[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27040-27041]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
RIN 2126-AB20

Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents; Evaluating the Potential Safety Benefits of Electronic
Hours-of-Service Recorders

ACTION: Notice of availability of research report.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces the availability of a new final report, ``Evaluating the
Potential Safety Benefits of Electronic Hours-of-Service Recorders.''
The study quantitatively evaluated whether trucks equipped with
Electronic Hours-of-Service Recorders (EHSRs) have a lower (or higher)
crash and hours-of-service (HOS) violation rate than those without
EHSRs. The safety benefits of EHSRs were quantitatively evaluated by
comparing the crash risk for two exposure groups (i.e., EHSRs were
considered to improve safety if the trucks with EHSRs showed a lower
crash risk than trucks without EHSRs). For this project, EHSRs were
defined as any device that electronically records drivers' HOS. The
study is an effort to further quantify the safety benefits of
electronic logging devices (ELDs) and provides results that are
consistent with the Agency's estimates of safety benefits of an ELD
mandate, as proposed on March 28, 2014. A copy of the report has been
placed in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2010-0167 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this study,
please contact Mr. Albert Alvarez, Research Division of the Office of
Analysis, Research, and Technology, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2010-0167), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2010-0167'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as other documents available in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2010-0167'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.'' Next,
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document listed
to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    All comments received will be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided. Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

II. The Study

    The purpose of the study was to assess the benefits of installed
EHSRs on safety and HOS violations related to Class 7 and 8 trucks as
they operated during normal revenue-producing deliveries. Data were
obtained through a third-party vendor that compiled previously-
generated compliance data regarding participating motor carriers.
Although the final data sets included data from 11 carriers
representing small, medium, and large carriers (including a total of
82,943 crashes, 970 HOS violations, and 224,034 truck-years that drove
a total of 15.6 billion miles), the data set in the study was skewed
toward larger, for-hire carriers and may not represent the overall U.S.
trucking population. After controlling for year, carriers in the data
set, onboard safety system (OBSS) status, and long-haul/regional
indicator, EHSR-equipped trucks had a significantly lower total crash
rate (11.7 percent reduction) and a significantly lower preventable
crash rate (5.1 percent reduction) than trucks not equipped with an
EHSR. Small sample sizes limited the power to detect a significant
difference between the EHSR cohort and the non-EHSR cohort for U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT)-recordable and fatigue-related
crashes. This result is primarily attributed to the lack of sufficient
data (in terms of the number of these types of crashes) to be able to
detect safety benefits with statistical significance at the observed
level.
    After controlling for year, carrier index, OBSS status, and long-
haul/regional indicator, EHSR-equipped trucks had a 53 percent lower
driving-related HOS violation rate and a 49 percent lower non-driving-
related HOS violation rate than trucks not equipped with EHSRs. The
results show a clear safety benefit, in terms of crash and HOS
violation reductions, for trucks equipped with EHSRs.
    The Center for Truck and Bus Safety at the Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute conducted the study on behalf of FMCSA. This
study was mentioned in the Friday, March 28, 2014 Supplemental Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) (79 FR 17656, 17665), and the findings
of this study are consistent with the estimate of safety benefits
presented in the ELD SNPRM.
    FMCSA makes the ``Evaluating the Potential Safety Benefits of
Electronic Hours-of-Service Recorders'' available to the public and
places this study in the docket for the ELD rulemaking, because FMCSA
seeks comments from the public on this study as it relates to the
SNPRM. The docket for this rulemaking closes on May 27, 2014.

    Issued on: April 29, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-10813 Filed 5-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


example, behavioral assessments or information from a service animal
user's veterinarian.

The ANPRM

    Airlines have asserted that the risk to passenger safety is
increasing. In the ANPRM, the Department sought data on the number of
service animal-related incidents of misbehavior on aircraft and what
amount of increase in animal misbehavior was sufficient to warrant a
requirement for animal health records and behavior forms.\99\ The
Department also sought comment on whether it should amend its service
animal regulation to allow airlines to require that service animal
users attest that their animal can behave properly in a public setting,
whether airlines should be permitted to require the attestation in
advance, the impacts that a behavior attestation requirement would have
on individuals with disabilities, and alternatives to a behavioral
attestation that would allow airlines to assess an animal's
behavior.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 23832, 23840.
    \100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department was interested in knowing whether a behavior
attestation would reduce the safety risk for passengers, crewmember,
and other service animals on aircraft. Furthermore, recognizing that
DOJ's ADA regulation prohibits covered entities from requiring service
animal users to provide documentation, the Department sought comment on
whether DOT should have a different standard from the ADA given the
unique nature of air transportation.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to animal health records, the Department sought
comment on what burdens, if any, would exist should the Department
allow airlines to require individuals with disabilities to submit
veterinary forms and related animal health documentation.\102\ The
Department also sought comment on whether an airline should be
permitted to require animal health forms as a condition of travel, or
whether the airline should be required to conduct an individualized
assessment of the animal's behavior based solely on its observations to
assess whether the animal poses a direct threat to humans, before
requiring these forms.\103\ Finally, the Department sought comment on
whether airlines should be able to require passengers to obtain signed
statements from veterinarians about an animal's behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Id. at 23841.
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received

Behavior/Training Attestations
    The majority of public commenters and disability advocacy
organizations that commented on this issue oppose the use of behavior/
training attestations as a measure of ensuring that a service animal
has been trained to, or will, behave appropriately in public and on the
aircraft. These groups argue that attestation documents are ineffective
and do not provide realistic assurances that an animal will behave
appropriately as passengers can easily lie that their animal has been
trained to behave properly in public. Others who oppose this form argue
that filling out behavior/training attestations is burdensome as each
airline has its own unique form, and it is difficult to follow each
airline's individual policy. Furthermore, some groups note that some
airline websites make it difficult to submit these forms to the airline
prior to travel. These groups also oppose behavior/training
attestations on the basis that these practices are inconsistent with
the ADA and that service animal users do not have to provide
attestations to travel by train or other modes of transportation.
    Some disability advocates are in favor of behavior/training
attestations, but

only for emotional support animals arguing that emotional support
animals, which are not trained to do work or perform a task, have
likely received less, if any, public-access training. Further, a few
disability advocates oppose the behavior/training attestations that
some airlines currently have in place, but they support a ``decision
tree'' approach, which is a sequence of questions that service animal
users would be prompted to complete as a condition of travel. As
explained in a comment filed by PSDP, the decision-tree approach is
designed to confirm that service animals have been trained to behave
properly on aircraft and to ensure that users are educated on the
requirements for traveling with service animals on aircraft.\104\
Finally, Autism Speaks is in favor of behavior/training attestations
for all service animal users but urges the Department to develop
unified attestation requirements to decrease confusion for service
animal users.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Comment of Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-3117.
    \105\ Comment of Autism Speaks, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some airlines broadly support behavior and training attestations
for service animal users, or support attestations for only emotional
support and psychiatric service animal users. These airlines argue that
behavior/training attestations eliminate the need for airline personnel
to observe and evaluate a service animal's behavior in the airport, a
task that airline personnel are often not qualified to perform and that
is burdensome given their primary responsibilities. Furthermore, these
airlines argue that the Department's service animal guidance currently
requires that service animals be trained to behave appropriately in
public, and behavior/training attestations are a means of ensuring that
service animal users are aware of this requirement and aware that if
their animal is not trained, the animal may be removed from the
aircraft or treated like a pet. Some airlines, however, only support
behavior/training attestations in the event that the Department
continues to recognize emotional support animals.
Animal Health Records
    The majority of disability advocates who commented oppose a
requirement that allows airlines to require service animal users to
produce animal health information as a condition of transportation.
These groups argue that requiring service animal users to produce
animal health information, which must be completed by a third party, is
costly and would pose unnecessary burdens on individuals with
disabilities, especially on those service animal users who are not
currently required to produce any documentation when traveling on
aircraft. Furthermore, these groups argue that animal health
information is not helpful in determining if an animal poses a direct
threat. Finally, these groups argue that requiring animal health
information is excessive, as airlines have provided no evidence that
passengers on aircraft have contracted rabies or other diseases from
service animals or that service animal users have refused to provide
animal health information in cases where a service animal has bitten or
injured someone on an aircraft.
    Some disability rights advocates are also concerned that if service
animal users are required to provide airlines with animal health
records, users will be unable to check-in for travel online or travel
seamlessly through the airport to their gate. While there are a few
advocacy organizations that support an animal health form requirement
for service animal users, this support is limited to information
regarding the animal's rabies vaccinations.
    Conversely, many airlines, an animal health organization, a flight
attendant association and most individual commenters who commented on
this issue support a requirement that would allow airlines to require
animal health information from service animal users. Similar to the
rationale used by airlines in support of behavior/training
attestations, airlines argue that animal health information is a
reasonable means to determine if an animal presents a direct threat to
the health and safety of individuals on aircraft. Airlines also argue
that in the event a service animal bites an individual on an aircraft,
proof of up-to-date vaccinations will prevent the need for the injured
passenger to undergo unnecessary and painful treatments for certain
diseases, e.g., rabies, although according to the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), any dog that bites an individual should
be assessed and monitored by a local or state health department over a
10-day period irrespective of whether there is proof that the animal
has been vaccinated. Airlines also argue that providing animal health
information is not burdensome as most, if not all, States and
localities already require that animals be vaccinated.
    In a joint comment filed by Avianca, Avianca Costa Rica, Aviateca,
TACA, and TACA Peru, these carriers note that many ``foreign carriers,
currently have a general requirement for veterinary certification as a
condition of transport.'' These carriers further state that ``[m]any
foreign countries require veterinary certification for all animals
entering the country, including all service animals'' and that ``DOT
should clarify in any rulemaking that carriers may require veterinary
certification for all service animals as a condition for entry into all
countries that require such certification.'' \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Comment of Avianca Carriers, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One animal health organization supports allowing airlines to
require proof of rabies vaccinations arguing that these vaccinations
are necessary to protect both animal and public health.\107\
Furthermore, certain airline organizations support an animal health
record allowance if the Department decides to recognize emotional
support animals. These organizations reason that emotional support
animal users should provide information on their animal's health as a
matter of public safety and public health as these untrained animals
are in close proximity to passengers, airline crewmember, other staff,
and, sometimes, other animals. While the American Association of
Airport Executives (AAAE) is in favor of allowing airlines to verify
that an animal has been vaccinated, this organization believes that if
the Department chose not to recognize emotional support animals,
allowing airlines to require proof may not be necessary as the risk to
passengers would automatically decrease.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Comment of American Veterinarian Medical Association,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4276.
    \108\ Comment of the American Association of Airport Executives,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOT Response

    After carefully reviewing the comments received, the Department is
proposing to allow airlines to require individuals traveling with a
service animal to provide to the airlines standardized documentation of
the service animal's behavior, training, and health. Also, if the
service animal would be on a flight segment that is longer than 8
hours, the Department is proposing to allow a standard form attesting
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 proposes that these forms be the only forms of documentation
that an airline can require of a passenger traveling with a service
animal. In other words, under this proposed rule, an

airline would not be required to ask a passenger traveling with a
service animal for any documentation but, if they choose to do so, the
airline must use the forms established by the Department. The
Department seeks comment on whether airlines should be allowed to
create their own forms or if uniformity would be more helpful. Are
there other existing forms that could be utilized such that the
establishment of departmental forms would be unnecessarily duplicative?
    First, the Department proposes to allow airlines to require
passengers seeking to travel with service animals to submit to the
airline, as a condition of accepting the animal as a service animal for
travel, a DOT Air Transportation Service Animal Behavior and Training
Attestation Form, which is a form to be completed by the passenger.
This form would provide assurance that the service animal traveling on
the aircraft has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks
for the benefit of the passenger with a disability and has been trained
to behave properly in public, and that the user is aware that the
service animal must be under his or her control at all times. The
Department agrees with comments from airlines that airline personnel
are often unable to observe service animals sufficiently prior to a
flight in the fast-paced airport environment to determine whether the
service animal would be a direct threat to the health or safety of
others. Further, the Department believes that the form would 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. The Department seeks comment on its
proposal to allow airlines to require all service animal users to
provide this form to airlines and on whether this form would be
effective in ensuring that service animals have been properly trained
and in deterring individuals from misrepresenting their pets as service
animals on aircraft.
    The Department understands that this form would impose a burden on
those individuals traveling with traditional service animals who are
not currently required to provide documentation. The Department seeks
comment from the public on ways to reduce the burden that the
Department's behavior and training form would have on passengers with
disabilities. Should airlines be allowed to require the form each time
a service animal user travels, even for round-trip flights? What medium
should airlines use, e.g., hardcopy, electronic, email, to provide and
collect this form from passengers with disabilities? Also, are there
privacy concerns that airlines should consider? Furthermore, the
Department seeks comment on whether the questions in this form would
help an airline determine whether an animal has been adequately and
properly trained, and whether the form adequately educates passengers
on how a service animal is expected to behave, the consequences of a
misbehaving service animal, and the seriousness of falsifying the DOT
form. The Department seeks comment on whether it should allow airlines
to require only emotional support animal users to complete such an
attestation form, in the event the Department were to continue to
require airlines to transport emotional support animals. Finally, the
Department seeks comment on the general content and layout of the form,
which is provided below.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE20.000

    Second, the Department proposes to allow airlines to require
passengers to submit to the airline a DOT Service Animal Health Form,
which is a form to be completed by the passenger's veterinarian.\109\
In completing the form, the veterinarian would describe the animal,
indicate whether the service animal's = rabies vaccinations are up to
date and whether the animal has any known diseases or infestations, and
state whether the veterinarian is aware of any aggressive behavior by
the animal. The Department proposes that the form be valid for 1 year
from the date of issuance. The Department seeks comment on whether 1
year is too long or too short for the vaccination form to be valid, and
the reasons for this belief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ We note that the CDC requires that all dogs imported into
the United States, including service dogs, be vaccinated for rabies
if coming from a high-risk rabies country. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department modeled its DOT Service Animal Health Form after a
number of State certificate of veterinary inspection (CVI) forms and
the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) APHIS 7001
form.\110\ The Department's decision to use the content of State CVI
forms and the USDA APHIS 7001 form was based on a recommendation from
the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). The AVMA, some
airlines, and other commenters have requested that the Department
require all service animals to produce proof of vaccinations because of
the potential threat to health and public safety that might result from
the transport of unvaccinated animals on aircraft.\111\ The Department
agrees that requiring proof of rabies vaccinations should be permitted
to help ensure that the animal does not pose a direct threat to the
health and safety of others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/library/forms/pdf/APHIS7001.pdf.
    \111\ Comment of American Veterinarian Medical Association,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airlines have expressed concerns that their inability to verify,
pre-incident, that an animal has received the proper vaccinations has
caused individuals bitten by service animals to undergo painful and
expensive rabies treatment. The Department, along with a number of U.S.
airlines, attended a meeting at the AVMA's headquarters on October 29,
2018, to discuss the potential for the airlines to create a standard
form document to use to verify service animal vaccinations. The
Department used information learned at this meeting, such as what
vaccinations should be required to ensure the health and safety of the
traveling public, the duration for which the form should be valid, and
whether animals should be inspected for pests, as guidance for the
content of this form. The Department seeks comment from the public on
its proposal to allow airlines to require that passengers provide this
vaccination form as evidence that a service animal has received the
rabies vaccine and that the animal has not exhibited aggressive
behavior, known to the veterinarian. The Department seeks comment on
its proposal to permit airlines, as a condition of travel, to require
this form and whether airlines should be able to refuse transportation
to a service animal based on the information contained in the form
(e.g., the veterinarian discloses on the form that the animal has a
history of aggressive behavior or has caused serious injury to a person
or animal). The Department also seeks comment on whether the form would
be effective in ensuring that the traveling public would not contract
rabies from service animals should they be bitten.\112\ Furthermore,
the Department seeks comment on the burden on individuals traveling
with service animals of allowing airlines to require the Department's
service animal health form as it is the Department's understanding that
USDA's APHIS 7001 form already includes the type of information
contained on the proposed DOT form. Could passengers traveling with a
service animals have their veterinarians complete the Department's
Service Animal Air Transportation Health Form at the animal's annual
physical? Should the requirement for an animal health form be limited
to emotional support animal users, in the event the Department were to
continue to require airlines to transport emotional support animals?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See the Rabies Compendium available at: www.nsphv.org/documents/NASPHVrabiescompendium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's air transportation animal health form requires
veterinarians to provide a physical description of the service animal.
Should the Department consider allowing airlines to require passengers
traveling with a service animals to provide photo identification of the
service animal as an additional measure to verify a service animal's
identity? Finally, the Department seeks comment on the general content
and layout of the form, which is provided below, and whether airlines
that require the form should accept the form in both a paper and
electronic format.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE20.001

    Third, while airlines are currently permitted to require
individuals traveling with service animals on a flight segment that is
longer than 8 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 proposes to amend
this rule to allow airlines to require only a DOT Service Animal Relief
Attestation Form be completed by the service animal user to attest that
the animal will not create a health or sanitation risk on long flights.
    The Department seeks comment on whether the DOT Service Animal
Relief Attestation Form serves as adequate proof to verify that a
passenger's animal will not need to relieve itself on flight segments
of eight or more hours, or can relieve itself in a way that does not
create a health or sanitation issue. The Department also seeks comment
on the content and layout of the form, which is provided below.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05FE20.002

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C
    The Department also asks for comment on its proposal to prohibit
airlines from requiring passengers to provide the proposed DOT health,
behavior and training, and relief forms prior to the passenger's date
of travel, although an airline would not be prohibited from requesting
the forms so long as it was clear that passengers were

not obligated to remit the forms to the airline in advance of their
travel date.
    At the beginning of 2018, several airlines started requiring
individuals traveling with service animals to provide service animal
health forms and attestations that a passenger's service animal had
been trained to behave appropriately in public. In a Final Statement of
Enforcement Priorities, the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement
and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) indicated that it did not intend
to take action against an airline for asking users of any type of
service animal to present documentation related to the service animal's
vaccination, training, or behavior, so long as it is reasonable to
believe that the documentation would assist the airline in making a
determination as to whether an animal poses a direct threat to the
health or safety of others. The Enforcement Office explained that the
existing rule permits airlines to determine, in advance of flight,
whether any service animal poses a direct threat, but the rule does not
clearly indicate how airlines must make that assessment. While the
Department recognized that airlines may have a valid basis for
requesting certain health and behavior information from individuals
traveling with service animals, commenters stated that it has become
burdensome and confusing for individuals with disabilities to comply
with these documentation requirements because many of the airlines
require different information from passengers traveling with service
animals and have adopted their own unique forms and data collection
methods.
    The Department is proposing to require standard departmental forms
to establish a uniform process for collecting data about a service
dog's health as well as behavior and training from passengers traveling
with a service dog. The Department is also proposing to allow airlines
to require passengers with a disability to complete a DOT Service
Animal Relief Attestation Form Service Animal Relief Attestation Form
for flight segments of 8 hours or longer. The Department seeks comment
on whether using standardized U.S. Department of Transportation forms
is the best way for airlines to collect data from passengers traveling
with a service dog.
    The Department recognizes that these forms go beyond what DOJ
allows in its ADA service animal regulations, but the Department
believes that air transportation, which involves transporting a large
number of people in a very confined space thousands of feet above the
ground, is unique in comparison to airports, libraries, and other
locations covered by Title II or Title III of the ADA. For this reason,
the Department believes that a proposal allowing airlines to require
all service dog users to provide these forms to assist airlines in
determining whether a service dog poses a direct threat to the health
or safety of others is appropriate.
    Under this NPRM, the Department would prohibit airlines from
requiring individuals traveling with a service animals to provide the
DOT-issued forms even a day in advance of the passenger's flight
because advance notice may present significant challenges to passengers
with disabilities wishing to make last minute travel plans that may be
necessary for work or family emergencies. However, the Department is
proposing to allow airlines to require users of a service animals to
check-in at the airport one hour before the check-in time at the
airport for the general public to process service animal documentation
so long as the airline similarly requires advance check-in for
passengers traveling with their pets in the cabin. This rulemaking
would also permit airlines to require that the check-in take place at
any designated airport location including the terminal lobby. One
concern is that service animal users would not be able to check-in
electronically before arriving at the airport like other passengers and
would be unable to avoid the inconvenience of long waits when checking
in. To address this concern, the Department is proposing to require
airlines to make an employee trained to handle disability-related
matters available in-person at the airline's designated airport
location to process service animal documentation promptly. The
Department solicits comment on whether one hour before the general
public check-in is sufficient time for airline personnel to process
service animal documentation. The Department also seeks comment on its
proposal 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. Finally,
the Department would like commenters to identify potential benefits
that service animal users may forgo by not being permitted to check-in
electronically, and steps that can be taken to ensure that these
benefits are provided to them.

9. Codeshare Flights

Current Requirements

    Under the Department's current 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 passengers
traveling under the U.S. carrier's code on the foreign carrier's
aircraft on flights between two foreign points.\113\ While the
Department's current rule requires foreign carriers to transport only
dogs, the Department could, based on the language in the current rule,
hold a foreign carrier's U.S. codeshare partner responsible for that
foreign carrier's refusal to transport other service animal species
when the passenger is traveling under a U.S. carrier's code.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 14 CFR 382.7(c).
    \114\ The Department's Aviation Enforcement Office does not
enforce section 382.7(c) in this way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ANPRM

    The Department sought comment in the ANPRM on whether DOT's service
animal rule should explicitly state that a U.S. carrier would not be
held responsible for its foreign codeshare partner's refusal to
transport service animals other than dogs.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 23832, 23842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Received

    Few individual commenters and disability advocates commented on
whether the Department should explicitly state in its service animal
regulation that U.S. airlines should not be held responsible if a
foreign airline only transports dogs as service animals, but one
advocacy organization states that making this clarification in the rule
would clear up ambiguity caused by the provision in DOT's rules
implementing the ACAA, 14 CFR part 382.
    Airlines also agree that the Department's rule should explicitly
state that U.S. carriers would not be held responsible if a foreign
carrier only transports dogs as service animals. These carriers believe
that the Enforcement Office's decision not to pursue action against
U.S. carriers is reasonable and appropriate as it would be
fundamentally unfair to hold a U.S. carrier accountable for the flight
operations and procedures of its foreign codeshare partners, over which
it has no control. Furthermore, these carriers argue that an express
statement of the Department's enforcement position in the rule would
alleviate any confusion that may arise from otherwise ambiguous
provisions in Part 382. One foreign airline also commented that while
the Department has chosen not to take legal action against U.S.
carriers as

a matter of enforcement discretion, it would be better for the
Department specifically to state its position in a regulation so that
carriers have concrete legal certainty of the Department's position.

DOT Response

    The Department's proposed service animal regulation would recognize
only dogs as service animals. If the rule were finalized as proposed,
the species requirements for both U.S. carriers and foreign carriers
would be the same, thereby eliminating situations whereby a U.S.
carrier could be held responsible for a foreign carrier's failure to
transport service animals other than dogs but a foreign carrier could
not. However, if the DOT final rule differs from the proposal and
recognizes other species of service animals and/or emotional support
animals, the Department would consider including language in the rule
to make it clear that U.S. airlines are not responsible for their
foreign carrier codeshare partners' failure to transport animals other
than dogs. The Department seeks comment on this proposed action.

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

    This proposed rulemaking has been determined to be significant
under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures
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 Order.
    Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') 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.'' DOT proposes 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. In addition, DOT proposes to
treat psychiatric service animals like other service animals and to
allow airlines to require passengers traveling with a service animal to
attest to the animal's good behavior and good health. DOT also proposes
that airlines no longer be required to recognize emotional support
animals as service animals.
    The primary economic impact of this proposed rulemaking 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. 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. 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. The proposed rulemaking 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.
    Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport
emotional support animals free of charge would allow market forces
(i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the
price for air transportation of emotional support animals. This
provision would 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.
    The proposed rulemaking would also allow airlines to require
passengers traveling with service animals to produce three forms of
documentation developed by DOT. This cost element places a potential
burden on passengers traveling with service animals who would need to
submit three DOT forms to airlines. We estimate that, by Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) accounting standards, the forms create 144,000
burden hours and $3.0 million in costs per year. In some cases,
however, carriers already ask passengers to complete equivalent
nongovernmental forms. Thus, the PRA accounting overestimates the net
burden created by this rulemaking.
    Furthermore, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to
provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation. Accordingly,
we have asked commenters to provide feedback on the proposed change to
the regulation.

B. 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).\116\ Relative to
typical airlines' operating costs and revenues, the impact is expected
to be nonsignificant. Accordingly, the Department does not believe that
the NPRM would have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. However, we invite comment on the potential impact of
this rulemaking on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See 14 CFR 399.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This NPRM
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.

D. 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.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM proposes three new collections of information that would
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to
OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal
Register providing notice of the proposed information collection and a
60-day comment period, and otherwise consult with members of the public
and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information.
    The proposed rulemaking would allow airlines to require passengers
traveling with service animals to provide carriers with the following
three forms of documentation developed by the Department:
    1. DOT Air Transportation Service Animal Health Form (``Health
Form''): This form would be completed by a veterinarian who would
certify that the service dog has obtained the required vaccinations, is
not showing signs of infectious or communicable diseases, and, to the
veterinarian's knowledge, has not exhibited aggressive behavior or
caused injury to another.
    2. DOT Air Transportation Service Animal Behavior and Training
Attestation Form (``Behavior Attestation Form''): This form would be
completed by the passenger with a service animal. This passenger would
certify his/her service animal has been trained to behave properly in
public, is aware of the handler's responsibility to maintain the animal
under control at all times, and understands the consequences of service
animal misbehavior.
    3. DOT Service Animal Relief Attestation Form (``Relief Attestation
Form''): This form would be completed by passengers traveling with a
service animal on flight segments scheduled to take 8 hours or more. It
would require the passenger to affirm that the service animal will not
need to relieve itself on the flight or that the service animal can
relieve itself in a way that does not create a health or sanitation
issue.
    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 Health Form
    Respondents: Passengers with disabilities traveling on aircraft
with service animals.
    Number of Respondents: Using A4A's estimate of 281,000 \117\
service animals transported in 2017, and assuming one passenger with a
disability travels with a service animal, 281,000 respondents would
have to provide a health form signed by a veterinarian and the
passenger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ A4A used data from five U.S. airlines to extrapolate the
number of all service animals transported on U.S. airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: We estimate that completing
the form would require 15 minutes (.25 hours) per response, per year,
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 and veterinary
assistants would spend a total of 70,250 hours (0.25 hours x 281,000
passengers) to retrieve an accessible version of the form and provide
it to the veterinarian for completion. To calculate the hourly value of
time spent on the forms, we used median wage data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.\118\ For the health form, which veterinary assistants
perform on the job, we assume a fully loaded median wage rate of
$26.48/hour ($13.24/hour x 2). A ``fully loaded'' wage includes
benefits and indirect costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ 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 Air
Transportation Service Animal Behavior and Attestation Form
    Respondents: Passengers with disabilities traveling on aircraft
with service animals.
    Number of Respondents: Using A4A's estimate of 281,000 service
animals transported in 2017, and assuming one passenger with a
disability travels with a service animal, 281,000 respondents would
have to provide a behavior form signed by the passenger.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: We estimate that completing
the form will require 15 minutes (.25 hours) per response, per year,
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 70,250 hours (0.25 hours x 281,000 passengers) to retrieve an
accessible version of the form and complete the form. To calculate the
hourly value of time spent on the forms, we use median wage data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.\119\ For the behavior attestation,
which passengers fill out on their own time without pay, we use a post-
tax wage estimate of $15.42 ($18.58 median for all occupations minus a
17% percent estimated tax rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). ``May 2018 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: United States.'' https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 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: To estimate the paperwork costs associated
with the new forms, we used A4A's estimate of 281,000 service animals
transported in 2017.\120\ We estimate that 5 percent of those
passengers (14,050) would be on flight segments scheduled to take 8
hours or more and would also have to complete the Relief Attestation
Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ A4A used data from five U.S. airlines to extrapolate the
number of all service animals transported on U.S. airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: We estimate that completing
the form will require 15 minutes (.25 hours) per response, per year,
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 3,512.5 hours (0.25 hours x 14,050 passengers) to retrieve an
accessible version of the form and complete the form. To calculate the
hourly value of time spent on the forms, we use median wage data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.\121\ For the relief form, which
passengers fill out on their own time without pay, we use a post-tax
wage estimate of $15.42 ($18.58 median for all occupations minus a 17%
percent estimated tax rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). ``May 2018 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: United States.'' https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

                                             Table 1--Paperwork Cost Estimates for DOT Service Animal Forms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Form                                Passengers           Hours           Total hours     Hourly time value       Subtotal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health...................................................            281,000               0.25             70,250             $26.48         $1,860,220
Behavior attestation.....................................            281,000               0.25             70,250              15.42          1,083,255
Relief...................................................             14,050               0.25            3,512.5              15.42             54,163
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................................  .................  .................          144,012.5  .................          2,997,638
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated burden and costs of these three new DOT forms are
primarily 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 cost estimates above are likely to
overestimate any new burden created by this rulemaking.
    The Department invites interested persons to submit comments on any
aspect of each of these three information collections, including the
following: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection,
(2) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden, (3) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of collection without reducing the
quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized or included, or both, in the request for
OMB approval of these information collections.

F. 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.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this
proposed 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).\122\ 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. Id. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See 40 CFR 1508.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382

    Air Carriers, Civil rights, Consumer protection, Individuals with
Disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation proposes to amend 14 CFR part 382 to read 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. 41702, 41705, 41712, and 41310.

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 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, 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 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). 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. Add Sec.  382.28 to read as follows:

Sec.  382.28   What assistance must carriers provide to passengers with
a disability required to check-in before the check-in time for the
general public?

    If you require a passenger with a disability to check-in in advance
of the check-in time for the general public, you must make personnel or
other employees trained to proficiency on the requirements of this Part
available promptly to assist the passenger at a designated location in
the airport.

Sec.  382.72   [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  382.27 by removing paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9).
0
5. Add Subpart EE, consisting of Sec. Sec.  382.72 through 382.80, to
read as follows:

Subpart EE--Service Animals

Sec.
382.72 Must carriers allow a service animal to accompany a passenger
with a disability?
382.73 How many service animals must a carrier transport in the
cabin of aircraft?
382.74 How do carriers determine if an animal is a service animal?
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 check-in at
the airport one hour before the check-in time at the airport for the
general public as a condition of travel to allow time to

process the service animal documentation?
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 on the
basis that its carriage may offend or annoy carrier personnel or
persons traveling on the aircraft.

Sec.  382.73   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.  382.74   How do carriers determine if an animal is a service
animal?

    (a)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.
    (b) 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, even if the animal performs
an assistive function for a passenger with a disability.
    (c) You may look for physical indicators on the animal to determine
if the animal is a service animal. A service animal must be under the
control of its owner. A service animal must have a harness, leash, or
other tether unless the owner is unable because of a disability to use
a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or
other tether would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective
performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be
otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, signals, or
other effective means).

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

    (a) If a passenger seeks to travel with a service animal, you may
require the passenger with a disability to provide you, as a condition
of permitting the service animal to travel in the cabin:
    (1) A current (i.e., no older than one year from the date of the
passenger's scheduled initial flight) completed copy of the U.S.
Department of Transportation Air Transportation Service Animal Health
Form; and
    (2) A completed copy of the U.S. Department of Transportation Air
Transportation Service Animal Behavior and Training Attestation Form.
    (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 DOT
Service Animal Relief Attestation Form.
    (c) You are not permitted to require documentation of passengers
with disabilities traveling with service animals beyond completion of
the forms identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (d) You must keep copies of the forms identified in paragraphs (a)
and (b) at each airport you serve. As a foreign carrier, you must keep
copies of the forms 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 make the blank forms identified
in paragraphs (a) and (b) available to passengers on your website in an
accessible format.
    (f) You must mail copies of the blank forms identified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) to passengers upon request.

Sec.  382.76   May a carrier require a service animal user to check-in
at the airport one hour before the check-in time at the airport for the
general public as a condition of travel to allow time to process the
service animal documentation?

    (a) You may require a passenger with a disability to check-in at
the airport one hour before the check-in time at the airport for the
general public as a condition of travel with a service animal to allow
time to process the service animal documentation and observe the animal
so long as:
    (1) You designate a specific location at the airport where the
passenger could be promptly checked-in, the passenger's service animal
would be observed, and the passenger's service animal documentation
would be promptly reviewed by personnel trained to proficiency on the
service animal requirements of this Part; and
    (2) You have a similar or more stringent check-in requirement for
passengers traveling with their pets in the cabin.
    (b) If a passenger does not meet the check-in 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.

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 foot space immediately in
front of the passenger's seat, unless this location and placement would
be:
    (1) Inconsistent with safety requirements set by the FAA or the
foreign carrier's government; or
    (2) Encroaches into another passenger's space.
    (b) If a service animal cannot be accommodated on the passenger's
lap or in the foot space immediately in front of the passenger's seat
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 by 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 cannot charge an individual with a disability for
transporting service animals, or for providing other services that this
rule 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); or
    (3) The animal's carriage would violate FAA safety requirements or
applicable safety requirements of a U.S. territory or foreign
government (e.g., the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated
in the cabin).
    (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 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.
    (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), you must
make an individualized assessment 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.
    (d) In conducting the analysis required under paragraph (a)(1) and
(a)(2), 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 this 21st day of January, 2020, in Washington, DC.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01546 Filed 2-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77951-77952]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-
2004-18885; FMCSA-2007-26653; FMCSA-2008-0231]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
9 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from
the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals
will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than,
the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 3, 2011. Comments must be
received on or before January 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-
12294; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2007-26653; FMCSA-2008-0231, using any
of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce,
for a two-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve
a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The procedures for
requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part
381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 9 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 9 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Robert W. Brown
David D. Bungori, Jr.
Robert Clarke
David R. Cox
John B. Gregory
Gary T. Hicks
Robert T. Hill
John C. McLaughlin
Larry D. Wedekind

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 9 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 67 FR 71610; 69 FR 64810; 71 FR
66217; 73 FR 75806; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 71610; 69 FR 64810;
72 FR 184; 73 FR 75806; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 69 FR 51346; 71 FR
50970; 73 FR 75806; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62742; 73 FR 75806; 72 FR 8417;
72 FR 36099; 67 FR 46016; 73 FR 46973; 73 FR 54888). Each of these 9
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 13, 2011.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 9 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: December 6, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-31259 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 12186]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05615]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-121-000]

Hunlock Energy, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On March 13, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL18-121-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the
proposed Rate Schedule for Reactive Service of Hunlock Energy, LLC may
be unjust and unreasonable. Hunlock Energy, LLC, 162 FERC ] 61,212
(2018).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-121-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-121-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: March 14, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05615 Filed 3-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35299-35300]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12407]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15024-000]

Pumped Hydro Storage LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 12, 2020, the Pumped Hydro Storage LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of Big
Canyon Pumped Storage Project \1\ to be located about 23 miles west of
Tuba City, Arizona. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its application, Pumped Hydro Storage named the project
the Navajo Nation Big Canyon Pumped Storage Project. We note that
the proposed project is not in any way affiliated with the Navajo
Nation and the Navajo Nation has not had any role in Pumped Hydro
Storage's pursuit of this project. To avoid any confusion as to the
identity of the project proponent, we have omitted ``Navajo Nation''
from the project name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed project would be located entirely on Navajo Nation
land and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 450-foot-long,
200-foot-high concrete arch dam (Upper West Dam), a 1,000-foot-long,
150-foot-high earth filled dam (Middle Dam), and a 10,000-foot-long,
200-foot-high concrete arch dam (Upper East Dam), each of which would
impound three separate upper reservoirs with a combine surface area of
400 acres and a total storage capacity of 29,000 acre-feet at a normal
maximum operating elevation of 5,390 feet average mean sea level (msl);
(2) a 600-foot-long, 400-foot-high concrete arch dam (Lower Dam) that
would impound a lower reservoir with a surface area of 260 acres and a
total storage capacity of 44,000 acre-feet at a normal maximum
operating elevation of 3,790 feet msl; (3) three 10,000-foot-long, 30-
foot-diameter reinforced concrete penstocks; (4) a 1,100-foot-long,
160-foot-wide, 140-foot-high reinforced concrete powerhouse housing
nine 400-kilowatt pump-turbine generators; (5) a 1,000-foot-long, 120-
foot-wide, 40-foot-high reinforced concrete tailrace; (6) three water
supply wells with a capacity of 700 horsepower each and a 1,800-foot-
long, 36-inch-diameter well water supply pipeline; (7) two new double
circuit 500-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission lines that connect the
project switchyard to the existing 500-kV and 345-kV transmission lines
located 14 miles east of the proposed project; and (8) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual power generation at the Navajo Nation
Big Canyon Pumped Storage Project would be 7,900 Gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Steve Irwin, Manager, Pumped Hydro Storage
LLC. 6514 S 41st Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Ousmane Sidibe; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of

intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of
this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-15024-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15024) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 2, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12407 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P