations with no reliable 
data or sources.\79\ Commenters also noted that numerous municipalities 
across the country are rescinding their pit bull bans, realizing that 
the bans are misguided. Furthermore, commenters argued that if DOT 
ultimately requires that all service animals be trained, there would be 
no need to ban pit bulls for fear of their behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ https://help.wisdompanel.com/s/article/Does-Wisdom-Panel-test-for-Pit-bull.
    \74\ Id.
    \75\ Comment from the Humane Society of the United States and 
the Humane Society Legislative Fund, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19184.
    \76\ https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/.
    \77\ Comment from the Humane Society of the United States and 
the Humane Society Legislative Fund, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19184.
    \78\ Comment from the Humane Society of the United States and 
the Humane Society Legislative Fund, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19184.
    \79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also received many comments in support of allowing 
airlines to ban specific breeds of service animals. Airlines and 
airline organizations expressed concerns that not allowing airlines to 
restrict service animals based on breed could result in an unsafe 
flying environment and argued that airlines should have the discretion 
to choose whether to transport dogs that are capable of inflicting 
serious harm. A4A argued that not allowing airlines to restrict 
transport of service animals based on breed or generalized type of dog 
would increase the risk of animal misbehavior, which could result in 
serious injury to other passengers, crew, and service animals.\80\ They 
argued that certain breeds of dog, which account for a small minority 
of the total dog population, are not suited to function as trained 
service animals. They also noted that certain breeds raise legitimate 
fears from other passengers and animals, including other service dogs 
and handlers. American Airlines asserted that airplanes are a unique 
environment--``they are crowded spaces with no opportunity for egress--
which could be triggering, and triggering an animal with large and 
powerful jaws and neck muscles that can be ferocious if `provoked,' is 
a direct threat to the health and safety of our crews, passengers, and 
other service animals.'' \81\ American Airlines further argued that 
there is precedent for adopting a more stringent approach in the 
airline environment because air travel differs from other places of 
public accommodation. Some airlines argued that individualized 
assessments are not enough.\82\ For example, Spirit Airline and Air 
Canada argued that some animals are more prone to aggression and may 
not exhibit such behavior until they are onboard an aircraft.\83\ Thus, 
even with the ability to refuse transportation to dogs that exhibit 
aggressive behavior, it may, in some instances, be too late by the time 
an animal that eventually exhibits aggressive behavior has boarded an 
aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \81\ Comment from American Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138.
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ See Comments from Air Canada Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19328, and Spirit 
Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foreign airlines and commenters raised concerns about jurisdictions 
outside of the United States that impose entry restrictions on certain 
dog breeds. Deutsche Lufthansa Airlines (Lufthansa) urged DOT to 
consider allowing airlines to restrict service animals of specific 
breeds because, with respect to international travel from the United 
States, there are other additional foreign regulations to comply with 
concerning the transport of animals.\84\ Specifically, Lufthansa noted 
that France and Germany, for example, have implemented strict entry 
bans for specific breeds of dogs, such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers, 
American Pitbull Terriers, Mastiff type dogs, and Tosa Inu (France); 
and Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire 
Bull Terriers, and Bull Terrier (Germany), and that requiring airlines 
to transport all breeds may present a conflict of laws that would cause 
severe disruption, not only to the airline but also to passengers.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Comment from Deutsche Lufthansa Airlines (Lufthansa), 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19351.
    \85\ Comment from Lufthansa Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many individual commenters also opposed recognizing pit bulls as 
service animals. According to dogbites.org, which obtains data on 
canine-related injuries and fatalities from news reports, photographs, 
police reports, coroner reports, and court filings, canines killed 512 
individuals in the United States between 2005 and 2019.\86\ Of the 512 
individuals killed by dogs, dogbites.org reports that pit bulls were 
involved in 346 of these deaths (66 percent of the deaths) despite only 
comprising about 7 percent of the total U.S. dog population.\87\ 
Similarly, media reports and news accounts tracked by ANIMALS 24-7 
since 1982 indicate that approximately one pit bull in 100 will kill or 
disfigure a human, or kill another pet or livestock animal, each 
year.\88\ According to ANIMALS 24-7, two recent studies published in 
prominent scientific journals point toward anatomical differences in 
dog brain structure among various breeds, which in dogs bred for 
centuries to fight, appear to be linked to reactivity and 
aggression.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Comment from DogsBite.org, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18935.
    \87\ Id.
    \88\ Comment from ANIMALS 24-7, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-12212. https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-12212.
    \89\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 79753]]

DOT Response
    The Department is declining in this final rule to adopt a 
categorical exclusion for particular breeds or types of dogs as service 
animals and will continue at this time to prohibit airlines from 
refusing to accommodate a dog that is individually trained to do work 
or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified person with a 
disability and that otherwise satisfies the requirements of a service 
animal based solely on the dog's breed or generalized type. However, 
the final rule specifies that airlines are permitted to make an 
individualized assessment based on reasonable judgement and objective 
evidence to determine if a service animal poses a direct threat to the 
health or safety of others. The Department believes that this standard, 
which is based on objective evidence of the dog's behavior, rather than 
generalized assumptions about how a breed or type of dog would be 
expected to behave, provides airlines with the best means of 
determining whether the particular animal poses a direct threat to the 
health and safety of others.
    Furthermore, prohibiting airlines from banning particular breeds of 
dogs, including pit bull-type dogs, on aircraft is consistent with DOJ 
guidance under the ADA. We note that DOJ also rejects an outright ban 
on service animals because of their breed in implementing its 
regulations under the ADA. DOJ has advised municipalities that prohibit 
specific breeds of dogs that they must make an exception for a service 
animal of a prohibited breed, unless the dog poses a direct threat to 
the health or safety of others, a determination that must be made on a 
case-by-case basis.\90\ Commenters suggesting that airlines are not 
able accurately to distinguish a pit bull-type dog from a non-pit bull-
type dog that may have similar features unless DNA testing has been 
conducted further supports the Department's position that categorically 
excluding particular breeds is not appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and 
the ADA, Questions 22-24, available at https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html (July 20, 2015):
    [I]f an individual uses a breed of dog that is perceived to be 
aggressive because of breed reputation, stereotype, or the history 
or experience the observer may have with other dogs, but the dog is 
under the control of the individual with a disability and does not 
exhibit aggressive behavior, the public accommodation cannot exclude 
the individual or the animal from the place of public accommodation. 
The animal can only be removed if it engages in the behaviors 
mentioned in Sec.  36.302(c) (as revised in the final rule) or if 
the presence of the animal constitutes a fundamental alteration to 
the nature of the goods, services, facilities, and activities of the 
place of public accommodation.
    See also 75 FR 56236, 52266-56267 (September 15, 2010):
    [I]f an individual uses a breed of dog that is perceived to be 
aggressive because of breed reputation, stereotype, or the history 
or experience the observer may have with other dogs, but the dog is 
under the control of the individual with a disability and does not 
exhibit aggressive behavior, the public accommodation cannot exclude 
the individual or the animal from the place of public accommodation. 
The animal can only be removed if it engages in the behaviors 
mentioned in Sec.  36.302(c) (as revised in the final rule) or if 
the presence of the animal constitutes a fundamental alteration to 
the nature of the goods, services, facilities, and activities of the 
place of public accommodation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also recognizes the concerns raised by IATA and 
foreign airlines that certain foreign jurisdictions may have laws 
prohibiting passengers from bringing certain breeds of dogs into these 
jurisdictions. To address this concern, the Department has included 
language, in section 382.79(a)(3), that makes clear that an airline may 
deny transport to a service animal if the animal's carriage would 
violate applicable health or safety requirements of a foreign 
government.
    The Department understands the concerns raised about pit bulls and 
certain other breeds or types of dogs that have a reputation of 
attacking people and inflicting severe and sometimes fatal injuries. 
The Department also understands that there may be concerns that certain 
dogs may be dangerous, particularly dogs that have been bred to fight, 
which may be linked to a heightened degree of reactivity and 
aggression. The Department will continue to monitor published studies 
or accounts of dog behavior by breed or type and reports of incidents 
involving service dogs, and if there are compelling studies or data 
indicating that there are particular dog types or breeds that are 
established to pose a heightened threat to the health and safety of 
people in close proximity, we will revisit this issue. At this time, 
however, the Department finds that the airlines' ability to conduct an 
individualized assessment of a service animal's behavior to determine 
whether the service animal poses a direct threat to the health or 
safety of others is an adequate measure to ensure that aggressive 
animals are not transported on aircraft, rather than permitting 
airlines to ban an entire breed or type of dog.
E. Considerations on Alignment With DOJ Definition
The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to define a service animal as 
a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the 
benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including a 
physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental 
disability. DOT's proposed definition of a service animal, which is 
more closely aligned with DOJ's definition of a service animal under 
the ADA, is intended to address concerns raised by airlines, airports, 
and disability advocates about challenges associated with 
inconsistencies between the definition of a service animal in the 
airport environment and on aircraft. DOT's existing service animal 
regulations require airlines to recognize emotional support animals, 
and all species of service animals, with limited exceptions. Meanwhile, 
DOJ's ADA regulations, which apply to public and commercial airports 
and airport facilities operated by businesses like restaurants and 
stores, limit service animals to dogs, and do not recognize emotional 
support animals as service animals.\91\ The significant inconsistencies 
between DOT's former ACAA definition of a service animal, and DOJ's ADA 
definition of a service animal have presented practical challenges for 
airlines and airports and the traveling public. The Department, through 
its NPRM proposal, sought to promote greater consistency among Federal 
regulatory requirements, to decrease confusion for individuals 
traveling with service animals, to recognize the distinct 
characteristics of an aircraft cabin as compared to other indoor 
environments, and to streamline the treatment of service animals in the 
context of air travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ DOJ explains that it did not classify emotional support 
animals as service animals because the provision of emotional 
support, well-being, comfort and companionship does not constitute 
work or tasks. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by 
Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, 75 FR 56236, 
56269 (Sept. 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    The Department received more than 7,200 comments on the proposed 
definition of a service animal, with a nearly even split between 
individual commenters who supported or opposed the Department's 
proposed definition.
    Most disability rights advocates and all of the airlines and 
airline organizations that commented on the NPRM expressed support for 
the Department's proposed definition of a service animal. The American 
Council of the Blind supported the proposal, stating that limiting 
service animals to trained animals will make the requirements for 
airlines and their

[[Page 79754]]

employees less complicated and more succinct; \92\ while other groups 
supported the definition because it is more consistent with DOJ's ADA 
definition of a service animal. These commenters argued that a more 
consistent definition would benefit travelers with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Comment from American Council of the Blind, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of airlines and airline organizations likewise 
supported the Department's proposal, in the interest of greater 
regulatory consistency. IATA \93\ commented that a service animal 
definition that is more consistent between the ACAA and the ADA will 
provide greater clarity for airlines, airports, individuals with 
disabilities, and the traveling public. Likewise, A4A commented that 
DOT's proposal to more closely align its definition with DOJ's rules 
implementing the ADA would not only decrease confusion for individuals 
with a disability, airline personnel, and airports, but would also 
establish a clear distinction between a legitimate service animal that 
is trained to do work or perform a task for the benefit of a person 
with a disability and a pet.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Comment from International Air Transport Association, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041.
    \94\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several disability advocates opposed the Department's proposed 
definition of a service animal. U.S. Support Animals urged the 
Department to focus on the language of the ACAA, which prohibits 
airlines from discriminating against individuals with disabilities, and 
discouraged DOT from seeking to align its definition of a service 
animal with DOJ's ADA rule, when the ADA was enacted four years after 
the ACAA \95\ U.S. Support Animals further commented that if Congress 
intended for the ACAA to be ``subordinate'' to the ADA, it could have 
easily repealed the ACAA and included its provision in the ADA.\96\ 
Both U.S. Support Animals and the Autistic Self Advocacy Network 
commented that it would be improper for the Department to align its 
ACAA definition of a service animal with DOJ's ADA definition because 
unlike the ADA, which is broadly applicable to a number of contexts, 
the ACAA applies only to air transportation, and its regulations should 
pertain to the specific circumstances of air travel.\97\ These 
commenters believe that it would be more appropriate for DOT to align 
its regulations with HUD, which enforces FHA regulations,\98\ because 
discrimination in housing is more analogous to air travel as travelers 
who depend on service animals for assistance will likely be at their 
destination for longer periods of time and the loss of their service 
animal would be more acute. Specifically, the Autistic Self Advocacy 
Network notes that while an individual with a disability may be 
impacted somewhat by being separated from their service animal for a 
few hours while at establishments covered by the ADA, e.g., stores, 
restaurants, movie theaters, etc., the impact of being separated from a 
service animal is more significant in the housing and transportation 
context as the separation would be for a much longer duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Comment from U.S. Support Animals, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19248.
    \96\ Id.
    \97\ Comments from U.S. Support Animals, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19248 and Autism Self 
Advocacy Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232.
    \98\ HUD, which enforces Fair Housing Act regulations, 
recognizes two types of assistance animals: (1) Service animals, and 
(2) other trained or untrained animals that do work, perform tasks, 
provide assistance, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for 
individuals with disabilities (``support animal''). See Service 
Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in 
Housing and HUD-Funded Programs, FHEO Notice: FHEO-2020-01 at 
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf (Jan. 28, 2020), and https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24-20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department has considered the comments it received and 
Congress's mandate in the FAA Act that the Department consider whether 
it should align its ACAA definition of a service animal with the 
service animal definition established by the DOJ in its rule 
implementing the ADA. In this final rule, the Department is revising 
its definition of a service animal under the ACAA as a dog, regardless 
of breed or type, that is individually trained to do work or perform 
tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, 
including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other 
mental disability. Species of animals other than dogs, emotional 
support animals, comfort animals, companionship animals, and service 
animals in training are not service animals under this definition. This 
revised definition does not preclude airlines from allowing passengers 
to travel with animals that are not included within the revised service 
animal definition; however, airlines are not required by Federal law to 
treat those animals as service animals. This revised definition is more 
in line with DOJ's definition of a service animal and takes into 
consideration, as commenters raised, the challenges associated with the 
inconsistencies between the definition of a service animal in the 
airport environment and on aircraft that stakeholders have 
identified.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Although the Department, in this final rule, has closely 
aligned its service animal definition under the ACAA with DOJ's 
service animal definition under the ADA, the substantive 
requirements in this rule differ from DOJ's requirements for service 
animals under the ADA in numerous respects. For instance, in this 
final rule, the Department allows carriers to require passengers 
traveling with service animals to submit a DOT health and behavior 
attestation form and for long flights, a DOT service animal relief 
attestation form. Conversely, DOJ regulations prohibit covered 
entities from requiring documentation from a service animal user, 
such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or 
licensed as a service animal. See 28 CFR 35.136(f), 28 CFR 
36.302(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Definition of Service Animal Handler

The NPRM
    The Department proposed to define a service animal handler as a 
qualified individual with a disability who receives assistance from a 
service animal(s) that does work or performs tasks that are directly 
related to the individual's disability, or a safety assistant \100\ who 
accompanies an individual with a disability traveling with a service 
animal(s). The Department proposed that the service animal handler 
would be responsible for keeping the service animal under control at 
all times, and caring for and supervising the service animal, which 
includes toileting and feeding. The DOT's proposed definition of a 
service animal handler differed from DOJ's technical assistance, which 
states that a service animal handler can be either an individual with a 
disability or a third party who accompanies the individual with a 
disability.\101\ The Department proposed to limit the definition of 
service animal handlers to the individual with a disability who is 
being helped by the animal and a safety assistant, meaning another 
individual who is required to travel with the person with a disability 
to assist that person in an evacuation from the aircraft, in order to 
make clear that service animal trainers and other

[[Page 79755]]

passengers traveling with an individual with a disability on aircraft 
who are not safety assistants would not be considered service animal 
handlers under the ACAA rules. The Department sought comment generally 
on its decision to define the term ``service animal handler'' and 
sought comments on its proposed definition. The Department also sought 
comment on what impact, if any, its exclusion of third parties as 
service animal handlers might have on individuals with disabilities who 
are traveling on aircraft with a service animal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The term ``safety assistant'' is used in the Department's 
disability regulation. See 14 CFR 382.29(b).
    \101\ See Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and 
the ADA, Questions 27, available at https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html, (July 20, 2015), ``The ADA requires that 
service animals be under the control of the handler at all times. In 
most instances, the handler will be the individual with a disability 
or a third party who accompanies the individual with a disability.'' 
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Disability advocates, such as PVA and DREDF, opposed DOT's proposed 
definition of a service animal handler, arguing that the Department 
should make its definition of a service animal handler consistent with 
DOJ's ADA guidance on service animal handlers, which includes third 
parties.\102\ Disability Rights Florida also commented that it ``urges 
DOT to use the DOJ ADA formulation to allow a third party, such as a 
parent, caretaker or aide, to also be a service animal handler for a 
young child or other individuals with a disability.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Comments from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429, and DREDF, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19264.
    \103\ Comment from Disability Rights Florida, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some disability advocates also opposed DOT's proposal to define 
safety assistants as service animal handlers, arguing that safety 
assistants are not service animal handlers, as their purpose is to 
ensure safe disembarkation from the aircraft, not to handle a 
passenger's service animal. Open Doors Organization commented that a 
``safety assistant's sole purpose is to assist a traveler with a 
disability in the event of an emergency, not to provide personal care 
assistance or any other non-safety-related help to a traveler.'' \104\ 
Similarly, Psychiatric Service Dog Partners commented that a ``member 
of the disabled service animal user's party should not need to meet the 
`safety assistant' description in 14 CFR 382.29 in order to provide 
handling assistance.'' \105\ Conversely, with respect to airlines, the 
Association of Asian Pacific Airlines (AAPA) s and A4A both expressed 
support for DOT's proposal to include safety assistant in its 
definition of a service animal handler.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Comment from Open Doors Organization, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19305.
    \105\ Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092.
    \106\ See Comment from Association of Asian Pacific Airlines 
(AAPA), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19323, ``[w]e also support DOT's proposal to limit the definition of 
a service animal handler to a qualified individual with a disability 
or a safety assistant travelling with them, who will be responsible 
for keeping the animal under control at all times, and caring for 
and supervising the service animal, including toileting and 
feeding.'' Also, see comment from A4A at Service animal handler, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240, ''[w]e 
support DOT's proposed definition of ``service animal handler'' as 
``a qualified individual with a disability who receives assistance 
from a service animal(s) that does work or performs tasks that are 
directly related to the individual's disability, or a safety 
assistant, as described in section 382.29(b), who accompanies an 
individual with a disability traveling with a service animal(s).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department has decided to define the term ``service animal 
handler'' in its disability regulation differently from proposed.\107\ 
The Department is persuaded by the comments supporting the recognition 
of third-party service animal handlers consistent with DOJ's ADA 
guidance and is revising its proposed definition of a service animal 
handler in this final rule to more closely align with DOJ's treatment 
of a service animal handler. The revised definition includes third 
parties in the DOT definition of a service animal handler. It also 
excludes safety assistants because, as commenters noted, safety 
assistants do not necessarily serve the same role as service animal 
handlers. The revised definition also provides for the situation where 
a child with a disability, who may not be able to control a service 
animal physically, is accompanied by a parent or other third party who 
physically handles and controls the service animal on the child's 
behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The definition of service animal handler in 14 CFR part 
382 is solely for the purpose of determining the individuals who 
would be responsible for the care and control of an animal that does 
work or performs tasks that are directly related to an individual's 
disability. It does not mean that these individuals would be 
considered service animal handlers under 14 CFR part 121. 
Specifically, they are not considered ``persons necessary for the 
safe handling of animals'' in section 14 CFR 121.583(a)(4)(ii), 
which provides that a person necessary for the safe handling of 
animals is excluded from the passenger-carrying requirements of part 
121. See 14 CFR 121.583(a)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Service Animal Documentation

    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to allow airlines to require 
individuals traveling with a service animal to submit three DOT-created 
forms: (1) A certification of a service animal's good behavior and 
training; (2) a certification of good health; and (3) for flight 
segments of eight hours or more, a certification that the animal would 
not need to relieve itself or could relieve itself in a way that does 
not create a health or sanitation risk. The Department proposed that 
each form include a warning to service animal users that it would be a 
Federal crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, to make false statements 
or representations on these forms to secure disability accommodations. 
The Department also proposed to allow airlines to require passengers to 
submit completed versions of these forms as a condition of travel. The 
Department sought comment on its proposal to standardize the service 
animal documentation process by allowing airlines to require DOT forms, 
and its proposal that the DOT forms be the only documentation that an 
airline could require from a passenger traveling with a service animal. 
The Department recognized that the DOJ does not allow these types of 
forms for public accommodation under the ADA. The Department reasoned, 
however, that air transportation is unique because it involves 
transporting a large number of individuals in a confined space 
thousands of feet in the air with no means of egress; accordingly, it 
stated that it would be appropriate for airlines to require these forms 
to ensure that the animal does not pose a health or safety risk to 
other passengers or service animals before boarding the cabin of the 
aircraft.
    DOT received nearly 500 comments on its proposal to allow airlines 
to require service animal handlers to submit the various forms to 
airlines. We will discuss each form and its elements in greater detail 
below.
A. Behavior and Training Form
The NPRM
    First, the Department proposed to allow airlines to require a U.S. 
Department of Transportation Air Transportation Service Animal Behavior 
and Training Attestation Form (Behavior and Training Form), to be 
completed by the service animal handler, which often is the same person 
as the individual with a disability who receives assistance from the 
service animal. The proposed Behavior and Training Form would have 
required the handler to certify that: (1) The animal has been 
individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the 
passenger with a disability; (2) the animal has been trained to behave 
properly in public; (3) the handler is aware that the service animal 
must be under the handler's control at all times; (4) the handler is 
aware that if the animal misbehaves in a way that

[[Page 79756]]

indicates it has not been properly trained, then the airline may treat 
the animal as a pet; and (5) the handler is aware that the handler may 
be liable for damage caused by the service animal's misbehavior, so 
long as the airline charges passengers without disabilities for similar 
kinds of damage.
    The Department proposed to allow airlines to require this form as a 
condition of transport for individuals traveling with service animals 
because the form would allow airlines to receive direct assurances from 
service animal users of their animal's good behavior and training. The 
form would have also served as an instrument to educate passengers 
traveling with service animals on how service animals in air 
transportation are expected to behave, and that the airline could 
charge passengers for damage caused by a service animal, so long as the 
airline had a policy of charging other passengers for similar kinds of 
damage. The Department also reasoned that the form itself would have 
the potential to serve as a deterrent for individuals who might 
otherwise seek to claim falsely that their pets are service animals, as 
those individuals may be less likely to falsify a Federal form and thus 
risk the potential for criminal prosecution.
    The Department sought comment on its proposal to allow airlines to 
require the DOT Behavior and Training Form, the general content of the 
form, and whether the form would help ensure that service animals are 
properly trained. DOT also sought comment on whether the form would 
serve as an effective fraud deterrent for passengers who might try to 
misrepresent their pets as service animals, and the impact this form 
would potentially impose on those individuals traveling with 
traditional service animals who were not previously required to provide 
documentation to airlines.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ The Department was aware of airline policies requiring or 
recommending that passengers with disabilities traveling with 
service animals carry vaccination, training, or behavior 
documentation with them. However, these airline policies often were 
applied only to ESAs or PSAs. In 2019, the Department's Office of 
Aviation Consumer Protections stated that ``[w]hile section 382.117 
clearly sets forth the type of medical documentation that airlines 
may request from ESA and PSA users to reduce likelihood of abuse by 
passengers wishing to travel with their pets, the regulation does 
not explicitly permit or prohibit the use of additional 
documentation related to a service animal's vaccination, training, 
or behavior.'' See Guidance on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 
Disability in Air Travel, Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities 
Regarding Service Animals, 84 FR 43480, 43484 (Aug. 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    The proposed Behavior and Training Form was opposed by nearly sixty 
percent of individuals, and the great majority of the disability rights 
advocacy organizations, who commented on the issue. Those commenters 
who opposed this form, such as the National Council on Disability, the 
American Council for the Blind, and DREDF, argued that it would be 
unduly burdensome for passengers with disabilities, especially to those 
who had never been required to submit any type of documentation to 
travel with their service animal in the past. PVA commented that 
``[d]ecades of access without documentation have been provided for the 
vast majority of service animal users,'' and that requiring all 
passengers with disabilities who use service animals to attest to their 
animal's behavior and training, and provide a health form to gain 
access ``burdens an individual's civil rights without any justification 
that such burden is needed.'' \109\ Other opponents argued that the 
forms were unnecessary and inconsistent with other Federal civil rights 
laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See Comments from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429 and DREDF, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19264. PVA and 
Disability Rights Florida did argue that such forms could be 
required of emotional support animal users; however, this issue is 
now moot in light of the Department's decision to allow airlines not 
to recognize emotional support animals as service animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Behavior and Training Form was supported by about 
forty percent of individuals, all of the airline and industry 
organizations, and a minority of advocacy organizations that commented 
on the issue. Supporters of the form, such as A4A, argued that it would 
provide a uniform method of ensuring that animals have been properly 
trained to perform a task or function and trained to behave in public, 
and the consistency of a DOT form would facilitate a smoother travel 
experience for persons with disabilities.\110\ Spirit Airlines 
commented that the DOT forms would ``lessen the opportunity for 
confusion and promote uniformity across domestic air travel.'' \111\ 
Psychiatric Service Dog Partners also commented that if DOT permitted 
airlines to require a form, it is important that the forms be uniform, 
transferable among airlines, and available to individuals with 
disabilities in an accessible format to reduce burdens on individuals 
traveling with service animals.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \111\ Comment from Spirit Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19221.
    \112\ Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a number of organizations (such as ADI-NA, America's VetDogs, 
and the Open Doors Organization) strongly oppose documentation 
requirements for individuals with disabilities traveling with trained 
service animals, these organizations commented that if the Department 
were to allow airlines to require behavior and training attestations, 
it would be less burdensome on individuals with disabilities if these 
attestations could be made through a check-box system available on each 
airline's website during the reservation process.\113\ A4A and IATA 
indicated that the only effective way to reduce fraud is to require 
passengers to obtain a certification from an accredited service dog 
training organization such as Assistance Dogs International or the 
International Guide Dog Federation that the animal has been properly 
trained (either by the organization itself or by the dog's 
handler).\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Comments from ADI-NA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915; America's VetDogs, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18138; and Open Doors 
Organization, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19305.
    \114\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240 and IATA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department is of the view that allowing airlines to require 
individuals with disabilities to attest to their animal's good behavior 
and training serves the important purpose of ensuring that passengers 
are aware of how their animals are expected to behave on aircraft. 
Furthermore, the Department believes that allowing airlines to require 
an attestation completed by the service animal users, rather than a 
veterinarian or other third party, as a means of verifying the service 
animal's good behavior, training and good heath, will impose minimal 
burdens on service animal users. The Department also believes that a 
behavior and training attestation will assure airline personnel and the 
traveling public that an animal, which is being presented as a service 
animal for uncrated transport in the aircraft cabin, has been both 
trained to perform a task or function for the passenger with a 
disability, and has been trained to behave in public. As such, this 
final rule allows airlines to require passengers

[[Page 79757]]

traveling with a service animal to submit a completed U.S. Department 
of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation Form (Air 
Transportation Form), as described more fully below, which includes an 
attestation from the service animal handler of a service animal's good 
behavior and training.
    The Department is adopting its proposal that the only forms that 
airlines may require of passengers with service animals are the forms 
developed by the Department. In 2019, the Department's Office of 
Aviation Consumer Protections had stated that it does not ``intend to 
take action against an airline for asking service animal users to 
present documentation related to a service animal's vaccination, 
training, or behavior, so long as it is reasonable to believe that the 
documentation would assist the airline in determining whether an animal 
poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.'' \115\ This 
final rule makes it clear that airlines are not permitted to require 
any other documentation as a condition of transport, beyond the ones 
described in the rule. As such, service animal users will no longer 
have to navigate different forms propounded by different airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Guidance on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability 
in Air Travel, Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding 
Service Animals, 84 FR 43480, 43484 (August 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the content of the DOT form, we decline the 
suggestion of A4A that the form require service animal handlers to 
certify that the animal was either trained or evaluated by an 
accredited organization as a means of validating the animal's training. 
While DOT provides space on its form for a service animal handler to 
state the organization or individual that trained the service animal to 
do work or perform tasks to assist the handler, DOT does not require 
that individuals with disabilities have their animal trained or 
evaluated by an accredited organization as a condition of transport. 
The Department similarly rejects the suggestion from IATA that every 
service animal user must obtain a certification of training from a 
specific organization, as this requirement could impose an undue burden 
on service animal users.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Other commenters suggested additional modifications to the 
content of the form. Allegiant Air and ANA suggested that the form 
make clear that all boxes must be checked for the animal to be 
accepted for transport. We are of the view that this aspect of the 
form is already sufficiently clear. Psychiatric Service Dog Partners 
suggested that the form should contain both a ``YES'' box and a 
``NO'' box, so that individuals take greater time to assess the 
questions and understand the answers. We decline this suggestion as 
an unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Health Form
The NPRM
    DOT proposed to allow airlines to require a U.S. Department of 
Transportation Air Transportation Service Animal Health Form (Health 
Form), to be completed by the service animal's veterinarian. The 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a major operating 
component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, requires 
that all dogs imported into the United States, including service dogs, 
be vaccinated for rabies if coming from a high-risk rabies 
country.\117\ The proposed Health Form was modeled after a number of 
State certificate of veterinary inspection (CVI) forms and the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) APHIS 7001 form.\118\ DOT 
proposed that the passenger's veterinarian would describe the animal, 
indicate whether the service animal's rabies vaccinations were up to 
date, state whether the animal had any known diseases or infestations, 
and state whether the veterinarian is aware of any aggressive behavior 
by the animal. The Department reasoned that such a form would help to 
ensure that the animal does not pose a direct threat to the health or 
safety of others. The Department indicated that it had consulted with 
airlines and the AVMA in drafting the content of the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ A current list of high risk rabies countries may be found 
at: https://www.cdc.gov/importation/bringing-an-animal-into-the-united-states/rabies-vaccine.html. See 42 CFR 71.51(e).
    \118\ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/library/forms/pdf/APHIS7001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department sought comment on its proposal to permit airlines to 
require the proposed Health Form as a condition of travel, the general 
content of the Health Form, and whether airlines should be able to 
refuse transportation to a service animal based on the information 
contained in the form. The Department asked whether the proposed Health 
Form would ensure effectively that a service animal does not pose a 
direct threat to the health or safety of others by ensuring that 
travelers do not contract rabies from a service animal if bitten. The 
Department asked whether veterinarians should indicate on the form 
whether, to the veterinarian's knowledge, the animal has ever exhibited 
aggressive behavior. The Department sought comment on whether it would 
be burdensome for individuals traveling with service animals to allow 
airlines to require the Department's Health Form. Finally, the 
Department asked whether it should allow airlines to require passengers 
traveling with service animals to provide photo identification of the 
service animal as an additional measure to verify a service animal's 
identity.
Comments Received
    The proposed Health Form was opposed by most individuals and nearly 
all of the disability rights advocacy organizations who commented on 
the issue. Opponents raised many of the same arguments that they raised 
with regard to the proposed Behavior and Training Form, but added that 
the Health Form would have a financial impact on passengers with 
disabilities because it would require them to make an extra visit to a 
veterinarian and potentially to incur veterinarian fees.\119\ Opponents 
noted that requiring a form from a veterinarian could also 
significantly limit an individual's ability to travel on short notice. 
Advocates also argued that veterinarians may be uncomfortable attesting 
to the behavior of the animal, even if the attestation is limited to 
information within the personal knowledge of the veterinarian. Other 
advocates argued that because the overall incidence of rabies in the 
United States is exceedingly low, the form would not be an effective 
means to determine if an animal poses a direct threat. More generally, 
advocates including PVA and DREDF argued that the data on the proposed 
Health Form would not provide a meaningful basis from which to conclude 
that an animal poses a direct threat.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092, Psychiatric 
Service Dog Partners estimated the total cost of service animal 
users being required to fill out veterinary forms at almost $60 
million.
    \120\ See comments from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429, and DREDF, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19264, ``[T]he issue 
is the level of training of the animal, not its health, that poses 
the threat.'' See also Comment from ADI, NA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proponents of the proposed Health Form included about forty-five 
percent of individual commenters and all industry commenters. 
Proponents generally argued that a DOT form would provide a uniform 
means of determining whether an animal poses a direct threat. AVMA 
agreed that a form with rabies information should be required, stating 
that ``rabies vaccination for dogs is necessary to protect both animal 
and public health, and, accordingly, it is reasonable and prudent to 
require proof of vaccination against this disease.'' \121\

[[Page 79758]]

On the other hand, AVMA argued that creating a DOT-specific form was 
unnecessary because veterinarians could fill out a CVI for the 
user.\122\ AVMA pointed out that CVIs are ``existing official forms 
that are required by most states for interstate transport and 
international travel under existing laws.'' \123\ AVMA also urged the 
Department not to adopt a form that would require a veterinarian to 
attest to the behavior of the animal. AVMA urged that this aspect of 
any form be filled out by the service animal user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Comment from AVMA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19283.
    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A4A and certain individual airlines suggested that to reduce 
burdens on service animal users, the proposed Health Form should be 
signed by the passenger instead of a veterinarian, and should be 
combined with the Behavior and Training Form into a single 
document.\124\ Some of these commenters also suggested that the 
Department should allow airlines to require passengers to travel with 
copies of their service animal's veterinary records. Open Doors 
Organization took the position that if DOT allowed airlines to require 
service animal users to provide animal health documentation, airlines 
should be able to require passengers to travel with veterinary forms, 
but not to fill out the Health Form.\125\ Finally, certain commenters 
suggested that the essential information from the veterinary form could 
be provided during each airline's reservation process, rather than 
through submission of an official DOT form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \125\ Comment from Open Doors Organization, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department believes that it is important and appropriate to 
allow airlines to require passengers to affirm that their service 
animal is in good health as a condition of transport. We agree with 
AVMA and others who indicate that it is ``reasonable and prudent'' to 
require proof of rabies vaccinations.\126\ We also believe that it is 
prudent to require information relating to whether the animal is free 
of diseases that may endanger the health of humans or other animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ We recognize that instances of rabies in the United States 
are rare, and that dogs are generally required to be vaccinated for 
rabies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Department recognizes the difficulties that would 
arise from a requirement that the Health Form be filled out by a 
veterinarian, such as the expense that would be incurred by service 
animal users and the potential reluctance of veterinarians to attest to 
the animal's behavior. To alleviate the burden and difficulties, the 
Department has modified the form in the final rule such that the 
passenger, rather than a veterinarian, will be required to provide 
information about the health and behavior of the animal. The Department 
has also decided to combine the proposed Health Form with the proposed 
Behavior and Training Form to create a single one-page document called 
the ``Service Animal Air Transportation Form'' (Air Transportation 
Form) to reduce burdens further on both service animal users and 
airlines. This one-page Air Transportation Form will also include space 
for the service animal handler to provide a physical description of the 
service animal. Because the Air Transportation Form will contain 
information on the animal's physical description and health, the 
Department does not view it as necessary to permit airlines to require 
the passenger to carry the animal's veterinary records or provide a 
photo of the animal as a condition of transport.
    The Department expects that these adjustments will allow airlines 
to obtain and process important health and safety information in an 
efficient and uniform fashion while minimizing burdens on the service 
animal user.\127\ The Department recognizes that despite these 
adjustments, the combined Air Transportation Form could impose a new 
burden on certain service animal users. Prior to this final rule, the 
regulation did not explicitly permit or prohibit the use of additional 
documentation related to a service animal's vaccination, training, or 
behavior. Beginning in 2018, some airlines began adopting policies 
requiring behavior, training, and health forms for certain service 
animals. In August 2019, the Department's Office of Aviation Consumer 
Protection stated that it does not ``intend to take action against an 
airline for asking service animal users to present documentation 
related to a service animal's vaccination, training, or behavior, so 
long as it is reasonable to believe that the documentation would assist 
the airline in determining whether an animal poses a direct threat to 
the health or safety of others.'' \128\ The Department regards allowing 
airlines to require a DOT-issued Air Transportation Form to be less 
burdensome and a better option for individuals traveling with service 
animals than allowing airlines to develop their own individual forms to 
assist them in determining whether a service animal poses a direct 
threat to the health or safety of others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ PVA and DREDF commented that they opposed the use of 
documentation; however, if the Department were to continue to allow 
it, then uniform Federal documentation was preferable to individual 
airline forms. See comments from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429, and DREDF, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19264.
    \128\ See Guidance on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 
Disability in Air Travel, Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities 
Regarding Service Animals, 84 FR 43480, 43484 (Aug. 21, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Air Transportation Form serves the vital purpose of assuring 
airlines and the traveling public that the user's service animal is 
vaccinated from rabies, has not been exposed to rabies, and to the 
user's knowledge is free of pests and diseases that would endanger 
people or other animals or would endanger public health. The form also 
requires service animal users to attest that their animals are both 
trained to perform a specific task or function and trained to behave in 
public. It educates the user that the animal must be harnessed, 
leashed, or otherwise tethered; that the animal may be treated as a pet 
if it engages in disruptive behavior; and that the user may be 
responsible for any damage caused by the service animal. The Air 
Transportation Form also provides airlines with a means of contacting 
the service animal user and the animal's veterinarian in the event of 
an incident that endangers other passengers or service animals. 
Finally, the Federal nature of the form serves to impress upon 
individuals the importance of filling it out properly.\129\ The 
Department continues to hold the view that a different approach from 
the ADA with respect to documentation is appropriate given the unique 
realities of air transportation, which place the service animal in 
close proximity with many humans and potentially with other animals for 
hours in a tightly confined cabin with no means of egress from the 
aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ The Federal crime notification is discussed in greater 
detail in the next section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[[Page 79759]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE20.002

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C

[[Page 79760]]

C. Relief Form
The NPRM
    The third and final form that DOT proposed to allow airlines to 
require is a U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Relief 
Attestation Form (Relief Form). The Department noted that its current 
ACAA regulations permit airlines to require individuals traveling with 
service animals on a flight segment that is longer than eight hours to 
provide documentation that the animal will not need to relieve itself 
or can relieve itself in a way that does not create a health or 
sanitation risk. The Department noted that the current rule did not set 
a uniform method for such documentation or assurances. The Department 
proposed to amend this requirement by allowing airlines to require 
passengers traveling on flights eight hours or longer to submit to 
airlines a standardized DOT document. The Relief Form would require the 
service animal user to check a box attesting that either: (1) The 
animal will not need to relieve itself on the flight; or (2) the animal 
can relieve itself on the flight in a way that does not pose a health 
or sanitation issue (with a description of that method). The form also 
requires the service animal user to attest to an understanding that the 
airline may charge passengers with disabilities traveling with a 
service animal for the cost to repair damage caused by the passenger's 
service animal, so long as the airline charges passengers without 
disabilities for similar kinds of damage. The Department sought comment 
on the general content of the Relief Form, and whether the form would 
serve as adequate proof to verify that a passenger's animal would not 
need to relieve itself on flight segments of eight or more hours, or 
could relieve itself in a way that does not create a health or 
sanitation issue.
Comments Received
    The Relief Form was opposed by almost half of individual 
commenters, all disability advocacy organizations, and certain airline 
organizations. Advocates who opposed the Relief Form raised many of the 
same arguments that they raised with respect to the other forms the 
Department proposed in the NPRM. Certain advocates also argued that the 
form was unnecessary because there are only a few domestic flight 
segments longer than eight hours.
    A4A argued that the Relief Form should not be required for flight 
segments over eight hours.\130\ A4A took the view that it is impossible 
for an animal to relieve itself in a sanitary manner onboard a flight; 
therefore, passengers should not be given the option of making this 
attestation. According to A4A, ``airlines would instead rely on 
training and communication with those passengers to facilitate 
elimination when needed,'' for example, by encouraging passengers to 
take shorter flight segments.\131\ American Airlines urged the 
Department to forgo the Relief Form because doing so would reduce 
burdens on passengers.\132\ Similarly, Air Canada also commented that 
the Relief Form should not be an option because it does not believe 
that animals can relieve themselves without creating a health or 
sanitation issue in a confined space such as an aircraft.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \131\ Id.
    \132\ Comment from American Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138.
    \133\ Comment from Air Canada, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proponents of the Relief Form included a majority of individual 
commenters, and a number of industry commenters, including Spirit 
Airlines, Allegiant Air, and AAPA.\134\ Proponents argued the benefits 
of having a uniform means of assurance that the animal would not 
relieve itself onboard the aircraft, or could do so in a sanitary 
manner, rather than a process that allows service animal users to 
submit various types of documentation to explain their animal's relief 
functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Comments from Spirit Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19221, Allegiant Air, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19164, and 
AAPA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department has decided to retain the Relief Form largely as 
proposed. The Relief Form will remain a separate document, in 
recognition of the fact that it will be used only for those rare flight 
segments that are scheduled for longer than eight hours. The Department 
is of the view that the Relief Form does not impose significantly 
greater burdens on passengers with disabilities than the prior service 
animal rule. The prior rule also allowed airlines to require passengers 
to provide documentation for flights longer than eight hours that a 
service animal would not need to relieve itself on the flight, or that 
the animal can relieve itself in a way that does not create a health or 
sanitation issue on the flight. However, the prior rule did not specify 
what type of documentation was permissible. This final rule effectively 
standardizes the Relief Form documentation. The content of the Relief 
Form has been modified slightly in this final rule in the following 
ways: (1) Data fields have been added for the animal's name, the date 
of the flight, and the estimated length of the flight; (2) the language 
has been simplified for ease of comprehension; and (3) fraud warnings 
appear in a format that matches the fraud warnings of the new combined 
Air Transportation Form.
    In response to A4A's comment that the Relief Form ``should not be 
required'' for flights over eight hours, we observe that the Department 
allows airlines to require passengers traveling on flights eight hours 
or more to produce this form--airlines are free to accept a service 
animal for transport on a flight segment over eight hours without 
providing the Relief Form. However, if an airline chooses not to 
require the form, the airline is not free to deny transport to a 
service animal on flight segments longer than eight hours based on 
concerns about the animal's elimination functions. In such situations, 
the airline may require the passenger to fill out the Relief Form as a 
condition of travel for flight segments longer than eight hours.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[[Page 79761]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE20.003

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C

[[Page 79762]]

D. Federal Crime Notification
The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department provided samples of all three proposed 
forms. Each form contained the following statement, in small print at 
or near the top of the form: ``It is a Federal crime to make materially 
false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements, entries, or 
representations knowingly and willfully on this form to secure 
disability accommodations provided under regulations of the United 
States Department of Transportation (18 U.S.C. 1001).'' In addition to 
that standard notice, the Department's proposed Behavior and Training 
Form would have also required the service animal user to check a box 
stating: ``I understand that I am committing fraud by knowingly making 
false statements to secure disability accommodations provided under 
regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation.'' The proposed 
Health Form (which was proposed to be filled out by the veterinarian) 
and the Relief Form did not have similar check-boxes indicating an 
awareness of the consequences of falsification. The Department sought 
comment on whether the forms adequately educate passengers on the 
seriousness of falsifying the forms.
Comments Received
    The Department received a range of responses to the Federal crime 
notification. Airlines and airline organizations generally supported 
the use of DOT forms with Federal crime notifications on the ground 
that users may be less likely to falsify a Federal form. Various 
industry commenters urged the Department to add stronger and more 
detailed warning language. A4A and IATA also urged the Department to 
establish specific and clear procedures for how airlines can report 
incidents of fraud with respect to service animal documentation.\135\ 
According to A4A, airlines do not have the ability to combat 
documentation fraud.\136\ A4A and Asiana argued that the deterrent 
effect of the warning would be stronger if DOT specified the penalties 
for the violations.\137\ Allegiant argued that the crime warning itself 
should be made more prominent on each form.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Comments from and A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240, and IATA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041.
    \136\ Comments from and A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \137\ Comment from Asiana Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19340.
    \138\ Comment from Allegiant Air, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain advocacy organizations, such as ADI-NA and Service Dogs of 
Virginia, also commented that DOT should specify the penalty for lying 
on the Behavior and Training Form; \139\ similarly, ACB-California 
commented that ``there must be a significant penalty for deception,'' 
such as a fine or placing the individual on a no-fly list.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Comments from ADI-NA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915, and Service Dogs of Virginia, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0068-32397/.
    \140\ Comment from the California Chapter of the American 
Council of the Blind (ACB California) at https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ANA argued that the Department has the statutory authority to 
impose civil penalties of up to $1,466 on individuals who breach 
certain regulations governing passenger conduct.\141\ ANA urged the 
Department to cite this authority on the forms, and to establish 
procedures by which airlines may report issues of documentation fraud 
to the DOT or the DOJ.\142\ Similarly, Asiana Airlines commented that 
``appropriate civil penalties administered by DOT may be a more 
effective and efficient deterrent to false statements,'' because actual 
imposition of criminal penalties is unlikely.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Comment from ANA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19025, citing 49 U.S.C. 46301 and In re Wallesa, 
FAA Order 2013-2 (May 14, 2013), available at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/adjudication/civil_penalty/CaseFile/view/2013/2013-2.pdf. Section 
46301(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) authorize civil penalties of up to $1,466 
on individuals who violate the ACAA (49 U.S.C. 41705) or a 
regulation prescribed or order issued under the ACAA.
    \142\ Comment from ANA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19025.
    \143\ Comment from Asiana Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Autistic Self 
Advocacy Network urged the Department to revise the forms so that they 
are more easily understood by individuals with cognitive or 
developmental disabilities.\144\ Both organizations specifically urged 
the Department to reword the final entry on the Behavior and Training 
Form, relating to fraud.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Comments from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19168, and 
the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232.
    \145\ Comments from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19168, and 
the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232. Both organizations point out that 
as written, the proposed form appears to ask the individual with a 
disability to admit that the individual is committing fraud. The 
form stated: ``I understand that I am committing fraud by knowingly 
making false statements to secure disability accommodations provided 
under regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation.'' 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department agrees that the warning relating to penalties under 
18 U.S.C. 1001 should be made more prominent; thus, we have increased 
the font size of the warning on both the Air Transportation Form and 
the Relief Form. We also agree that the final check-box on the 
finalized Air Transportation Form should reflect the warning in plain 
language so that passengers are able to comprehend the risk of 
falsifying information on the form. The final entry now reads: ``I am 
signing an official document of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 
My answers are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that if I 
knowingly make false statements on this document, I can be subject to 
fines and other penalties.'' We have added this entry to the Relief 
Form as well. In general, we have strived to ensure that all the 
entries on the revised forms are easy to understand and to answer, 
especially because of the risk of Federal fines and penalties.
    If an airline suspects instances of documentation fraud, the 
airline may notify the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection at 
[email protected] to report such incidents and provide 
evidence supporting the airline's belief. The Office plans to refer 
these reports to the Department's Office of the Inspector General, as 
appropriate, for investigation and prosecution. The Department's Office 
of Aviation Consumer Protection does not have the authority to assess 
fines or other penalties on passengers who make false statements based 
on the Air Carrier Access Act or a regulation prescribed under that 
Act.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ 49 U.S.C. 46301 permits the Department to impose civil 
penalties against those entities that violate certain statutory 
provisions or regulations prescribed under those statutory 
provisions. The Air Carrier Access Act, upon which final rule is 
based, requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to provide 
nondiscriminatory service and does not impose obligations on 
passengers. A passenger's submission of false information to an 
airline could therefore not support a civil penalty by the 
Department under 49 U.S.C. 46301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds it unnecessary to describe this process on the 
form itself because it is more relevant to the airline than to the user 
filling out the form. We also do not, at this point,

[[Page 79763]]

believe that it is necessary to add greater detail to the forms about 
the types of fines or penalties that may arise from potential 
violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001. In our view, it is sufficient to impress 
upon users that they are filling out a Federal form and that they may 
be subject to fines or penalties if they knowingly falsify the forms.
E. Documentation Procedures
The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed various procedures relating to 
submitting and processing service animal documentation. Regarding 
timing, the Department proposed to allow airlines to require that the 
Health Form be ``current,'' i.e., signed within one year of the date of 
the passenger's scheduled initial flight. The Department sought comment 
on whether one year is too long or too short for the form to be 
considered valid. The Department did not specify a timeframe for the 
proposed Behavior and Training Form or the Relief Form.
    Also, the Department's proposal would have expressly prohibited 
airlines from requiring additional documentation from service animal 
users beyond the three DOT forms identified in the proposed rule. It 
proposed that copies of these three forms be kept at each airport that 
a U.S. carrier serves and at each airport a foreign air carrier serves 
a flight that begins or ends at a U.S. airport. It also proposed to 
require that airlines with a website make blank forms available on its 
website in an accessible format and to mail blank copies of the forms 
to passengers upon request.
    Recognizing that the forms may impose a burden on those individuals 
traveling with traditional service animals who currently do not provide 
documentation, the Department sought comment from the public on ways to 
reduce the burden that the Department's service animal forms would have 
on passengers with disabilities. The Department solicited comment on 
whether to allow airlines to require the form each time a service 
animal user travels, and what medium airlines should be allowed to use 
to provide and collect the forms (e.g., hardcopy, electronic).
Comments Received
    The Department received a variety of comments from both advocates 
and airlines on its proposal that the service animal forms be kept at 
each airport that a U.S. carrier serves, at each airport a foreign air 
carrier serves a flight that begins or ends at a U.S. airport, and on 
airlines' websites. \147\ Allegiant Air commented that it does not 
object to making DOT forms available on its website and at each airport 
served.\148\ However, A4A and Air Canada commented that DOTs 
regulations should allow airlines to accept DOT forms electronically, 
rather than requiring airlines to accept paper forms received at the 
airport or printouts from an airline's website.\149\ Some disability 
advocates such as ADI-NA, the Guide Dog Foundation, and Service Dogs of 
Virginia recommended that if DOT were to allow airlines to require 
passengers to submit DOT forms, passengers with disabilities should be 
permitted to provide the requested information using a check-box format 
during the reservation process to decrease the burden on passengers 
with disabilities traveling with service animals.\150\ PVA and 
Psychiatric Service Dog Partners also commented that the burden on 
individuals with disabilities could be further reduced if airlines had 
the ability to attach a passenger's attestation to the passenger's 
frequent flyer or other appropriate travel record so that service 
animal users would not have to fill out DOT forms each time they 
travel.\151\ ANA also commented that some information provided by the 
passenger to the airline on the DOT forms could be linked to the 
passenger's frequent flyer account.\152\ Psychiatric Service Dog 
Partners also commented that the Department should amend the proposed 
regulatory text to clarify that carriers do not have to require DOT's 
forms, but should they require the forms, they should follow the 
procedural guidelines set forth in the rule, such as making the forms 
available at each airport an airline serves.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ PRM proposes that the service animal health form and the 
service animal behavior and training attestation form commonly used 
by carriers (as well as the service animal relief attestation form, 
where applicable) be DOT-designed documents that carriers would be 
required to accept; carrier-designed forms would be prohibited. 
Carriers would be required to make the DOT forms available on their 
websites and at each airport served. Allegiant does not object in 
principle to these proposals but submits that the forms are in need 
of improvement to deter fraud and abuse by unscrupulous passengers.
    \148\ Comment from Allegiant Air, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19164.
    \149\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240, and Air Canada, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19328.
    \150\ Comments from ADI-NA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915, the Guide Dog Foundation, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18141, and Service 
Dogs of Virginia, https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0068-32397/.
    \151\ Comments from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19348, and Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092.
    \152\ Comment from ANA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19025.
    \153\ Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the issue of whether airlines should be permitted to 
reject service animal documents that are stale (e.g., dated more than 
one year before the date of travel), the comments that we received on 
this issue tended to center on the Health Form, because, as proposed, a 
veterinarian would have been required to fill out the form. The 
American Kennel Club and Hope Service Dogs agreed with the Department's 
proposal that its DOT Health Forms should be valid for a period of one 
year because the forms can be readily completed during the service 
animal's annual physical.\154\ Similarly, A4A commented that if the 
Department finalizes its proposed Health Form, it supports ``DOT's 
proposal that the form be deemed valid for one year from the date of 
issuance, but no longer than the date of expiration of the animal's 
rabies vaccine.'' \155\ ADI-NA, however, commented that DOT's proposal 
that its Health Form be valid for one year is too short given that 
``[s]tatistically, more dogs are vaccinated for rabies with a three-
year vaccine and requirements vary in each state.'' \156\ ADI-NA also 
noted that if airlines were permitted to use a ``check box in the 
reservation process attesting that the service animal is current on its 
rabies vaccination,'' the issue of the duration of the form, one-year 
vs. three-years, goes away.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Comments from American Kennel Club, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19163, and Hope 
Service Dogs, Comment from Hope Service Dogs, Inc., https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18702.
    \155\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
    \156\ Comment from ADI-NA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915.
    \157\ Comment from ADI-NA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-17915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the Department's proposal that airlines may only require the 
DOT service animal forms as a condition of travel, IATA, AAPA, and 
individual foreign airlines pointed out that foreign governments may 
impose their own service animal requirements (including additional 
forms and breed restrictions). IATA commented that ``all forms should 
make it clear that it is the sole

[[Page 79764]]

responsibility of the passenger to comply with any and all applicable 
foreign laws, regulations, and paperwork requirements when traveling 
with their dog internationally.'' \158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Comment from IATA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    This final rule permits airlines to require that the DOT Air 
Transportation Form (i.e., combined one-page health, behavior and 
training form) be completed for each trip but not each time a service 
animal user travels.\159\ This means that a service animal user cannot 
be required to complete the form more than once if he or she purchased 
a round-trip ticket, as that would be considered one trip. The final 
rule also allows carriers to require that the service animal forms be 
current, which it defines as forms completed by the passenger on or 
after the date that the passenger purchased his or her ticket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ Airlines may require that the Relief Form be completed for 
each flight segment scheduled to take 8 hours or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOT recognizes that some commenters indicated their preference for 
attaching a record of the passenger's service animal attestation to the 
passenger's frequent flyer or other travel profile to eliminate the 
burden of a service animal user's having to fill out these forms each 
time the passenger travels. However, the Department believes that its 
decision to allow airlines to request and review up-to-date health and 
behavior information from a service animal user on each trip strikes 
the right balance as airlines can ensure that a service animal has not 
behaved aggressively or caused injury toward others, and that the 
animal has current vaccinations, each time the animal travels on an 
aircraft. The Department is also concerned with the potential privacy 
implications of airlines' permanently storing and maintaining a record 
of the passenger's service animal attestation to the passenger's 
frequent flyer or other travel profile without the passenger's consent.
    Furthermore, the Department understands that foreign airlines are 
concerned with the proposed prohibition against airlines' requiring 
passengers to provide additional service animal documentation, beyond 
those specified by the Department, as a condition of travel. These 
commenters emphasized that foreign governments may impose additional 
restrictions and requirements on transport of service animals. This 
final rule permits airlines to refuse transportation to a service 
animal if its transport would violate the health or safety laws or 
regulations of a foreign government.\160\ Elsewhere, the rule also 
states that airlines may impose additional restrictions on the 
transport of service animals if required by a foreign carrier's 
government.\161\ Nevertheless, we are persuaded that it is also 
appropriate to add language explicitly stating that carriers may 
require additional service animal documentation to the extent it is 
required by foreign governments or domestic territories.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ 14 CFR 382.79(a)(3); see also 14 CFR 382.7(g).
    \161\ 14 CFR 382.80.
    \162\ 14 CFR 382.75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the medium by which airlines are permitted to provide and 
accept the DOT service animal forms, the Department is requiring 
airlines that mandate completion of these forms by service animal users 
to provide the forms at each airport that a U.S. carrier serves, at 
each airport a foreign air carrier serves a flight that begins or ends 
at a U.S. airport, on airlines' websites, and by mail upon request. 
Airlines must provide passengers the option of submitting the completed 
form(s) electronically or by hardcopy if submitted in advance of the 
passenger's travel date. Several commenters indicated their preference 
for DOT to allow airlines to request the attestation in DOT's Air 
Transportation Form via a check-box system during the reservation 
process to decrease the burden on individuals with disabilities. DOT 
rejected this format because allowing passengers to attest to their 
animal's good behavior, training, and good health on an airline's 
website, rather than on an official Federal form, diminishes the use of 
the form as a potential fraud deterrent as airlines would not be 
permitted to include language warning service animal users that it 
would be a Federal crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, to make false 
statements or representations to secure disability accommodations.

4. Number of Service Animals per Passenger

The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to allow carriers to limit the 
number of service animals traveling with a single passenger with a 
disability to no more than two service animals. The Department also 
sought comment on whether there were any safety-related risks that 
could arise from allowing a passenger to transport two service animals 
as opposed to just one service animal.
Comments Received
    Most disability rights advocates commented that airlines should be 
required to allow at least two service animals to travel with a single 
passenger if needed. Advocates reasoned that some individuals have 
multiple disabilities and that while some animals have been trained to 
perform multiple tasks, some individuals with disabilities may need 
animals that are focused on mitigating a specific disability for the 
mitigation to be effective. Advocates also noted that a passenger with 
a severe disability that requires around-the-clock assistance may 
require two service animals as the animals would take turns providing 
the individual assistance. Some advocates encouraged the Department to 
consider requiring airlines to transport more than two service animals. 
These advocates noted that passengers may have a legitimate reason for 
needing more than two service animals, and they should be permitted to 
carry more than two provided that they can explain why more than two 
service animals are needed.
    The majority of airlines, however, commented that they should be 
permitted to limit the number of service animals traveling with a 
passenger to one service animal. These airlines argued that allowing 
just one service animal per passenger helps support safety and would 
help to avoid disruptions in the cabin. Airlines also argued that given 
the space afforded to individual passengers on aircraft, transporting 
more than one service animal could be problematic. Airlines also noted 
that one service animal could be trained to perform multiple tasks.
DOT Response
    The Department finalizes, as proposed, a provision that allows 
carriers to limit the number of service animals traveling with a single 
passenger with a disability to no more than two service animals. The 
Department acknowledges comments from disability rights advocates that 
certain individuals with disabilities require more than one service 
animal, and while a single service animal may be trained to perform 
more than one mitigating function, more than one service animal may be 
needed to assist an individual on the aircraft or at the passenger's 
destination if the passenger uses the animals for lengthy periods of 
time (e.g., if one animal may need a break from work). Furthermore, 
disability advocate commenters noted that while a service animal may be 
trained to assist an individual with

[[Page 79765]]

multiple disabilities, a passenger's animal may need to focus on 
mitigating one disability at a time for the mitigation to be effective, 
so multiple animals may be needed at once. Although the Department 
understands that there may be instances where multiple service animals 
may be needed to accommodate an individual's disability given space 
constraints on the aircraft, the Department has concluded that it is 
appropriate to allow airlines to limit the number of service animals to 
two per passenger with a disability, although airlines are certainly 
free to allow a passenger to travel with more than two service animals 
if the airline wishes to do so. For those passengers who seek 
accommodation for two service animals, the airline would be permitted 
to require the passenger to complete two separate attestation forms, 
one for each animal, to verify that each qualifies for appropriate 
accommodation as a service animal to accompany the passenger on the 
flight.
    In response to the carriers' argument regarding the lack of space 
in the cabin to accommodate a passenger traveling with two service 
animals, the Department notes that this final rule allows airlines to 
limit the space that a passenger's service animal or animals may occupy 
to the passenger's lap and foot space. While they are not required to 
do so, airlines may wish to provide an individual with two service 
animals with additional space, but airlines would also be free to 
require that both service animals fit into the individual's allotted 
space without encroaching into the space of another passenger. Under 
this final rule, airlines may refuse transportation to the animals in 
the cabin if the animals would not safely fit in the passenger's lap or 
foot space. Requiring airlines to accommodate up to two service animals 
per passenger ensures that individuals with a disability who rely on 
more than one service animal are properly accommodated. And because 
both service animals would be trained to do work or perform tasks, the 
service animal handler should have no difficulty controlling both 
service animals onboard the aircraft.

5. Advance Notice or In-Person Check-In

The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department stated that it would prohibit airlines 
from requiring individuals traveling with a service animal to provide 
the DOT-issued forms in advance of the passenger's flight because of 
concerns that it would prevent travel by passengers with disabilities 
wishing to make last minute travel plans that may be necessary for work 
or family emergencies.\163\ Instead of advance notice, the Department 
proposed to allow airlines to require passengers to check in physically 
at the airport in advance of the check-in time for the general public. 
More specifically, the Department proposed to allow airlines to require 
service animal users to check in at the airport one hour before the 
check-in time for the general public to observe the service animal and 
process service animal documentation, so long as the airline similarly 
requires advance check-in for passengers traveling with their pets in 
the cabin. The NPRM proposed to permit airlines to require that the 
check-in take place at any designated airport location, including the 
terminal lobby.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Part 382 generally prohibits airlines from requiring 
advance notice as a condition of providing disability 
accommodations, unless the rule specifically permits advance notice. 
See 14 CFR 382.27(a). The existing service animal rule did 
specifically permit airlines to require passengers to provide 48 
hours' advance notice for transportation of an emotional support or 
psychiatric service animal in the cabin, and for transportation of a 
service animal on a flight segment scheduled to take 8 hours or 
more. See 14 CFR 382.27(c)(8) and (c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the concern that service animal users may be potentially 
inconvenienced with long waits when physically checking in at the 
airport because they would not have the benefit of checking in 
electronically before arriving at the airport like other passengers, 
DOT also proposed to require airlines to make an employee trained to 
handle disability-related matters available in person at the airline's 
designated airport location where the service animal could be observed 
and the service animal documentation review and passenger check-in 
could occur promptly. The Department also proposed to require airlines 
to try to accommodate passengers who fail to meet the one hour check-in 
requirement so long as the airline can do so by making reasonable 
efforts without delaying the flight.
    The Department sought comment on each of these proposals and 
specifically whether one hour before the general public check-in would 
provide sufficient time for airline personnel to process service animal 
documentation.
Comments Received
    The Department received approximately 400 comments on this 
proposal. The disability rights advocates, including ACB, AFB, 
America's Vet Dogs, ADI-NA, Canine Companions for Independence, the 
DREDF, Guide Dog Users of Canada, the Empire State and Florida, PVA, 
and individual commenters, all of which make up the majority of the 
disability advocacy comments received on this issue, generally opposed 
DOT's proposal. These organizations argued that permitting airlines to 
require advance check-in would be unduly burdensome and discriminatory, 
would separate individuals with disabilities from their loved ones and 
travel companions, and would single out passengers with disabilities at 
the airport. They also argued that this process would prevent such 
passengers from utilizing curbside, online, or mobile check-in, or from 
bypassing the airport check-in lobby and going straight to the security 
check point if not checking a bag, as passengers who are not traveling 
with service animals are able to do.
    Commenters argued that guide dogs have a long record of safe 
travel, and that a lengthier check-in process for persons with 
disabilities who use service animals would preclude blind guide dog 
users from making emergency or impromptu trips. They also stated that 
the proposed requirements could significantly hinder blind business 
travelers from carrying out the necessary duties of their employment. 
ACB commented that because air travelers are already required to arrive 
at the airport far before the take-off of their flight, requiring a 
person with a disability with a service dog to come even earlier is 
discriminatory.\164\ ACB further commented that this requirement would 
single service animal users out and cause undue anxiety.\165\ America's 
VetDogs agreed this proposal would cause an unjust burden on 
individuals with disabilities that use service dogs that the general 
public does not have to endure, and stated further that such a 
requirement could cause individuals traveling with service animals to 
be separated from their travel party.\166\ Other commenters argued that 
permitting airlines to require early check in could pose particular 
challenges for individuals with psychiatric illnesses, such as Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder, because those individuals are already 
uncomfortable in crowds and asking them to come to the airport earlier 
and remain in a crowd places an undue burden on them. PVA commented 
that

[[Page 79766]]

it opposes a rule that would permit airlines to require advance airport 
check-in.\167\ In PVA's view, if the training and behavior attestation 
and health forms are required, then the only processing that should be 
required is a quick review to ensure that the forms are completed 
properly; additional time should not be needed to observe the 
animal.\168\ One individual commenter also noted that a one-hour 
advance check-in requirement would have an adverse effect on the 
service animals themselves. The commenter stated that a requirement 
that a passenger with a service animal check in earlier will prevent 
service animal users from utilizing benefits such as curbside and 
online/mobile check-in that other travelers enjoy, increase the time 
that the service animal will be unable to relieve itself, and will 
cause additional anxiety for the service animal handler to ensure the 
comfort of the animal and to locate a service animal relief area.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ Comment from American Council for the Blind, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18365.
    \165\ Id.
    \166\ Comment from America's VetDogs, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18138.
    \167\ Comment from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19348.
    \168\ Id.
    \169\ Comment from Ginger G.B. Kutsch, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most disability advocacy organizations that opposed both DOT's 
proposed early check-in and DOT's documentation proposal, including the 
New York State Bar Association Disability Rights Committee and PVA, 
commented that if DOT permits airlines to require documentation against 
its wishes, it would be in favor of DOT's proposal to require airlines 
to make an employee trained in disability-related matters available to 
process service animal documentation promptly.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Comments from New York State Bara Association Disability 
Rights Committee, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-20160, and PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airlines were split in their support for the one-hour check-in 
proposal, given the cost associated with ensuring that a dedicated 
airline employee would have space at the airport and would be available 
to assist the passengers with the check-in process. Most, if not all, 
airlines expressed their preference for allowing airlines to collect 
service animal documentation up to 48 hours in advance. These airlines 
reasoned that allowing airlines to require passengers to provide the 
forms in advance, rather than check in at the airport one hour early, 
would be less burdensome for passengers, and would give airlines ample 
opportunity to review the documentation and, if needed, provide the 
passenger time to correct the documentation before the passenger's 
flight.
    The AAPA stated that it supports the Department's advance check-in 
proposal, but suggested that airlines should be allowed to designate 
service contractors, such as trained ground handling agents, to process 
service animal documentation.\171\ AAPA also commented that advance 
notice would allow airlines to assist passengers to plan in advance for 
the transport of a service animal, which is particularly important on 
long international journeys involving multiple airports.\172\ Both A4A 
and IATA indicated that they support the one-hour check-in requirement, 
but urged the Department to consider adopting a requirement that would 
allow them to require the DOT forms 48 hours in advance of the date of 
the flight.\173\ Those organizations indicated that some airlines would 
like to avoid or minimize the need for early in-person check-in for 
service animal users, if at all possible, because some airlines may 
have difficulty making the requisite personnel available promptly or 
reserving a check-in location at an airport due to space constraints. 
A4A commented that a 48-hour advance notice requirement was appropriate 
``so that airlines will be better able to validate that a passenger's 
dog is trained to do work or perform a task, and will behave 
appropriately during air travel since airlines anticipate that the 
fraud will migrate to the PSA category.'' \174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Comment from the AAPA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19323.
    \172\ Id.
    \173\ Comments from and A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240, and IATA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041.
    \174\ Comment from and A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of airlines expressed support for a requirement that would 
allow airlines to require DOT forms 48 hours in advance, rather than 
requiring service animal users to check in at the airport one hour in 
advance. American Airlines and Air Canada indicated that they opposed 
the one-hour advance check-in requirement in favor of a requirement 
that airlines be allowed to require DOT forms in advance of 
travel.\175\ Similarly, Spirit Airlines and Allegiant Air commented 
that a 48-hour advance notice requirement would benefit both airlines 
and passengers because this timeframe allows forms to be reviewed and 
corrected if necessary without passengers' suffering the inconvenience 
of waiting in line early at the airport.\176\ Furthermore, ANA urged 
the Department to allow airlines to mandate that passengers furnish any 
applicable international travel documentation 48 hours in advance.\177\ 
With respect to DOT's concern that advance notice would preclude 
passengers with disabilities from traveling on short notice, ANA 
commented that special provisions could be made for those cases, such 
as allowing the forms to be presented at the check-in counter.\178\ 
Open Doors commented that it ``does not support any advance notice or 
submission requirements,'' with respect to service animal 
documentation.\179\ Similarly, PVA commented that it supports 
``prohibiting carriers from requiring that the forms be provided prior 
to the date of travel to minimize additional burdens on passengers with 
disabilities who use service animals.'' \180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ Comments from American Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138; and Air 
Canada, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19328.
    \176\ Comments from Spirit Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19221, and Allegiant 
Air, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19164.
    \177\ Comment from ANA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19025.
    \178\ Id.
    \179\ Comment from Open Doors Organization, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19305.
    \180\ Comment from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department has considered the merits of the arguments for and 
against the proposed provision to permit airlines to require 
individuals with disabilities who use service animals to check in one 
hour before the check-in time at the airport for the general public, 
and we are persuaded that the Department should not adopt such a rule. 
We are aware that many airlines allow passengers to check in 
electronically before arriving at the airport, and among the benefits 
of electronic check-in is the ability to skip the airport lobby check-
in area and proceed directly through security to the gate. It is the 
Department's view that a one-hour advance check-in requirement would 
impose significant inconvenience on passengers with disabilities while 
not providing airlines with an efficient or effective method for 
reviewing the documentation. Accordingly, the Department has revised 
the final rule to prohibit airlines from requiring that passengers 
traveling with service animals physically check in at the

[[Page 79767]]

airport lobby solely on the basis that the passenger is traveling with 
a service animal. This change will ensure that service animal users are 
not prevented from enjoying the same convenience-related benefits 
provided to other passengers, such as online and curbside check-in.
    Rather than allowing airlines to require advance check-in, the 
Department is permitting airlines to require that individuals traveling 
with a service animal provide documentation up to 48 hours in advance 
of the time of departure, depending on when the passenger's reservation 
was made. The Department is now of the view that a 48-hour advance 
notice provision is appropriate. We are persuaded that this provision 
would benefit both airlines and consumers by allowing the forms to be 
processed more efficiently, without requiring passengers to wait in 
line at the airport one hour in advance. The provision also provides 
airlines a greater opportunity to assist passengers with service 
animals, and more time to reach out to the passenger if the 
documentation is incomplete or deficient (e.g., if the service animal's 
rabies vaccination expires before the flight date).
    In the NPRM, we expressed concern that a 48-hour advance notice 
provision would pose a significant burden on passengers with service 
animals who wish to travel on short notice. Accordingly, the final rule 
now has an exception for reservations that are made less than 48 hours 
in advance of travel. In those situations, airlines may not require the 
documentation in advance and must allow the forms to be presented at 
the passenger's departure gate on the date of travel. The final rule 
also includes a grace provision, explaining that if a passenger fails 
to meet the airline's advance notice requirements, then the airline 
must still make the accommodation if it may do so by making reasonable 
efforts, without delaying the flight. This grace provision is already 
set forth in the Department's ACAA regulations relating to advance 
notice generally,\181\ but will be repeated in the service animal 
subpart as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ See 14 CFR 382.27(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Service Animal Identification

The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department described three means by which airline 
personnel may determine that an animal is a service animal at the 
airport. First, we proposed that airlines may ask whether the animal is 
required to accompany the passenger because of a disability and what 
work or task the animal has been trained to perform. The proposed rule 
added that airlines may not ask about the nature and extent of the 
person's disability, or ask that the service animal demonstrate its 
work or task. Next, the Department proposed that airline personnel may 
observe the behavior of the animal in the cabin or the gate area. The 
proposed rule explained that if an animal engages in disruptive 
behavior (such as running freely, barking or growling repeatedly, 
biting, jumping on people or animals, injuring people or animals, 
urinating, or defecating), then it has shown that it has not been 
properly trained to behave in public, as is expected of a service 
animal. Third, the Department proposed that carriers may look to 
``physical indicators'' to determine whether the animal is a service 
animal. Specifically, we proposed that airline personnel may look for 
the presence of a harness, vest, or other indicator that the animal is 
a service animal.
Comments Received
    Disability Advocates mainly responded to the Department's proposals 
regarding the ways in which an airline can identify a service animal's 
status. Guide Dog Users of Canada and Service Dogs of Virginia 
expressed their support for DOT's proposal to allow airlines to ask 
passengers if (1) a service animal is required because of a disability, 
and (2) what work or task has the animal been trained to perform.\182\ 
Similarly, ACB commented in support of DOT's proposal to allow airlines 
to ask the same two questions that DOJ permits regulated entities to 
ask service animal users in order to confirm the animal's status. ACB 
commented that dog users would be able to answer the two necessary 
questions easily and appropriately to identify their dogs as service 
animals, which will ease the enforcement burden for airlines and their 
employees.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ Comments from Guide Dog users of Canada, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18917, and Service 
Dogs of Virginia, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-32397.
    \183\ Comment from American Council for the Blind, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to relying on the animal's behavior as an indicator of 
the animal's status, many disability rights advocates expressed strong 
opposition to the notion that an airline could determine that an animal 
is not a service animal if the animal misbehaves. The Oklahoma Law 
Center commented that it ``strongly opposes DOT's proposal that if a 
service animal is out of control, [it] would allow `airlines to 
determine that the animal is not a service animal.' '' \184\ The 
Oklahoma Disability Law Center further states that ``[s]ervice animals 
are always service animals . . . [but] if a service animal cannot 
control its elimination functions because the service animal is ill or 
the service animal is uncontrollably barking or otherwise misbehaving 
because it was provoked by something or someone, the airlines are 
permitted to bar travel on a particular flight until the service animal 
is under control.'' \185\ Similarly, Service Dogs of Virginia also 
commented that ``[i]f a service animal behaves inappropriately (e.g., 
barking excessively, growling, snapping, toileting indoors, stealing 
food from tables, other passengers or the floor), the airport and 
airline personnel may ask the service animal user to remove the dog 
regardless of its status as a service animal.'' \186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Comment from the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237.
    \185\ Comment from the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237.
    \186\ Comment from Service Dogs of Virginia, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-32397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One disability advocacy organization, however, disagrees with the 
Department's proposal that airlines should also consider physical 
indicators, such as vests, harnesses, etc., when trying to decide an 
animal's status. Hope Service Dogs, Inc. commented that DOT's 
regulation should never permit airlines to look at vests, harnesses, 
certificates, and identification badges as proof that a dog is a 
trained service dog because a service dog only requires a plain collar 
or a harness and a regular leash.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ Comment from Hope Service Dogs, Inc., https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department has carefully considered all of the comments and 
decided to allow carriers to determine if an animal is a service animal 
that must be accepted for transport by: (1) Asking whether the animal 
is required to accompany the passenger because of a disability and what 
work or task the animal has been trained to perform; \188\

[[Page 79768]]

(2) observing the behavior of the animal; and (3) looking at physical 
indicators such as harnesses and vests. In addition, the final rule 
specifies that carriers may use one or more of these factors to 
determine whether to accept an animal for transport as a service 
animal. However, as noted by commenters, the Department recognizes that 
unscrupulous individuals may purchase service animal paraphernalia such 
as vests or tags to make it appear that their pets are service animals. 
As such, carriers are free to view such paraphernalia as evidence that 
an animal is a service animal; conversely, they are also free to give 
the presence or lack of presence of such paraphernalia little weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ This approach differs from DOJ's ADA regulations, which 
prohibit asking these questions if it is ``readily apparent that the 
animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for the individual 
with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual 
who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person's wheelchair, or 
providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with 
an observable mobility disability).'' See 28 CFR 35.136(f); 28 CFR 
36.302(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Service Animal Restraints

The NPRM
    The Department proposed to allow airlines to require service 
animals to be harnessed, leashed, or tethered unless the device 
interferes with the service animal's work or the passenger's disability 
prevents use of these devices. Under the proposal, in those 
circumstances, the carrier would permit the passenger to use voice, 
signal, or other effective means to maintain control of the service 
animal. This proposal is similar to the requirement in DOJ's rule 
implementing the ADA, which requires service animals to be harnessed, 
leashed, or tethered while in public places unless the device 
interferes with the animal's work, in which case the service animal 
must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, 
signals, or other effective means).
Comments Received
    Airlines, disability advocates, organizations, and individual 
commenters were unified in their support that the Department adopt a 
regulation allowing airlines to require service animals to be 
harnessed, leashed, tethered, or otherwise under the control of the 
service animal handler. Commenters generally recognized that a control 
requirement is especially crucial in the airport/aircraft environment 
given the often crowded, confined, and high-pressure nature of air 
transportation. Commenters emphasized that unrestrained service animals 
are dangerous and present a safety hazard by jeopardizing the safe 
transport of passengers, crew, and other animals.
    Airlines commented that if harnessing, leashing, and tethering is 
appropriate for trained animals under the ADA, a similar requirement is 
appropriate for service animals on aircraft. However, although 
recognizing that DOT's proposal to permit the passenger to use voice, 
signal, or other effective means to maintain control of the service 
animal under certain limited circumstances properly aligned the ACAA 
regulations with DOJ's ADA rule, airline commenters questioned the use 
of voice commands in lieu of restraints. They argued that voice 
commands may not be an effective way to control a service animal, and 
supported restraints being used at all times while on the aircraft to 
ensure safety. These commenters argued that non-restraint methods are 
not effective measures of control in a noisy, confined aircraft 
environment, and reiterated that an uncontrolled animal in an aircraft 
cabin remains a threat for passengers, crew, and other animals. One 
disability advocate, Service Dogs of Virginia, agreed that voice 
commands are not sufficient in an airplane setting and argued that, 
even if the person with the disability is not able physically to hold a 
leash, tether, or harness, the service animal should still be under 
control by, for example, tethering it to the person's wheelchair.\189\ 
Service Dogs of Virginia further commented that on an airplane, when 
the wheelchair is absent, the service animal can be tethered to the arm 
of the passenger's seat or remain lying down at the passenger's feet 
under the passenger's control, and such a requirement would minimize 
the likelihood of unwelcome or injurious behavior by a service animal 
to other passengers or airline staff.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Comment from Service Dogs of Virginia, https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0068-32397.
    \190\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The final rule allows airlines to require service animals to be 
harnessed, leashed, or tethered at all times, even in instances where 
the device interferes with the service animal's work or the passenger's 
disability prevents use of these devices. The Department was persuaded 
by commenters who explained that non-physical means of control over the 
service animal, such as voice commands or signals, could implicate 
safety on an aircraft. The Department understands that this would be a 
departure from DOJ's rule implementing the ADA, which requires service 
animals to be harnessed, leashed, or tethered while in public places 
unless the device interferes with the animal's work, in which case the 
service animal must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., 
voice control, signals, or other effective means); however, the 
Department believes that a deviation from DOJ's ADA rule is appropriate 
given that when the animal is traveling onboard an aircraft it will be 
in a tightly confined cabin space with numerous people in close 
proximity who are unable to leave the aircraft during flight. Under 
this final rule, if a passenger with a disability is unable to keep 
physical control over the service animal, even if the reason is related 
to the person's disability, the airline may deny transport of the 
animal in the cabin. A service animal user who is unable to keep 
physical control of the animal may choose to travel with a service 
animal handler, who would be responsible for maintaining control over 
the animal.

8. Denying Transportation to a Service Animal

The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed that a carrier may deny 
transport to an animal if it poses a direct threat to the health or 
safety of others. The proposed rule made explicit reference to the 
existing definition of ``direct threat'', which is defined as ``a 
significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be 
eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or 
by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.'' \191\ The proposed 
rule also clarified that in making this determination, the carrier must 
make an individualized assessment based on reasonable judgment that 
relies on the best available objective evidence to ascertain the 
nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the 
potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable 
modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the 
risk. The proposed rule also clarified that the carrier must not deny 
transportation to the service animal if there are means short of 
refusal that would mitigate the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See 14 CFR 382.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also indicated that it would propose that ``carriers 
would be prohibited from refusing to transport a service animal based 
solely on breed or generalized physical type, as distinct from an 
individualized assessment of the animal's behavior and health.'' \192\ 
We stated that ``[t]he Department's policy has been to require airlines 
to conduct individualized assessments of particular service animals 
based on the animal's evident behavior or health,

[[Page 79769]]

rather than applying generalized assumptions about how a breed or type 
of dog would be expected to behave.'' \193\ While we indicated that we 
would retain that policy in the proposed rule, the principle was 
inadvertently not reflected in the proposed regulatory text itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ 85 FR 6452; see also Final Statement at 20-21 (carriers 
may not refuse transportation to a dog based solely on its breed).
    \193\ Id. at 6454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Department proposed that a carrier may deny transport to 
a service animal if it causes a significant disruption in the cabin or 
at an airport gate area, or if the animal's behavior indicates that it 
has not been trained to behave properly in public.\194\ The Department 
proposed that if a carrier seeks to deny transport for these reasons, 
the carrier must engage in an individualized assessment as set forth in 
the rulemaking. As with considerations of direct threat, the carrier 
must not deny transportation to the service animal if there are means 
short of refusal that will mitigate the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ This principle also appears in section 382.74, relating to 
the ways in which a carrier may identify that an animal is a service 
animal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Department proposed that a carrier may deny transport to 
a service animal if the animal's carriage would violate FAA safety 
requirements or the safety requirements of a U.S. Territory or foreign 
government. In making this determination, a carrier would not be 
required to undertake the same individualized analysis that is 
necessary for direct threat or misbehavior (i.e., with an assessment of 
the specific facts and circumstances relating to the animal, the risks 
involved, and means of mitigating the risk). Instead, it would be 
sufficient for the carrier to determine that transport of the animal 
would violate the safety requirements of a U.S. territory or foreign 
government.
    Fourth, the Department proposed to allow airlines to require 
passengers to submit completed service animal forms as a condition of 
travel. However, the NPRM did not include the lack of such 
documentation in the proposed rule text listing the reasons a carrier 
may refuse to transport a service animal.
    Finally, the Department proposed that if a carrier refused to 
transport an animal as a service animal based on any provision in Part 
382, then the carrier must provide a written statement to the passenger 
setting forth the reasons for the refusal. This statement must be 
provided either at the airport itself, or within 10 days of the refusal 
of transportation.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ The prior service animal rule had a nearly identical 
provision. See 14 CFR 382.117(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received
    Commenters who addressed denying transport to service animals based 
on the animal's behavior, or after assessing the animal to determine 
whether the animal posed a direct threat, were largely in favor of the 
Department's proposal to require carriers to conduct an individualized 
assessment of the animal before deciding whether the animal should be 
denied transport. The AAAE commented that its members believe that 
requiring airlines to make decisions about an animal's behavior and 
health on a case-by-case basis before denying the animal transportation 
is an appropriate approach, rather than denying the animal transport on 
the basis of the animal's breed.\196\ With respect to observed animal 
behavior, Spirit Airlines commented that airlines ``should be able to 
deny boarding to a service animal if an employee observes it 
misbehaving or showing aggression in an airport regardless of whether 
documentation requirements have been met.'' \197\ Regarding the 
proposal to allow airlines to require DOT-issued service animal forms 
as a condition of travel, industry commenters, some individuals, and a 
few disability organizations were supportive while most disability 
organizations and individuals opposed the proposal as they believe that 
it would be unduly burdensome for passengers with disabilities, 
especially to those who had never been required to submit any type of 
documentation to travel with their service animal in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Comment from AAAE, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19196.
    \197\ Comment from Spirit Airlines, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department is adopting the proposal with a few revisions. The 
final rule retains the two reasons provided in the proposal to deny 
transport to a service animal with no change: (1) The animal poses a 
direct threat to the health or safety of others; and (2) the animal 
causes a significant disruption in the aircraft or at the airport. 
Regarding the third reason to deny transport to an animal, the final 
rule allows airlines to preclude transport of a service animal if doing 
so would violate applicable safety, health, or other regulations of a 
U.S. Federal agency, a U.S. territory, or a foreign government. The 
proposed rule mentioned safety regulations, but not health or other 
regulations. Further, the final rule has added a fourth reason to deny 
transport to a service animal, which is that the airline required the 
passenger to complete an Air Transportation Form or a Relief Form and 
the passenger failed to do so. The completion of the Air Transportation 
Form assists the airline in making an individualized assessment on 
whether the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of 
others, and the completion of a Relief Form provides assurances to the 
airline that the service animal would not urinate or defecate in the 
cabin.
    In addition, the final rule clarifies that the individualized 
assessment analysis must be made independent of the animal's breed or 
type. For example, if the carrier determines that the animal is a pit 
bull, that fact, standing alone, would not be considered a proper basis 
on which to make an ``individualized assessment'' of any threat that 
the animal poses. Instead, the carrier would be required to base its 
assessment on observable, objective factors such as its behavior and 
health. This amendment reflects the intended scope of the rule as 
proposed and serves as a complement to the revised definition of a 
service animal, which indicates that a service animal is a dog, 
``regardless of breed or type.''

9. Large Service Animals on Aircraft

The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to allow carriers to require a 
service animal to fit within its handler's lap or foot space on the 
aircraft. If the service animal could not fit, the airline would be 
required to offer the passenger the opportunity to move to another 
location in the same class of service, if available, where the service 
animal could be accommodated.
Comments Received
    The comments received by airlines almost uniformly supported the 
Department's proposal to adopt a rule that would allow carriers to 
require a service animal to fit within its handler's lap or foot space. 
Commenters who supported the Department's proposal argued that it 
ensures that other passengers seated near a service animal will not be 
discomforted by an animal's encroaching on their foot space and would 
provide a simple and clear standard for flight attendants to enforce. 
A4A supported the Department's adopting a performance-based standard 
that would allow airlines to devise the best, operationally feasible 
alternative, including but not limited to seating the passenger 
traveling with a service animal next to an empty seat within the

[[Page 79770]]

same class of service, if such a seat is available; providing the 
passenger with the option to transport the animal in the cargo hold, if 
possible; or offering to transport the passenger on a later flight with 
more room, if available.\198\ Airlines mentioned that all passengers 
should enjoy a comfortable flight and should not be burdened with 
objecting if they feel uncomfortable sharing their foot space with a 
large service animal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments received by disability advocates and the majority of 
individual commenters uniformly opposed the Department's proposal. 
These commenters argued that the Department's proposal is 
discriminatory because it denies access to those passengers traveling 
with large service animals and will dramatically impact those who use 
large service animals for mobility impairments. Disability advocates 
noted a potential financial hardship with the Department's proposal 
that an airline may require a passenger with a disability to purchase 
an upgrade, an additional seat, or switch to a later flight. Commenters 
argued that large service animals have been used for years, and are now 
only an issue since airlines have decreased space in economy seating. 
Disability advocates, such as PVA, argued that instead of limiting the 
size of service animals, the Department should amend its seating 
accommodation regulations to ensure improved access to seats with 
additional leg room for those individuals who use these animals.\199\ 
Disability advocates argued that many large service animals, such as 
Great Danes and Mastiffs, are used to support passengers with 
challenges in balance (e.g., Parkinson's Disease) or to pull a manual 
wheelchair, possess sufficient training to behave in the airport and 
airline setting, and should be accepted by airlines for travel inside 
the cabin regardless of their size. Further, the Disability Rights 
Education Fund and the Oklahoma Disability Law Center disagreed with 
airline assertions that passengers feel ``put upon'' by having to share 
space with service animals, arguing that these assertions are 
unfounded.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Comment from PVA, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19429.
    \200\ Comments from DREDF, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19264, and the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    After carefully reviewing the comments, the Department has decided 
to allow airlines to require that a service animal fit within the 
passenger's foot space on the aircraft or be placed on the passenger's 
lap. Passengers, including passengers with disabilities traveling with 
large service animals, are not entitled to more space than they 
purchased. While the Department is sensitive to the fact that many 
large service animals, such as German Shepherds, Golden Retrievers, and 
Labrador Retrievers, are commonly used to assist individuals with 
disabilities, particularly individuals with mobility impairments, these 
animals are often trained to fit into small spaces.\201\ The Department 
further emphasizes that larger service animals are not automatically 
prohibited from an aircraft if they do not fit in their handler's foot 
space. The final rule continues to require carriers to accommodate such 
animals by moving them to another seat location within the same class 
of service where the animal can be accommodated, if available, such as 
a seat next to an empty seat on the aircraft, if available. If there 
are no alternatives available to enable the passenger to travel with 
the service animal in the cabin of the scheduled flight, airlines are 
also required to offer passengers the opportunity to transport the 
service animal in the cargo hold free of charge or travel on a later 
flight to the extent there is space available on a later flight and the 
transport is consistent with the safety requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ While the Guide Dog Foundation and America's VetDogs do 
not agree with the Department's decision to allow airlines to 
require that a service animal fit into its user's footspace or lap, 
this organization noted that ``[m]ost service dogs are able to curl 
up under their partner's feet on an airplane.'' See comments from 
the Guide Dog Foundation, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18141, and America's VetDogs, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-18138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Passengers traveling with a large service animal also have the 
option to purchase an additional seat in advance to ensure that their 
large service animal is accommodated on the aircraft.

10. Damage Caused by Service Animals

The NPRM
    In the NPRM, the Department proposed to permit airlines to adopt a 
policy in which the airline may charge a passenger with a disability 
for damage caused by his or her service animal, so long as the airline 
normally charges individuals without disabilities for similar kinds of 
damage caused by an animal traveling with a passenger.
Comments Received
    Disability advocates expressed concern that, in practice, 
individuals with disabilities may be charged for damage caused by their 
service animals, while other passengers, who inflict similar types of 
damage, may not be charged. The National Disability Rights Network, 
Disability Rights Florida, Disability Rights New Jersey, and Oklahoma 
Disability Law Center, commented that DOT's damage provision is not 
justified ``unless airlines currently actually charge passengers 
without disabilities if they vomit on a seat or floor or break a tray 
table or cause any other damage to aircraft.'' \202\ Similarly, the 
Disability Coalition (New Mexico) commented that if DOT should mandate 
such a provision, it should make it clear that ``damages may be charged 
only when the airline charges for similar damage caused by humans, such 
as a child urinating in an airline seat.'' \203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Comments from the National Disability Rights Network, 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19210, 
Disability Rights New Jersey, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19091, Disability Rights Florida, 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19336, and 
Oklahoma Disability Law Center, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237.
    \203\ Comment from The Disability Coalition (New Mexico), 
https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airlines, however, support DOT's proposal to allow airlines to 
charge passengers for damage caused by their service animals. Air 
Canada commented that carriers should be allowed to require service 
animal users to ``agree to indemnify and hold harmless the airline and 
other passengers for any damage their animal may cause.'' In addition, 
A4A suggested the inclusion of a statement in the DOT-issued service 
animal form that airlines may charge service animal users for damage 
caused by their service animal.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Comment from A4A, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response
    The Department has decided to finalize, as proposed, a provision 
allowing airlines to charge passengers traveling with service animals 
for any damage to the aircraft caused by the passenger's service animal 
so long as the airline charges passengers without disabilities for 
similar repairs or damage. The Service Animal Air Transportation Form 
and the Relief Form provide notice to service animal users that they 
may be responsible for damage caused by their service animals. The 
Department acknowledges the concerns of disability advocates that 
service animal users may, in practice, be disproportionally charged for 
damage

[[Page 79771]]

caused by their service animals when compared to others who inflict 
similar damage. The Department emphasizes that such action by airlines 
would violate the Department's explicit regulatory mandate that service 
animal users may only be charged for damage caused by their service 
animals if other passengers are charged for similar types of damage. 
The Department's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection will take 
action as appropriate if it finds inequities between the treatment of 
service animal users and non-service animal users.

11. Codeshare Flights

    Under the Department's existing ACAA rule, U.S. carriers that 
participate in a code-sharing arrangement with a foreign carrier are 
responsible for ensuring that the foreign carrier complies with the 
service animal provisions of the rule with respect to a passenger 
traveling under the U.S. carrier's code on the foreign carrier's 
aircraft on flights between two foreign points. Although foreign 
airlines are only required to carry dogs, based on the language in the 
existing ACAA rule, the rule held a foreign carrier's U.S. codeshare 
partner responsible if the foreign carrier refused to transport service 
animal species other than dogs for passengers traveling under the U.S. 
carrier's code. Because the Department was considering recognizing 
animals other than just dogs as service animals in the NPRM, we sought 
comment on whether we should include language in the rule to make it 
clear that U.S. airlines are not responsible for their foreign carrier 
codeshare partner's failure to carry animal species other than dogs as 
service animals. However, because this final rule requires only that 
U.S. and foreign air carriers recognize dogs as service animals, a 
conflict no longer exists between the species of service animals that 
U.S. carriers and foreign carriers are required to carry. As such, this 
issue is moot, and a substantive change in the rule text is 
unnecessary.
    As a technical amendment, however, the Department will make clear 
that U.S. carriers continue to be responsible for compliance with ACAA 
service animal regulations (now found at 14 CFR 382 Subpart EE), if the 
U.S. carrier participates in a code-sharing arrangement with a foreign 
carrier with respect to flights between two foreign points.\205\ This 
amendment is non-substantive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ 14 CFR 382.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date of Final Rule

    This final rule will become effective January 11, 2021 to provide 
airlines time to analyze and train personnel on the new service animal 
requirements, particularly given the COVID-19 public health emergency's 
impact on the airline industry.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (49 CFR part 5)

    This final rule has been determined to be significant under 
Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and the 
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures 
(found at 49 CFR part 5, subpart B) because of its considerable 
interest to the disability community and the aviation industry. It does 
not, however, meet the criteria under Executive Order 12866 for an 
economically significant rule. It has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under that Executive Order.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review'') require agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-
effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that the 
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to develop 
regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' The rule 
defines a service animal as a dog, regardless of breed or type, that is 
individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a 
qualified individual with a disability; treats psychiatric service 
animals like other service animals; and allows airlines to require 
passengers traveling with a service animal to attest to the animal's 
good behavior and good health. Airlines will no longer be required to 
recognize emotional support animals (ESAs) as service animals.
    The primary economic impact of this final rule is that it 
eliminates a market inefficiency. The current policy amounts to a price 
restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue 
source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee 
for transporting emotional support animals. Airlines charge as much as 
$175 to transport pets on a one-way trip, giving passengers an 
incentive to claim their pets as emotional support animals. A4A 
estimates that airline carriers transported 751,000 emotional support 
animals in 2017, a 56.1 percent increase from 2016. This number nearly 
equals the 784,000 pets transported in 2017. The final rule will 
eliminate a pricing restriction currently imposed by government on 
airlines by allowing them to set a price on the transport of emotional 
support animals other than zero dollars.
    Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport 
emotional support animals free of charge will allow market forces 
(i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the 
price for air transportation of emotional support animals as pets. This 
provision will allow carriers to charge passengers traveling with 
emotional support animals (dogs and other accepted species on board of 
an aircraft) with pet transportation fees. This represents a transfer 
of surplus from passengers to airlines, and does not have implications 
for the net benefits calculation of the final rule.
    The final rule will also allow airlines to require passengers 
traveling with service animals to produce two forms of documentation 
developed by DOT. This cost element places a potential burden on 
passengers traveling with service animals who would need to submit two 
DOT forms to airlines. We estimate that the forms could create as much 
as 84,000 burden hours and $1.3 million in costs per year. In some 
cases, however, carriers already ask passengers to complete equivalent 
nongovernmental forms; thus, the analysis overestimates the net burden 
created by this rulemaking.
    Evaluating other economic impacts was more difficult due to data 
limitations. To gauge the potential magnitude of these impacts, we 
combined the limited data with reasonable assumptions about ESA 
transport that could occur under the final rule and a demand elasticity 
from a surrogate market. The regulatory impact analysis, summarized in 
Table 1 and available in the docket, indicates that the final rule 
could be expected to generate annual cost savings to airlines between 
$15.6 million and $21.6 million and annual net benefits of $3.7 to 
$12.5 million. Public nonuse values potentially complicate the 
analysis, but there is little evidence that these values exist or would 
be large enough to offset externality costs completely.

[[Page 79772]]



         Table 1--Summary of Economic Impacts Due to Final Rule
                        [2018 Dollars, millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Impact                            Annual value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:                                 .................................
    Paperwork burden for passengers    $1.3.
     traveling with service animals.
    Cost savings to airlines           -$21.6 to -$15.6.
     associated with providing ESA
     travel.
Benefits:
    Lost benefits to individuals who   -$10.6 to -$7.8.
     no longer travel with ESAs.
    Reduction in negative              Not quantified.
     externalities caused by ESAs.
Transfers:                             .................................
    Increased fees paid by passengers  $54.0 to $59.6.
     travelling with ESAs to airlines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Net benefits (benefits minus   $3.7 to $12.5.
         costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs)

    This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. 
Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule are discussed 
in the rule's RIA, which has been uploaded to the docket.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an 
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities 
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
A direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is a small business if it 
provides air transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft 
with up to 60 seats/18,000-pound payload capacity).\206\ Relative to 
typical airlines' operating costs and revenues, the impact is expected 
to be nonsignificant. We received no comment on the preliminary finding 
of nonsignificance or, more generally, the potential impact of this 
rulemaking on small entities. Therefore, the Department certifies that 
this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ See 14 CFR 399.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This 
final rule does not include any provision that: (1) Has substantial 
direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or 
(3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in 
this area by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, 
the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do 
not apply.

E. Executive Order 13084

    This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this rulemaking 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian 
Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), 
no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control 
number. As required by the PRA, the Department has submitted the 
Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to OMB. Before 
OMB decides whether to approve those proposed collections of 
information that are part of this final rule and issue a control 
number, the public must be provided 30 days to comment. Organizations 
and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information 
collection requirements should direct them to the Office of Management 
and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to: 
Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, 
Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 
DC 20590. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection 
of information requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. 
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect 
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The Department may 
not impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection 
requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if 
required. The 60-day notice for this information collection was 
previously published in the Federal Register as part of the NPRM on 
February 5, 2020 volume 85, page 6474. The Department invited 
interested parties to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in the NPRM and the Department received one 
comment on the regulatory analysis that was referenced in the NPRM. 
This comment, and the Department's responses, are discussed in the 
Traveling by Air with Service Animals Regulatory Impact Analysis.
    This final rule adds two new collections of information that allows 
airlines to require passengers traveling with service animals to 
provide carriers with the following two forms of documentation 
developed by the Department:
    1. U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air 
Transportation Form (``Behavior and Health Attestation Form''): This 
form would be completed by passengers traveling with service animals to 
inform airlines of the service animal's health, training, and behavior 
and educate passengers on how service animals in air transportation are 
expected to behave, and of the consequences of service animal 
misbehavior.
    2. U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Relief 
Attestation Form (``Relief Attestation Form''): This form would be 
completed by passengers traveling with service animals on flight 
segments scheduled to take 8 hours or more to provide assurances to 
airlines that the service animal will not need to relieve itself on the 
flight or that the animal can relieve itself in a way that

[[Page 79773]]

does not create a health or sanitation issue, and to educate passengers 
of the consequences should an animal relieve itself on aircraft in an 
unsanitary way.
    For each of these information collections, the title, a description 
of the respondents, and an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and 
periodic reporting burden are set forth below:
1. Requirement To Prepare and Submit to Airlines the DOT Air 
Transportation Service Animal Behavior and Health Attestation Form
    Respondents: Passengers with disabilities traveling on aircraft 
with service animals.
    Number of Respondents: The Department estimates that 319,000 
service animals are transported annually by U.S. carriers on flights 
to, within, and from the United States and by foreign air carriers on 
flights to and from the United States.\207\ Assuming that one passenger 
with a disability travels with a service animal, 319,000 respondents 
would have to complete the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Comment from A4A, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4288. A4A estimates that 281,000 
service animals were transported on U.S. airlines in 2017. DOT 
estimates that 38,000 service animals were transported by foreign 
airlines on flights to and from the U.S. in 2017 based on air 
carrier passenger data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 
available at https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2017-traffic-data-us-airlines-and-foreign-airlines-us-flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: We estimate that completing 
the form would require 15 minutes (.25 hours) per response, including 
the time it takes to retrieve an electronic or paper version of the 
form from the carrier's or DOT's website, reviewing the instructions, 
and completing the questions. Passengers would spend a total of 79,750 
hours annually (0.25 hours x 319,295 passengers) to retrieve and 
complete an accessible version of the form. Passengers would fill out 
the forms on their own time without pay. To estimate the value of this 
uncompensated activity, we use median wage data from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics.\208\ We use a post-tax wage estimate of $15.42 
($18.58 median for all occupations minus a 17 percent estimated tax 
rate).\209\ The estimated annual value of this time is $1,229,857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ For a discussion of estimating the value of uncompensated 
activities, see ``Valuing Time in U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services Regulatory Impact Analyses: Conceptual Framework and 
Best Practices'' from the Department of Health and Human Services, 
available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/257746/VOT.pdf.
    \209\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). ``May 2018 National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: United States.'' https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Requirement To Prepare and Submit to Airlines the DOT Service Animal 
Relief Attestation Form
    Respondents: Passengers with disabilities traveling on aircraft 
with service animals on flight segments scheduled to take 8 hours or 
more.
    Number of Respondents: The Department estimates that 5 percent of 
service animal users would be on flight segments scheduled to take 8 
hours or more and would also have to complete the Relief Attestation 
Form, for a total of 15,950 respondents.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: We estimate that completing 
the form will require 15 minutes (.25 hours) per response, including 
the time it takes to retrieve an electronic or paper version of the 
form from the carrier's or DOT's website, reviewing the instructions, 
and completing the questions. Passengers would spend a total of 3,987.5 
hours annually (0.25 hours x 15,950 passengers) to retrieve an 
accessible version of the form and complete the form. Passengers would 
fill out the forms on their own time without pay, as they would with 
the Animal Behavior and Health Attestation Form. The estimated annual 
value of this time is $61,493.
    Table 2 summarizes the estimated burden and costs of the two new 
DOT forms for Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) accounting purposes. In 
some cases, carriers already require passengers traveling with service 
animals to complete equivalent forms. Allegiant Air and Delta Air Lines 
ask passengers to carry health forms, for example, while American 
Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines ask passengers to fill out relief 
attestation forms. Thus, the estimates are likely to overestimate any 
new burden created by this rulemaking.

                       Table 1--Paperwork Cost Estimates for U.S. DOT Service Animal Forms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Hourly time
              Form                  Passengers         Hours        Total hours        value         Subtotal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behavior & health...............         319,000            0.25          79,750          $15.42      $1,229,857
Relief..........................          15,950            0.25         3,987.5          $15.42          61,493
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............        83,737.5  ..............       1,291,349
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this 
rulemaking.

H. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this 
action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically 
excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering 
Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical 
exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing 
procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the 
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental 
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).\210\ In 
analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must 
also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that 
would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS.\211\ Paragraph 3.c.6.i 
of DOT Order 5610.1C categorically excludes ``[a]ctions relating to 
consumer protection, including regulations.'' Because this rulemaking 
relates to ensuring both the nondiscriminatory access to air 
transportation for consumers with disabilities, as well as the safe 
transport of the traveling public, this rulemaking is a consumer 
protection rulemaking. The Department does not anticipate any 
environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances 
present in connection with this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See 40 CFR 1508.4.
    \211\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382

    Air Carriers, Civil rights, Consumer protection, Individuals with 
Disabilities,

[[Page 79774]]

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of 
Transportation amends 14 CFR part 382 as follows:

PART 382--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN AIR 
TRAVEL

0
1. The authority citation for part 382 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 41705.


0
2. Amend Sec.  382.3 by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of 
service animal and service animal handler to read as follows:


Sec.  382.3   What do the terms in this rule mean?

* * * * *
    Service animal means a dog, regardless of breed or type, that is 
individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a 
qualified individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, 
psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Animal species 
other than dogs, emotional support animals, comfort animals, 
companionship animals, and service animals in training are not service 
animals for the purposes of this part.
    A Service animal handler is a passenger in air transportation who 
is a qualified individual with a disability who receives assistance 
from a service animal(s) that does work or performs tasks that are 
directly related to the individual's disability, or a third party who 
accompanies the individual with a disability traveling with a service 
animal such as a parent of a minor child or a caretaker. The service 
animal handler is responsible for keeping the animal under control at 
all times, and caring for and supervising the service animal, which 
includes toileting and feeding.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  382.7, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  382.7   To whom do the provisions of this part apply?

* * * * *
    (c) As a foreign carrier, you are not subject to the requirements 
of this part with respect to flights between two foreign points, even 
with respect to flights involving code-sharing arrangements with U.S. 
carriers. As a U.S. carrier that participates in a code-sharing 
arrangement with a foreign carrier with respect to flights between two 
foreign points, you (as distinct from the foreign carrier) are 
responsible for ensuring compliance with the service provisions of 
subparts A through C, E through H, and K of this part, with respect to 
passengers traveling under your code on such a flight.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 382.27 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  382.27   May a carrier require a passenger with a disability to 
provide advance notice in order to obtain certain specific services in 
connection with a flight?

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section 
and Sec. Sec.  382.75 and 382.133(e)(4), (5), (f)(5) and (6), as a 
carrier you must not require a passenger with a disability to provide 
advance notice in order to obtain services or accommodations required 
by this part.
    (b)(1) You may require a passenger with a disability to provide up 
to 72 hours' advance notice and check in one hour before the check-in 
time for the general public to receive carrier-supplied in-flight 
medical oxygen on international flights, and 48 hours' advance notice 
and check-in one hour before the check-in time for the general public 
to receive carrier-supplied in-flight medical oxygen on domestic 
flights. This service is optional; you are not required to provide 
carrier-supplied in-flight medical oxygen, but you may choose to do so.
    (2) You may require a passenger with a disability to provide 48 
hours' advance notice and check-in one hour before the check-in time 
for the general public to use his/her ventilator, respirator, CPAP 
machine or POC.
    (3) You may require a passenger with a disability seeking to travel 
with a service animal in the cabin of the aircraft to provide up to 48 
hours' advance notice through submission of the forms identified in 
Sec.  382.75 (a) and (b) as a condition of permitting the service 
animal to travel in the cabin if the reservation is made more than 48 
hours prior to a flight's departure. In the alternative, you may 
require a passenger with a disability seeking to travel with a service 
animal in the cabin of the aircraft to provide the forms identified in 
Sec.  382.75 (a) and (b) at the passenger's departure gate on the date 
of travel as a condition of permitting the service animal to travel in 
the cabin.
    (c) You may require a passenger with a disability to provide up to 
48 hours' advance notice and check in one hour before the check-in time 
for the general public to receive the following services and 
accommodations. The services listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) 
of this section are optional; you are not required to provide them, but 
you may choose to do so.
    (1) Carriage of an incubator;
    (2) Hook-up for a respirator, ventilator, CPAP machine or POC to 
the aircraft electrical power supply;
    (3) Accommodation for a passenger who must travel in a stretcher;
    (4) Transportation for an electric wheelchair on an aircraft with 
fewer than 60 seats;
    (5) Provision of hazardous materials packaging for batteries or 
other assistive devices that are required to have such packaging;
    (6) Accommodation for a group of ten or more qualified individuals 
with a disability, who make reservations and travel as a group; and
    (7) Provision of an on-board wheelchair on an aircraft with more 
than 60 seats that does not have an accessible lavatory.
    (8) Accommodation of a passenger who has both severe vision and 
hearing impairments (see Sec.  382.29(b)(4)).
    (d) If the passenger with a disability provides the advance notice 
you require, consistent with this section, for a service that you must 
provide (see paragraphs (b)(2) through (3) and (c)(4) through (8) of 
this section) or choose to provide (see paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) 
through (c)(3) of this section), you must provide the requested service 
or accommodation except to comply with any applicable safety 
regulations.
    (e) Your reservation and other administrative systems must ensure 
that when passengers provide the advance notice that you require, 
consistent with this section, for services and accommodations, the 
notice is communicated, clearly and on time, to the people responsible 
for providing the requested service or accommodation.
    (f) If a passenger with a disability provides the advance notice 
you require, consistent with this section, and the passenger is forced 
to change to another flight (e.g., because of a flight cancellation), 
you must, to the maximum extent feasible, provide the accommodation on 
the new flight. If the new flight is another carrier's flight, you must 
provide the maximum feasible assistance to the other carrier in 
providing the accommodation the passenger requested from you.
    (g) If a passenger does not meet advance notice or check-in 
requirements you establish consistent with this section, you must still 
provide the service or accommodation if you can do so by making 
reasonable efforts, without delaying the flight.

0
5. Revise the heading of subpart E and add Sec. Sec.  382.72 through 
382.80 to subpart E to read as follows:

[[Page 79775]]

Subpart E--Accessibility of Aircraft and Service Animals on 
Aircraft

Sec.
* * * * *
382.72 Must carriers allow a service animal to accompany a passenger 
with a disability?
382.73 How do carriers determine if an animal is a service animal? 
May a carrier require that a service animal be under the control of 
the service animal user or handler?
382.74 How many service animals must a carrier transport in the 
cabin of aircraft?
382.75 May a carrier require documentation from passengers with 
disabilities seeking to travel with a service animal?
382.76 May a carrier require a service animal user to physically 
check-in at the airport as a condition of travel with a service 
animal?
382.77 May carriers restrict the location and placement of service 
animals on aircraft?
382.78 May carriers charge individuals with disabilities for the 
damage their service animal causes?
382.79 Under what other circumstances may carriers refuse to provide 
transportation to a service animal traveling with a passenger with a 
disability?
382.80 May carriers impose additional restrictions on the transport 
of service animals?


Sec.  382.72   Must carriers allow a service animal to accompany a 
passenger with a disability?

    You must allow a service animal to accompany a passenger with a 
disability. You must not deny transportation to a service animal based 
on the animal's breed or type or on the basis that its carriage may 
offend or annoy carrier personnel or persons traveling on the aircraft.


Sec.  382.73   How do carriers determine if an animal is a service 
animal that must be accepted for transport? May a carrier require that 
a service animal be under the control of the service animal user or 
handler?

    (a) You may rely on one or more of the factors set forth in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through)(3) of this section to determine if an animal 
is a service animal that must be accepted for transport.
    (1) You may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal 
qualifies as a service animal. You may ask if the animal is required to 
accompany the passenger because of a disability and what work or task 
the animal has been trained to perform. You must not ask about the 
nature or extent of a person's disability or ask that the service 
animal demonstrate its work or task.
    (2) You may observe the behavior of an animal. A trained service 
animal will remain under the control of its handler. It does not run 
freely around an aircraft or an airport gate area, bark or growl 
repeatedly at other persons or other animals on the aircraft or in the 
airport gate area, bite, jump on, or cause injury to people, or urinate 
or defecate in the cabin or gate area. An animal that engages in such 
disruptive behavior demonstrates that it has not been successfully 
trained to behave properly in a public setting and carriers are not 
required to treat it as a service animal without a carrier in the 
cabin, even if the animal performs an assistive function for a 
passenger with a disability.
    (3) You may look for physical indicators, such as a harness or vest 
on the animal, to determine if the animal is a service animal.
    (b) You may require that a service animal be harnessed, leashed, or 
otherwise tethered at all times by the service animal user or service 
animal handler while in areas of the airport that you own, lease or 
control, or on an aircraft.


Sec.  382.74   How many service animals must a carrier transport in the 
cabin of aircraft?

    You are not required to accept more than two service animals for a 
single passenger with a disability.


Sec.  382.75   May a carrier require documentation from passengers with 
disabilities seeking to travel with a service animal?

    (a) If a passenger with a disability seeks to travel with a service 
animal, you may require the passenger to provide you, as a condition of 
permitting the service animal to travel in the cabin, a current 
completed U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air 
Transportation Form. Current means the form was completed on or after 
the date the passenger purchased his or her airline ticket.
    (b) On a flight segment scheduled to take 8 hours or more, you may, 
as a condition of permitting a service animal to travel in the cabin, 
require the passenger with a disability traveling with the service 
animal to confirm that the animal will not need to relieve itself on 
the flight, or that the animal can relieve itself in a way that does 
not create a health or sanitation issue on the flight by providing a 
current DOT Service Animal Relief Attestation Form. Current means the 
form was completed on or after the date the passenger purchased his or 
her airline ticket.
    (c) You are not permitted to require documentation from passengers 
with disabilities traveling with service animals beyond the completion 
of the forms identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 
except to comply with requirements on transport of animals by a Federal 
agency, a U.S. territory or a foreign jurisdiction.
    (d) As a U.S. air carrier, if you require service animal users to 
submit the forms identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 
you must have copies of these forms available for passengers at each 
airport you serve. As a foreign air carrier, if you require service 
animal users to submit the forms identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this section, you must have copies of the forms available for 
passengers at each airport serving a flight you operate that begins or 
ends at a U.S. airport.
    (e) If you have a website, you must have the forms identified in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) available to passengers in an accessible format. 
You must mail copies of the forms identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 
to passengers upon request.
    (f) If you require a passenger with a disability traveling with a 
service animal to submit the forms identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this section in advance of the passenger's date of travel, you must 
provide the passenger the option of submitting the completed form(s) to 
you electronically or by hardcopy.
    (g)(1) If a passenger's reservation was made more than 48 hours in 
advance of the first originally scheduled departure time on the 
passenger's itinerary, you may require that passenger provide up to 48 
hours advance notice by submitting the form identified in paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    (2) If a passenger's reservation was made more than 48 hours in 
advance of the first originally scheduled departure time on the 
passenger's itinerary and a flight segment on the passenger's itinerary 
is scheduled to take 8 hours or more, you may require that the 
passenger provide up to 48 hours advance notice by submitting the form 
identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (3) If a passenger's reservation was made less than 48 hours in 
advance of the first originally scheduled departure time on the 
passenger's itinerary, you may not require that passenger provide 
advance notice of his or her intent to travel with a service animal. 
You may require that the passenger complete the forms identified in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and submit a copy of the form to 
you at the passenger's departure gate on the date of travel.
    (h) If the passenger does not meet the advance notice requirements 
you establish consistent with this section, you must still provide the 
accommodation if you can do so by making reasonable efforts, without 
delaying the flight.

[[Page 79776]]

Sec.  382.76   May a carrier require a service animal user to check-in 
physically at the airport?

    You may not require a passenger with a disability to check-in 
physically at the airport, rather than using the online check-in 
available to the general public, on the basis that the passenger is 
traveling with a service animal.


Sec.  382.77   May carriers restrict the location and placement of 
service animals on aircraft?

    (a) You must permit a service animal to accompany a passenger with 
a disability on the passenger's lap or in the passenger's foot space, 
unless this location and placement would:
    (1) Be inconsistent with safety requirements set by the FAA or the 
foreign carrier's government; or
    (2) Encroach into another passenger's space.
    (b) Before refusing to transport a large service animal that cannot 
be accommodated on the passenger's lap or in the passenger's foot space 
without encroaching into another passenger's space, you must offer the 
passenger the opportunity to move with the animal to another seat 
location within the same class of service, if available on the 
aircraft, where the animal can be accommodated. You are not required to 
reseat other passengers to accommodate a service animal except as 
required for designated priority seats in Subpart F.
    (c) If there are no alternatives available to enable the passenger 
to travel with the service animal in the cabin of the scheduled flight, 
you must offer the passenger the opportunity to transport the service 
animal in the cargo hold free of charge or travel on a later flight to 
the extent there is space available on a later flight and the transport 
is consistent with the safety requirements set by the FAA or a foreign 
carrier's government.


Sec.  382.78   May carriers charge individuals with disabilities for 
the damage their service animal causes?

    While you generally cannot charge an individual with a disability 
for transporting service animals, or for providing other services that 
this part requires, you may charge a passenger with a disability for 
damage caused by his or her service animal so long as you normally 
charge individuals without disabilities for similar kinds of damage.


Sec.  382.79   Under what other circumstances may carriers refuse to 
provide transportation to a service animal traveling with a passenger 
with a disability?

    (a) You may deny transport to a service animal under the following 
circumstances:
    (1) The animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of 
others (see definition in Sec.  382.3);
    (2) The animal causes a significant disruption in the cabin or at 
an airport gate area, or its behavior on the aircraft or at an airport 
gate area indicates that it has not been trained to behave properly in 
public (e.g., running freely, barking or growling repeatedly at other 
persons on the aircraft, biting or jumping on people, or urinating or 
defecating in the cabin or gate area);
    (3) The animal's carriage would violate applicable safety or health 
requirements of any U.S. federal agency, U.S. territory or foreign 
government; or
    (4) The passenger with a disability seeking to travel with a 
service animal in the cabin of the aircraft does not provide completed 
current forms as set forth in Sec.  382.75 (a) and (b) to the carrier 
when requested to do so.
    (b) In determining whether to deny transport to a service animal on 
the basis that the animal poses a direct threat under paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section, you must make an individualized assessment, 
independent of the dog's breed or type, based on reasonable judgment 
that relies on the best available objective evidence to ascertain the 
nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the 
potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable 
modifications of policies, practices, or procedure will mitigate the 
risk. A current completed U.S. Department of Transportation Service 
Animal Air Transportation Form may be used in making this 
determination.
    (c) In determining whether to deny transport to a service animal on 
the basis that the animal has misbehaved and/or has caused a 
significant disruption in the cabin under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, you must make an individualized assessment, independent of the 
dog's breed or type, based on reasonable judgment that relies on the 
best available objective evidence to ascertain the probability that the 
misbehavior and/or disruption will continue to occur; and whether 
reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedure will 
mitigate the misbehavior and/or the disruption. A current completed 
U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation 
Form and a current completed U.S. Department of Transportation Service 
Animal Relief Attestation Form may be used in making this 
determination.
    (d) In conducting the analysis required under paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section, you must not deny transportation to the service 
animal if there are means available short of refusal that would 
mitigate the problem (e.g., muzzling a barking service dog or taking 
other steps to comply with animal health regulations needed to permit 
entry of the service animal into a domestic territory or a foreign 
country).
    (e) If you refuse to provide transportation to a service animal 
based on any provision in this part, you must provide the individual 
with a disability accompanied by the service animal a written statement 
of the reason for the refusal. This statement must include the specific 
basis for the carrier's opinion that the refusal meets the standards of 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section or is otherwise specifically 
permitted by this part. You must provide this written statement to the 
individual with a disability accompanied by the service animal either 
at the airport, or within 10 calendar days of the refusal of 
transportation.


Sec.  382.80   May carriers impose additional restrictions on the 
transport of service animals?

    Carriers are not permitted to establish additional restrictions on 
the transport of service animals outside of those specifically 
permitted by the provisions in this part, unless required by applicable 
FAA, TSA, or other Federal requirements or a foreign carrier's 
government.


Sec.  382.117   [Removed]

0
6. Remove Sec.  382.117.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26679 Filed 12-7-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P