EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: P.V. Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>

BASF CORPORATION

PP IN-11023

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-11023) from BASF Corporation, c/o Lewis & Harrison, LLC, 122 C Street NW, Suite 505, Washington DC 20001, requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(1-oxoalkyl)-ω-methoxy-, where the alkyl chain contains a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 18 carbons and the oxyethylene content is 3-13 moles (CASRN's 53100-65-5, 194289-64-0- 34398-00-0, 9006-27-3, 32761-35-6, 53467-81-5, 518299-31-5, 34397-99-4), under 40 CFR§180.910, when used as an stabilizer and solubilizing agent in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest.  This related group of compounds are collectively known as the Ethoxylated Fatty Acid Methyl Esters (EFAMEs).  BASF is proposing a limit of 25% EFAMEs in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

Residue data, including an analytical method, is not pertinent or required for this petition since an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is being requested.

B. Toxicological Profile

The safety data base for evaluating the potential human health effects for the EFAMEs is available.  The safety data base includes acute toxicity and genotoxicity studies that were conducted with the EFAMEs.  In addition, sub-chronic, chronic, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and metabolism studies have been performed with structurally similar compounds and can be bridged to the EFAMEs.

 Acute toxicity

The EFAMEs exhibit low toxicity via the oral and inhalation routes. In addition, the EFAMES are not an eye irritant and slightly irritating to skin.  The skin sensitization data was equivocal. The results from the individual acute toxicity studies are described below.

 Acute oral toxicity
The acute oral LD50 of the EFAMEs is greater than 5,000 mg/kg-bw in the rat.

 Acute inhalation toxicity.
In an acute inhalations study in the rat, the acute LC50 for the EFAMEs is greater than 15.7 mg/L.
 Acute eye irritation.
Based on results from both in vivo and in vitro studies, the EFAMEs are not considered to be an eye irritant.
 Acute skin irritation.
Based on the results of the skin irritation study, the EFAMEs can be considered a slight skin irritant.
 Skin sensitization
Since the test results for the EFAMEs were equivocal, it was concluded that no determination could be made regarding the dermal sensitization potential of these compounds.

 Genotoxicity

No mutagenic effects were observed for the EFAMEs and related compounds in the Ames test, in vivo micronucleus assay, and mouse lymphoma assay. Therefore, the EFAMEs are considered negative for genotoxicity.

  Repeat dose toxicity (subchronic and chronic)
Repeat-dose studies have not been conducted with the EFAMEs; however, several repeat dose studies have been conducted with fatty acid methyl/alkyl esters and alcohol ethoxylates and these studies can be bridged to the EFAMEs due to structurally similarities.

Fatty Acid Methyl/Alkyl Esters:
The fatty acid methyl/alkyl ester, methyl dodecanoate, (methyl laurate) was tested under OECD Guideline 422 (combined repeated dose and reproductive toxicity screening test).  In the study, 12 male and female Crj:CD (SD) rats, per dose level, were administered doses of 0, 250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg/day by gavage. The test material was administered to females from 14 days before mating until day 3 of lactation and to males for 45 days. Terminal kill was on day 45 for males and on day 4 of lactation for females. The test substance showed no general toxicological effects in either sex. There were no clinical observations attributable to the administration of test substance and there was no mortality in any of the study groups. No effects were observed in terms of body weight, food consumption, hematology, blood chemistry, organ weight, necropsy or histopathological findings. Therefore, under the conditions of the study the oral NOAEL for methyl dodecanoate, after repeat dosing, is 1000 mg/kg/day in both sexes.

Fatty acid methyl/alkyl esters, methyl decanoate, methyl hexanoate, and methyl myristate (methyl tetradecanoate) were evaluated in an 84-day dietary study in rats that reported a NOEL of >300 mg/kg/day.

Another fatty acid methyl/alkyl ester, methyl hexanoate, was evaluated in a 17-week dietary study in rats exposed to 1,000, 2,500, or 10,000 ppm (~ 50, 125, or 500 mg/kg/day, respectively). The NOAEL was reported to be 10,000 ppm (~500 mg/kg/day).

C16-18 and C18 fatty acid methyl esters were evaluated in a one-year dermal study in mice.  A dose of 100 mg/kg was administered 3 times per day.  No signs of tumors were observed and the dermal NOAEL was reported to be 300 mg/kg/day.

Alcohol Ethoxylates
For the group of alcohol exthoxylates (AE), a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day is reported for C14-15AE in a 90-day dietary feeding study.  There are also studies with identical materials showing significantly higher NOAELs. A 90-day dietary feeding study with C14-15AE7 found a NOAEL of 785 mg/kg/day.  Most of the 90-day studies reported NOAELs ranging from 50-200 mg/kg/day.  None of the studies reported effects on the reproductive system.

In a 104-week chronic oral feeding study  performed with the alcohol ethoxylates, C12-13AE6.5 or C14-15AE7, the NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day. Effects observed at higher dose levels of 250 and 500 mg/kg/day were reduced food consumption and body weight gain.  At study termination, elevated organ-to-body weight ratios were noted for the liver, kidney and brain in females at the 250 and 500 mg/kg/day dose levels. These differences were not accompanied by histological changes in the organs examined. The NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day is the lowest NOAEL observed in a chronic oral feeding study and is equal to the lowest NOAELs seen in subchronic feeding studies.

 Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies have not been conducted with the EFAMEs; however, several developmental toxicity and reproductive studies have been conducted with fatty acid methyl/alkyl esters and alcohol ethoxylates and these studies can be bridged to the EFAMEs.

The fatty acid methyl (alkyl) ester, methyl dodecanoate, (methyl laurate) (CAS 111-82-0) was studied for oral toxicity in rats in an OECD 422 combined repeat dose and reproductive/developmental toxicity screening test.  12 male and female Crj:CD (SD) rats per dose were administered doses of 0, 250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg/day by gavage. The test material was administered to females from 14 days before mating until day 3 of lactation and to males for 45 days. Terminal kill was on day 45 for males and on day 4 of lactation for females. There were no effects of the test substance on the estrous cycle, copulation index, fertility index, gestation length, number of corpora lutea or implantations, implantation index, delivery index or parturition. The NOAELs for reproductive performance of males and females, as well as pup development are considered to be 1000 mg/kg/day in each case.

For the group of alcohol ethoxylates (AE), there are pertinent reproductive and developmental toxicity studies identified in the "HERA" study on household cleaning products.  None of the studies reported reproductive toxicity up to the highest dose tested, such as a feeding study for C14-15AE7 with a NOAEL for reproductive and developmental toxicity greater than 250mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for a reproductive/developmental toxicity feeding study with C12AE6 was greater than 250mg/kg/day. Based on these studies, it can reasonably be concluded that the alcohol ethoxylates do not cause reproductive toxicity and the NOAEL for reproductive toxicity is greater than 250 mg/kg/day.

In the Agency's assessment of alkyl alcohol alkoxylates, there were two reproductive and developmental toxicity studies referenced on C14-15  alcohol ethoxylates.  In a study conducted in accordance with OECD Guideline 416, no treatment related effects were observed on reproduction or the offspring at a dose level of 250 mg/kg/day (HDT).  In the other reproductive/developmental toxicity study, the only significant effects observed in female rats were decreased body weight and body weight gain during premating at 400.8 mg/kg/day.  At this maternally toxic dose, offspring toxicity observed was decreased body weight on lactation day 21.  No treatment-related effects were observed on reproductive parameters.

 Carcinogenicity

No carcinogenicity studies have been conducted with the EFAMEs; however, no alerts were detected in a QSAR modeling study using a representative EFAME.  In addition, the mutagenicity studies conducted with the EFAMEs were negative.  Based on the lack of alerts in the QSAR study, the negative results in the genotoxicity studies and the lack of carcinogenicity in studies conducted with structurally similar compounds, it can be reasonably concluded that the EFAMEs do not exhibit any signals associated with carcinogenic potential.

 Metabolism.

No metabolism studies for the EFAMEs are available, but metabolism information can be transferred from fatty acid methyl esters and alcohol ethoxylates, as both contain comparable structure elements such as a long chain fatty acid or an ethoxylated hydroxy-group at a carbon function.

Fatty acid methyl esters are hydrolyzed to the corresponding alcohol (methanol) and fatty acid by esterases, although it has been shown in-vitro that the hydrolysis rate of methyl oleate was lower when compared with the hydrolysis rate of the triglyceride, glycerol trioleate.  Depending on the route of exposure, esterase-catalyzed hydrolysis takes place at different places in the organism. The first cleavage products, fatty acids, are stepwise degraded by beta-oxidation based on enzymatic removal of C2 units in the matrix of the mitochondria in most vertebrate tissues. The C2 units are cleaved as acyl-CoA, the entry molecule for the citric acid cycle. The second cleavage product methanol, is slowly oxidized in the liver by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase  to formaldehyde, which itself is oxidized very rapidly by the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase to formic acid. Finally, formic acid is slowly metabolized to CO2 and H2O.

Alcohol ethoxylates are readily absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract and rapidly excreted via the urine and feces depending on the chain length. The major degradation pathway of alcohol ethoxylates appears to be the degradation of the ether linkage and oxidation of the alkyl chain to form lower molecular weight polyethylene glycol-like materials and ultimately carbon dioxide and water. Studies with radio-labelled compounds showed that both the alkyl chain and the ethoxylate groups are sites of attack.

Based on the above, it is assumed that the EFAMEs are also undergoing enzymatic hydrolysis which may form the fatty acid and the corresponding polyglycol ether. Both components are assumed to be degraded, with beta-oxidation forming carbon dioxide, water or water-soluble products, which were excreted via urine or feces

 Metabolite toxicology.

There are no metabolites of toxicological concern for the EFAMEs.

 Endocrine disruption.
There is no information or evidence to indicate that the EFAMEs are an endocrine disruptor. None of the studies performed with the EFAMEs or related compounds have indicated any potential endocrine effects associated with the petitioned substance.

C. Aggregate Exposure

 Dietary exposure.

Dietary (food and drinking water) exposures can occur from the use of the EFAMEs as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops.

A quantitative dietary risk assessment for the EFAMEs was conducted using the NOEL of 50/kg-bw/day from the 104-week oral study conducted with the alcohol ethoxylates.  A Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.5mg/kg/day was calculated based by applying a 10x uncertainty factor for inter- and intra-species extrapolation to this NOEL.  The chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) is also 0.5 mg/kg/day.

In the dietary exposure assessment, highly conservative dietary exposure estimates are derived using a dietary exposure model ("I-DEEM") developed by the Agency for food use inert ingredients. The model is based on the Agency's Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID[(TM)], Version 3.16) for pesticide active ingredients.  I-DEEM assumes that food use inert ingredients can potentially be used, unless limitations are proposed, on all food crops.   I-DEEM uses, as a surrogate, residue data on 57 high-use agricultural pesticides.  The model generates upper bound dietary exposure estimates for a subject inert based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from the universe of the 57 high-use agricultural pesticides.  I-DEEM assumes an inert concentration of 50%.   Since the petitioner is proposing a limitation at 25% for the EFAMEs in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest an adjustment factor of 0.5 is utilized in the dietary assessment.
For drinking water exposure estimates, I-DEEM assumes a "worst-case" concentration of 100 parts per billion (ppb) of a food-use inert in drinking water.

Only a chronic dietary exposure estimate has been conducted for the EFAMEs since no adverse effects attributed to an acute or single exposure of the EFAMEs were apparent in the safety data base.  Therefore, an acute dietary exposure risk assessment is not necessary.

The table below shows the dietary exposure and dietary risks derived for the EFAMEs using the I-DEEM model.  The % cPAD (percent of population adjusted dose) was calculated by dividing the dietary exposure by the RfD or PAD of 0.5 mg/kg/day for the EFAMEs.  It should be noted that the dietary exposure and risk estimates are significantly overstated since I-DEEM assumes that 100% of all foods are treated with the EFAMEs and that the highest tolerance level for an active ingredient would be achieved.

             Summary of Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure
               and Risk for Ethoxylated Fatty Acid Methyl Esters
                                  Population
                                   Subgroup
                                 Acute Dietary
                                   Exposure
                                  (mg/kg/day)
                                     %aPAD
              Chronic Dietary Exposure (Food and drinking water)
                                  (mg/kg/day)
                                     %cPAD
                            General U.S. Population
                          No acute endpoint selected
                                     0.094
                                     18.8%
                                  All Infants

                                     0.197
                                     39.4%
                                 Children 1-2

                                     0.353
                                     70.6%
                                 Children 3-5

                                     0.242
                                     48.4%
                                 Children 6-12

                                     0.125
                                     25.0%
                                  Youth 13-19

                                     0.067
                                     13.4%
                                 Adults 20-49

                                     0.072
                                     14.4%
                                  Adults 50+

                                     0.075
                                     15.0%
                                 Females 13-49

                                     0.073
                                     14.6%

For each population subgroup, the percentage of the cPAD is less than 100.  Generally, a dietary risk estimate that is less than 100% of the cPAD does not exceed the Agency's risk concerns.  Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population from dietary exposure to the EFAMEs.

 Food.

As noted above, dietary exposures are well below 100% of the cPAD, and, therefore, are below EPA's established level of concern for all U.S. subpopulations.

 Drinking water.

Drinking water exposure has been incorporated in the food exposure estimate for the EFAMEs.  It is assumed that the "worst-case" concentration of EFAMEs in drinking water is 100 parts-per-billion (ppb).  This value yields  risk estimates that are not of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are not expected from the use of the EFAMEs.

E. Safety Determination

 U.S. population.

The % cPAD calculated for the general population (18.8%), is below the Agency's level of concern. Based on aforementioned conservative exposure estimates, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population from the aggregate exposure to the EFAMEs.

 Infants and children.

The % cPAD calculated for infants and children (70.6%) is below the Agency's level of concern. Based on the aforementioned conservative exposure estimates, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure to the EFAMEs.  The petitioner believes that the additional ten-fold safety factor noted in Section 408 of the FFDCA is not applicable for the EFAMEs since the toxicity data base is adequate and there is no evidence to suggest that the EFAMEs will cause developmental effects or have an adverse effect on reproductive organs.  Furthermore, the EFAMEs do not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the estrogen receptor or endocrine system. None of the studies performed with the EFAMEs or related compounds have been associated with any endocrine effects.

F. International Tolerances

There are no CODEX MRLs established for the EFAMEs.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43480-43487]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17482]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0067]
RIN 2105-ZA05

Guidance on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air
Travel

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

ACTION: Final statement of enforcement priorities regarding service
animals.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department)
is issuing a final statement of enforcement priorities to apprise the
public of its enforcement focus with respect to the transportation of
service animals in the cabin of aircraft. The Department regulates the
transportation of service animals under the Air Carrier Access Act
(ACAA) and its implementing regulations.

DATES: This final statement is effective August 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Gorman, Senior Trial Attorney,
or Blane A. Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER>
(fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 8be9e7eae5eea5fce4f9e0e2eecbefe4ffa5ece4fd (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 23, 2018, the Department published two documents relating to
transportation of service animals. The first document was an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on amending the
Department's Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulation, 14 CFR part 382
(Part 382), with respect to the transportation of service animals. The
Department published the ANPRM in response to concerns expressed by
individuals with disabilities, airlines, flight attendants, and other
stakeholders about the need for a change in the Department's service
animal requirements. The ANPRM solicited comments on ways to ensure and
improve access to air transportation for individuals with disabilities,
while also deterring the fraudulent use of animals not qualified as
service animals and ensuring that animals that are not trained to
behave properly in public are not accepted for transport. The ANPRM
comment period closed on July 9, 2018, with the Department receiving
approximately 4,500 comments (Docket DOT-OST-2018-0068). The Department
intends to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the
transportation of service animals by air after reviewing and
considering the comments to the ANPRM.
    Recognizing that the rulemaking process can be lengthy, on May 23,
2018, the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
(Enforcement Office) also issued an Interim Statement of Enforcement
Priorities (Interim Statement) to apprise the public of its intended
enforcement focus with respect to transportation of service animals in
the cabin. The Interim Statement addressed various topics regarding the
transportation of service animals under the existing disability
regulation, including: (1) Types of species accepted for transport; (2)
number of service animals that a single passenger may transport; (3)
advance notice of travel with a service animal; (4) evidence that an
animal is a service animal; (5) check-in for passengers traveling with
service animals; (6) documentation for passengers traveling with a
service animal; and (7) leashing or containing a service animal while
in the aircraft cabin. It was important for the Department to address
these issues given confusion regarding current regulatory requirements
on the transportation of service animals in the cabin of aircraft,
considering new service animal policies that airlines instituted, and
in light of disability rights advocates' view that some of these
polices are unlawful.

Interim Statement

    In the Interim Statement, we noted that our enforcement efforts
would be focused ``on clear violations of the current rule that have
the potential to adversely impact the largest number of persons.'' 83
FR 23805-23806. With respect to animal species, we indicated that we
would focus our enforcement efforts on ensuring that the most commonly
used service animals (dogs, cats, and miniature horses) are accepted
for transport as service animals. With respect to the number of service
animals that an airline must allow a passenger to carry onboard the
aircraft, we stated that as a matter of enforcement discretion, we did
not intend to take enforcement action if an airline limits a passenger
to transporting one emotional support animal (ESA), and two non-ESA
service animals, for a total of three service animals, as the
Department's service animal regulation does not indicate whether
airlines must allow passengers to travel with more than one service
animal. With respect to advance notice, we stated that airlines may
require passengers traveling with ESAs or psychiatric service animals
(PSAs) to provide advance notice, but not passengers traveling with
other types of service animals, as DOT's disability regulation
prohibits advance notice prior to travel unless specifically permitted
in the regulation, as is the case with passengers traveling with PSAs
or ESAs. As for proof that an animal is a service animal, we stated
that if a passenger's status as an individual with a disability is not
clear, then an airline may ask about the passenger's need for a service
animal and need not rely solely on paraphernalia such as an
identification card, a harness, or a tag. With respect to check-in
requirements, we stated that we intended to take enforcement action if
airlines require passengers with service animals to check in at the
lobby to process service animal documentation. We reasoned that DOT's
disability regulation prohibits airlines from denying an individual
with a disability the benefit of transportation or related services
that are available to other persons, and airlines allow other
passengers to check in electronically before arriving at the airport to
avoid the inconvenience of checking in at the lobby. With respect to
documentation, we stated that we generally did not intend to take
enforcement action if airlines require ESA or PSA users to provide
veterinary immunization records, health forms, and/or behavioral
attestations since DOT's disability regulation permits airlines to ask
for advance notice for passengers traveling with ESAs and PSAs, and
allows airlines to deny boarding to an animal that poses a direct
threat to the health or safety of others. Finally, with respect to
containment, we indicated that we did not intend to take enforcement
action if an airline imposed reasonable and appropriate measures to
control the movement of ESAs in the cabin since DOT's disability
regulation does not clearly specify whether or how airlines may
restrict the movement of service animals in the cabin, and because we
recognized the possibility that ESAs may pose greater in-cabin safety
risks than other service animals.

General Comments Received

    The comment period on the Interim Statement closed on June 7, 2018;
we received a total of 94 comments.\1\ Disability advocates (including
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), the National Disability Rights
Network (NDRN), the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law/National
Alliance on Mental Illness (Bazelon/NAMI), and the National Council on
Disability (NCD)) expressed significant concern with the Interim
Statement.\2\ Many advocates took the view that the Enforcement Office
was improperly announcing in advance that it would not enforce certain
ACAA violations, and was therefore abdicating its statutory duty to
investigate all disability complaints. We note, however, that the
Enforcement Office investigates every formal and informal disability
complaint, and we will continue to do so in accordance with our
statutory obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Most of the comments from individuals were germane to the
ANPRM, rather than the Interim Statement, because they typically
suggested ways in which the service animal regulation should be
amended. The comment of the National Council on Disability was
received after the close of the comment period, but was considered.
    \2\ The following disability advocates provided comments to the
Interim Statement: PVA; NDRN; Bazelon/NAMI; NCD; Psychiatric Service
Dog Partners + Guide Dog Federation; Guide Dogs for the Blind; Guide
Dogs of Texas; Operation Freedom Paws; American Association of
People with Disabilities; Autistic Self-Advocacy Network; Disability
Rights Education and Defense Fund; and The Arc of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advocates also expressed the view that abandoning enforcement of
certain claims was arbitrary, capricious, and constitutes an abuse of
discretion, which is subject to judicial review under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Again, we emphasize that the
Enforcement Office is not refusing to enforce certain ACAA violations.
We will continue to investigate all complaints alleging violations of
the ACAA and Part 382 as it is currently written. We will also continue
to determine, within the traditional parameters of agency discretion,
how best to use the Enforcement Office's limited resources to pursue
enforcement action. The factors affecting the exercise of that
discretion include, among other things, the nature and extent of the
violations, the number of individuals harmed by the violations, the
extent of the harm, and whether the conduct at issue clearly violates
the regulatory text.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the Interim Statement, we indicated that ``to the extent
that this interim statement of enforcement priorities conflicts with
the Enforcement Office's 2009 Frequently Asked Questions guidance
document (https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/frequently-asked-questions-may-13-2009), this more recent document will
control.'' 83 FR 23805-23806. Similarly, to the extent that this
Final Statement conflicts with prior service animal guidance, the
Final Statement will control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A flight attendants' union (the Association of Flight Attendants-
CWA) generally supported the Interim Statement but expressed concern
about safety issues arising from increased use of ESAs. The Association
of Flight Attendants-CWA reasoned that ESA issues should be addressed
in the airport lobby, as far from the cabin of the aircraft as
possible, to reduce the risk of injury to passengers and flight crew
onboard the aircraft.
    Individual airlines and Airlines for America (A4A) generally
supported the Interim Statement. They expressed the view that the
Interim Statement provided them the flexibility to address growing
fraud and safety concerns with untrained service animals, particularly
untrained ESAs. Airlines expressed considerable concern, however, with
the Enforcement Office's expressed intention to use its resources to
pursue action against airlines that require service animal users to
check in at the lobby of the airport. We will discuss these comments,
as well as the specific comments of stakeholders relating to other
discrete issues, in greater detail below.

Comments and Responses on Topics Addressed in the Interim Statement

1. Species Restrictions
    In the Interim Statement, we stated that ``[t]he Enforcement Office
intends to exercise its enforcement discretion by focusing its
resources on ensuring that U.S. carriers continue to accept the most
commonly used service animals (i.e., dogs, cats, and miniature horses)
for travel.'' 83 FR 23806. We indicated that the public interest would
be better served by this exercise of our enforcement discretion because
dogs, cats, and miniature horses are the most commonly used service
animals. We stated that while we will focus on ensuring the transport
of dogs, cats and miniature horses, we may take enforcement action
against carriers for failing to transport other service animals on a
case-by-case basis. We also stated that airlines are expected to
continue to comply with the existing service animal regulation, which
allows airlines to categorically deny transport only to certain unusual
species of service animals such as snakes, other reptiles, ferrets,
rodents, and spiders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 14 CFR 382.117(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disability rights advocates generally expressed no specific
objection to our position on species. Airlines have asked us to declare
that a wide variety of species (e.g., birds, hedgehogs, insects, and
animals with hooves or horns) constitute ``unusual service animals''
that may be categorically banned. They also contend that we have the
authority to define ``service animals'' within this Final Statement,
because ``service animal'' is not defined within Part 382 itself. We
recognize that the existing service animal regulation is not clear with
respect to the species of animals that may be categorically banned as
``unusual service animals.'' Nevertheless, these matters are more
appropriately reserved to the rulemaking process that has begun with
the Service Animal ANPRM.
    In this Final Statement, after reviewing the comments on this
issue, we believe that it would be in the public interest and within
our discretionary authority to prioritize ensuring that the most
commonly recognized service animals (i.e., dogs,\5\ cats,\6\ and
miniature horses \7\) are accepted for transport. In accordance with
section 382.117(f), airlines will not be subject to enforcement action
if they continue to deny transport to snakes, other reptiles, ferrets,
rodents, and spiders; however, airlines will remain subject to
potential enforcement action if they categorically refuse to transport
other animals or species of animals. Airline policies that
categorically refuse transport to all service animals that are not
dogs, cats, or miniature horses violate the current disability
regulation. The extent of enforcement action against these airlines
will be determined on a case-by case basis, bearing in mind factors
such as consumer complaints describing the harm to consumers from such
policies. We also note that, consistent with existing law, an airline
may refuse transport to an individual animal regardless of species if
the airline determines that specific factors preclude the animal from
being transported as a service animal. These factors include a
determination that the animal is too large or too heavy, poses a direct
threat to the health or safety of others, or would cause a significant
disruption in cabin service. 14 CFR 382.117(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Service animals are limited to dogs under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. See 28 CFR 36.104.
    \6\ Cats join dogs in being one of the two most common species
that are used as ESAs. Service Animal Advocates Position and
Reasoning, p. 8 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0208 (September 15, 2016).
    \7\ Entities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act are
also required to modify their policies to permit trained miniature
horses where reasonable. See 28 CFR 36.302.

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

2. Number Limits
    The Department's service animal regulation is not clear as to
whether airlines must allow passengers to travel with more than one
service animal. Section 382.117(a) states that an airline ``must permit
a service animal to accompany a passenger with a disability'' (emphasis
added). While this language could be read as suggesting that an airline
is only required to transport one service animal per passenger, it
could also be read as requiring airlines to transport any service
animal needed by a particular passenger, even if that passenger needs
the assistance of more than one such service animal. Section 382.117(i)
references guidance concerning carriage of service animals, which does
not have independent mandatory effect, but rather describes how the
Department understands the requirements of section 382.117. That
guidance states, ``A single passenger legitimately may have two or more
service animals.'' See 73 FR 27614, 27661 (May 13, 2008).
    As noted in the Interim Statement, the Enforcement Office has
stated in the past that it would not subject airlines to enforcement
action if airlines limit a passenger to transporting three service
animals. See 83 FR 23806. In the Interim Statement, we noted that
certain passengers may need the assistance of more than one task-
trained service animal, as well as an ESA. We indicated that as a
matter of enforcement discretion, our focus would be on ensuring that
an airline allows a passenger to transport one ESA, and a total of
three service animals if needed.
    Disability rights organizations generally did not comment on this
position; the two brief comments that we did receive were favorable.
Airlines urged the Enforcement Office to ensure that it would not take
enforcement action if the airline restricts a passenger to carrying one
ESA and one task-trained service animal. Airlines also urged the
Enforcement Office to authorize additional restrictions, such as
allowing airlines to limit the total number of ESAs on any individual
flight.
    After reviewing the comments on this topic, we have decided that
our enforcement efforts should continue to focus on ensuring that
airlines are not restricting passengers from traveling with one ESA and
a total of three service animals if needed. We share the view of the
commenters that a single ESA would ordinarily be sufficient to provide
emotional support on a given flight. However, we disagree with airline
comments suggesting that the Enforcement Office should not take action
against airlines that limit the total number of ESAs on a flight. While
Part 382 may not be clear on the number of service animals each
passenger may bring in the cabin, our view is that Part 382 plainly
does not allow airlines to deny transport to a service animal
accompanying a passenger with a disability because of a limit on the
total number of service animals that can be on any flight. Also, under
the existing rule, an ESA is considered a service animal. As such, if
ten qualified individuals with a disability each need to bring an ESA,
then under Part 382 the airline must accept all ten ESAs, so long as
the ESAs are sufficiently trained to behave in a public setting.
Section 382.117(a) requires airlines to permit a service animal to
accompany a passenger with a disability, with no stated limitation
based on the number of other passengers with service animals. We also
note that section 382.17 prohibits airlines from limiting the number of
passengers with a disability on a flight. For enforcement purposes, we
will continue to address each complaint that we receive alleging a
violation of the Department's current service animal rules on a case-
by-case basis, bearing in mind the specific circumstances of the
matter, including the passenger's genuine need for multiple service
animals, particularly those that are task-trained.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Outside of the ESA context, complaints to the Enforcement
Office involving multiple service animals are rare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Advance Notice
    In the Interim Statement, we explained our view that the plain
language of Part 382 prohibits carriers from requiring advance notice
for passengers traveling with service animals other than ESAs or PSAs,
unless the flight segment is 8 hours or more. Requiring advance notice
of a passenger's intention to travel with a service animal outside of
these specific circumstances violates the Department's regulation. 14
CFR 382.27(a). We received only three comments on this specific topic.
All three comments addressed the wisdom of the rule itself, as opposed
to our interpretation or enforcement of that rule.\9\ In this Final
Statement, we see no basis for deviating from the Interim Statement,
because it represents a straightforward recitation of established law.
The Enforcement Office intends to focus its resources on ensuring that
airlines do not require advance notice for passengers traveling with
service animals other than ESAs or PSAs, unless the flight segment is 8
hours or more, because advance notice may significantly harm passengers
with disabilities as it prevents them from making last minute travel
plans that may be necessary for work or family emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ PSDP contended that the current rule discriminates against
passengers with psychiatric disabilities, but noted that in light of
the fact that new rules will be proposed, it is not ``pushing for
any alteration in DOT's proposed interim enforcement plan when it
comes to advance notice.'' Comment of PDSP at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Proof That an Animal Is a Service Animal
    In the Interim Statement, we addressed airlines' concerns that
passengers may be attempting to pass off their pets as service animals
by purchasing easily obtained paraphernalia such as harnesses, vests,
and tags. We explained our view that under the existing rule, airlines
may continue to seek credible verbal assurance that the passenger is an
individual with a disability and that the animal is a service animal.
Specifically, ``[i]f a passenger's status as an individual with a
disability is unclear (for example, if the disability is not clearly
visible), then the airline personnel may ask questions about the
passenger's need for a service animal. For example, airlines may ask,
``how does your animal assist you with your disability?'' A credible
response to this question would establish both that the passenger is an
individual with a disability and that the animal is a service animal.''
83 FR 23806. Stakeholders did not express disagreement with this
position. In this Final Statement, we see no reason to deviate from the
analysis of the Interim Statement because it represents a well-
established interpretation of existing law.
5. Check-in Requirements
    In the Interim Statement, we noted that certain airlines now
require passengers with service animals to appear in person at the
lobby \10\ of the airport before the flight to verify that the animal
can be transported as a service animal. We also noted that airlines
generally allow electronic check-in, a process that typically permits
passengers to skip the lobby and proceed directly to the gate if they
do not have checked bags. We reasoned that requiring passengers with
service animals to check in at the lobby would deny such passengers a
benefit of electronic check-in that is available to

other persons who do not have service animals. Accordingly, we
concluded that ``the Enforcement Office intends to act should an
airline require that a passenger with a service animal check-in at the
ticket counter, thereby denying those passengers the same benefits that
are available to other passengers.'' 83 FR 23806.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ According to A4A and United Airlines, Inc. (United),
``ticket counter'' is an outdated term, and the more appropriate
term is the ``lobby.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disability advocates generally supported this position for many of
the reasons stated by the Department. Flight attendants (AFA-CWA)
disagreed, however, stating that airlines should have the authority to
process oversized and poorly behaved animals in the lobby, rather than
in the gate area/sterile area. Flight attendants stressed that for the
safety of passengers and its members, airlines should address these
issues as soon as possible and as far from the aircraft as possible,
because available options are reduced as the animal gets closer to
boarding the aircraft.
    Similarly, airlines expressed substantial concerns with our
position. They contend that the Interim Statement represents a
significant and unexpected new regulation, issued without the
Department first engaging in the full notice and comment procedures
required by the Administrative Procedure Act. They also argue that the
Interim Statement is based on the incorrect premise that ``lobby
verification'' discriminates on the basis of disability. In the
airlines' view, lobby verification is nondiscriminatory because it is
based on the presence of an animal, not the presence of a disability.
They note, for example, that airlines also require passengers with pets
to appear in the lobby for processing. A4A and the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) filed a joint comment noting that many
airlines require lobby check-in for passengers with and without
disabilities who travel with an animal in the cabin and emphasized that
only passengers with traditional service animals (such as guide dogs)
are exempted. Airlines assert that lobby agents, rather than gate
agents, are in the best position (both logistically and in terms of
expertise) to process animals for transport in the cabin. Airlines also
mentioned that certain carriers have already invested in training
specialized lobby personnel to process passengers with animals, and
that other carriers are experimenting with systems where agents do not
appear at gates. Finally, they contend that to minimize the risk of
injury to airline personnel and other passengers, it is critical to
verify service animal documentation and other requirements (such as the
presence of harnesses or leashes, and whether the animal will fit in
the passenger's foot space) as far from the confines of the aircraft
cabin itself as possible.
    As noted above, the purpose of the Final Statement is to inform the
public of the Enforcement Office's priorities, not to announce or make
new rules or to declare that certain classes of violations will not be
enforced. After carefully reviewing the comments submitted and taking a
closer look at Part 382, we have arrived at the view that lobby
verification is permitted under Part 382 for ESAs and PSAs, because an
airline is permitted to exclude a person with a disability from a
benefit that is available to other persons where specifically permitted
by Part 382. Here, the benefit is the ability to check-in online and
proceed directly to the gate, but airlines are permitted under Part 382
to require ESA and PSA users to check in one hour before the check-in
time for the general public. For that reason, the Enforcement Office
does not view it to be a violation of Part 382 if airlines require
lobby check-in for passengers with ESAs or PSAs.
    More specifically, section 382.11(a)(3) states that airlines may
not exclude an individual with a disability from or deny the person the
benefit of any air transportation or related services that are
available to other persons, except where specifically permitted by Part
382. Section 382.43(c) requires airlines to have an accessible website
which, among other things, would enable a passenger with a disability
to check-in for a flight online, similar to other passengers, thereby
skipping the lobby and proceeding directly to the gate if he/she does
not have checked bags. However, section 382.27(c)(8) allows airlines to
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 in order to transport an ESA or PSA in the cabin. In our
view, at the time that this section was enacted in 2008, the phrase
``check in'' generally meant presenting oneself in person at the
airline's ticket counter. As such, we believe that Part 382 as written
does contemplate that airlines may require passengers travelling with
ESAs or PSAs to present themselves in person in the lobby before
proceeding into the secured area. In any event, we do not intend to
exercise our enforcement discretion to take action against airlines
that impose such a requirement on passengers travelling with ESAs or
PSAs. In our view, however, the regulations do not permit airlines to
require ``check in one hour before the check-in time for the general
public'' for non-ESA/PSA service animals, or to require that passengers
with traditional service animal users appear in the lobby for
processing. The Enforcement Office intends to act should an airline
require that a passenger with a traditional (non-ESA/PSA) service
animal check-in at the lobby of an airport.
6. Direct Threat Analysis--Documentation Requests for ESAs and PSAs
    In the Interim Statement, we explained that airlines may refuse
transportation to any service animal that poses a direct threat to the
health or safety of others. We observed, however, that our service
animal regulation does not explain how airlines may (or may not) make
that assessment. We also noted that airlines may require 48 hours'
advance notice of a passenger wishing to travel with an ESA or PSA in
order to provide the carrier the necessary time to assess the
passenger's documentation. We concluded that ``the Enforcement Office
does not intend to use its limited resources to pursue enforcement
action against airlines for requiring proof of a service animal's
vaccination, training, or behavior for passengers seeking to travel
with an ESA or PSA.'' 83 FR 23807. We also indicated that we would
continue to monitor the types of information that airlines require from
ESA or PSA users to ensure that travel with those animals is not made
unduly burdensome or effectively impossible. Airlines strongly
supported this position, on the basis that documentation helps
personnel to determine whether an ESA or PSA is a direct threat.
Airlines have expressed concern to the Department that passengers are
increasingly bringing untrained animals onboard aircraft putting
passengers and flight crew at risk.
    Survey data of PSA and ESA users provided by the United Service
Animal Users, Supporters, and Advocates (USAUSA) revealed that almost
90% of the 919 survey respondents indicated that they were concerned
about untrained or stressed animals interfering with or harming their
animal when they fly. However, Psychiatric Service Dog Partners (PSDP)
emphasized that mandates for third-party documentation do not improve
safety and serve only to increase burdens to passengers with
disabilities. As evidence of the burden that documentation requirements
impose on passengers with disabilities, PSDP points to the USAUSA
survey, which provides estimates on the cost and time that it would
take to obtain additional third-party documentation, and the degree to
which such additional

burdens affect users' willingness to fly. PSDP also stressed that each
additional documentation creates an incremental additional burden for
passengers seeking to fly with a service animal.
    Similarly, other disability rights organizations contended that
additional documentation is unduly burdensome and represents a
deterrent to travel without providing real benefits to airlines.
Operation Freedom Paws expressed the view that obtaining a behavioral
attestation from a veterinarian would be unduly burdensome, because
such documentation is difficult to obtain within 48 hours of travel.
The International Association of Canine Professionals and the American
Veterinary Association expressed the view that any attestations about
an animal's behavior should come from the passenger and not from the
professional, because professionals are not able to make such
attestations.
    Some disability advocates, such as Bazelon/NAMI, also believe that
the Department would be acting arbitrarily and capriciously if it
allowed airlines to require additional service animal documentation
beyond what is explicitly permitted in Part 382. Similarly, the
National Council on Disability asserts that ``the additional proof
insisted upon by airlines is not legal under the ACAA regulation''
because Part 382 does not clearly authorize that additional proof.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Comment of NCD at 1, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0067-0097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this Final Statement, we continue to focus our enforcement
efforts ``on clear violations of the current rule that have the
potential to adversely impact the largest number of persons.'' 83 FR
23805-23806. In general, it is not clear whether airlines are violating
Part 382 if they require additional documentation to determine whether
a service animal poses a direct threat. Part 382 permits airlines to
determine, in advance of flight, whether any service animal poses a
direct threat. However, that section is not clear about how airlines
would determine whether an animal poses a direct threat to the health
or safety of others.
    While 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. Accordingly, we do 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.
    As noted above, Part 382 clearly allows airlines to require 48
hours' advance notice to receive the requested accommodation of
transporting ESAs and PSAs.\12\ Therefore, we do not intend to take
action against an airline asking an ESA/PSA service animal user to
present such documentation up to 48 hours before his or her flight. We
will monitor airlines' policies that require service animal users to
provide documentation to ensure the documentation is not being used to
prevent passengers with disabilities from traveling with their service
animals (e.g., an airline requiring a form from a veterinarian
guaranteeing how an animal would behave on an aircraft, documentation
which virtually all veterinarians would be unwilling to sign).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The preamble to the 2008 final rule on ``Nondiscrimination
on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel'' clarifies that ``advance
notice'' refers to notice provided in advance of the scheduled
departure time of the flight. See 73 FR 27614, 27649 (May 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Containing Service Animals in the Cabin
    In the Interim Statement, we observed that Part 382 does not
clearly specify whether or how airlines may restrict the movement of
service animals in the cabin. We noted that ESAs may pose greater in-
cabin safety risks because they may not have undergone the same level
of training as other service animals (including PSAs). Accordingly, we
stated that we would not take action against carriers that impose
reasonable restrictions on the movement of ESAs in the cabin so long as
the reason for the restriction is concern for the safety of other
passengers and crew. We stated that such restrictions may include
requiring, where appropriate for the animal's size, that the animal be
placed in a pet carrier, the animal stay on the floor at the
passenger's feet, or requiring the animal to be on a leash or tether.
83 FR 23807 (May 23, 2018).
    Comments were mixed concerning this issue. Airlines contend that
movement, harness, and leash restrictions are generally consistent with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A4A also asked the
Department to clarify that they may refuse transportation to an animal
in the cabin unless the passenger demonstrates that the animal does not
exceed relevant weight limits and will safely fit in the passenger's
lap or foot space. American Airlines contended that it is particularly
important for cats to be held in a carrier because of allergy concerns
and hygiene issues. A4A also asked the Department to make clear that
flight attendants are not required to ask other passengers to trade
seats or give up their foot space to accommodate large service animals.
    Disability rights advocates took a range of positions. For example,
Bazelon/NAMI contended that allowing airlines to require containment
solely for passengers traveling with an ESA is ``prohibited under the
ACAA.'' Comment of Bazelon/NAMI at 3. PSDP supported requirements that
service animals be tethered, ``if not contained in a pet carrier and
with reasonable exceptions, such as those that are disability-based.''
Comment of PSDP at 16. Many commenters, including PSDP and American
Airlines, noted the challenging issues surrounding service animals that
are required to be transported in the cabin, but are too large to be
contained in a pet carrier.
    In this Final Statement, we again observe that Part 382 contains no
explicit requirements or prohibitions with respect to containment of
ESAs (or other service animals) in the cabin. As with other issues
discussed above, we decline to declare that the Enforcement Office will
not take enforcement action with respect to containment of service
animals in all cases. Rather, we will consider containment issues for
all service animals on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on
reasonableness. For example, in general, tethering and similar means of
controlling an animal that are permitted in the ADA context would
appear to be reasonable in the context of controlling service animals
in the aircraft cabin. Other factors bearing on reasonableness include,
but are not limited to, the size and species of the animal, the right
of other passengers to enjoy their own foot space,\13\ and the

continued ability of the animal to provide emotional support or perform
its task while being restrained or kept in a pet carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We recognize that guidance on the issue of a service animal
encroaching on the foot space of a passenger is not clear. DOT has
previously stated that service animals may be placed at the feet of
a passenger with a disability so long the animal does not extend
into the foot space of a passenger who does not wish to share that
space with the animal. See FAA Order 8400.10, Bulletin FSAT 0401A
and https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/TAM-07-15-05_0.pdf . Later, DOT has stated that a service animal may need
to use a reasonable portion of an adjacent seat's foot space that
does not deny another passenger effective use of the space for his
or her feet by taking all or most of the passenger's foot space.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Part%20382-2008_1.pdf. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FAQ_5_13_09_2.pdf (Question 37). This matter is best addressed in
notice and comment rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will apply this enforcement approach to containment of all
service animals, rather than only ESAs, because we have reconsidered
our position from the Interim Statement that would have drawn a
distinction between movement restrictions for ESAs and movement
restrictions for other types of service animals. As Bazelon/NAMI noted
in their comments, all service animals (including ESAs) are expected to
behave in public. We also note that an animal's status as a task-
trained service animal does not preclude the animal from misbehaving.
Accordingly, we agree with Bazelon/NAMI about the inappropriateness of
making a distinction between ESAs and non-ESA service animals with
respect to the importance of the owner controlling and restricting the
movement of the animal.

New Topics

    After the comment period closed, airlines continued to announce new
restrictions on the transportation of service animals. Some of those
policies were variations on prior policies, while others raised new
issues such as restrictions concerning the breed, age, or weight of the
animal. Our responses to these new policies are set forth below.
1. Breed Restrictions
    After the comment period for the Interim Statement closed, certain
airlines instituted new policies banning ``pit bull type dogs'' as
service animals on their flights. The Department's disability
regulation allows airlines to deny transport to an animal if, among
other things, it poses a direct threat to the health or safety of
others. However, the Department is not aware of and has not been
presented with evidence supporting the assertion that an animal poses a
direct threat simply because of its breed. On June 22, 2018, the
Enforcement Office issued a public statement indicating its view that
``a limitation based exclusively on breed of the service animal is not
allowed under the Air Carrier Access Act.'' \14\ The Enforcement Office
continues to take the view that restrictions on specific dog breeds are
inconsistent with the current regulation. As stated earlier, the
Enforcement Office intends to use available resources to ensure that
dogs as a species are accepted for transport. Consistent with existing
law, airlines are permitted to find that any specific animal,
regardless of breed, poses a direct threat based on behavior. 14 CFR
382.117(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In full, the statement reads: ``Under DOT's current rules
implementing the Air Carrier Access Act, airlines are required to
accommodate passengers with disabilities who depend on the
assistance of service animals within limits. Airlines are not
required to accommodate unusual service animals, such as snakes,
reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders. Recently, the Department
issued a Statement of Enforcement Priorities on Service Animals to
inform airlines and the public that its Aviation Enforcement Office
intends to exercise its enforcement discretion by focusing its
limited resources on ensuring that U.S. airlines continue to accept
the most commonly used service animals such as dogs for travel. A
limitation based exclusively on breed of the service animal is not
allowed under the Department's Air Carrier Access Act regulation.
However, an airline may refuse to carry service animals if the
airline determines there are factors precluding the animal from
traveling in the cabin of the aircraft, such as the size or weight
of the animal, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the
health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant
disruption of cabin service, or whether the law of a foreign country
that is the destination of the flight would prohibit entry of the
animal. The Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings investigates every disability complaint that it receives
involving airline service, including investigating complaints from
passengers alleging an airline denied them travel by air with a
service dog. At the conclusion of an investigation, a determination
is made as to whether the law was violated. In enforcing the
requirements of Federal law, the Department is committed to ensuring
that our air transportation system is safe and accessible for
everyone.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Age Restrictions
    After the comment period to the Interim Statement closed, certain
airlines announced that they would not accept service animals of any
type that are younger than four months old. Part 382 does not address
the minimum age of a service animal. However, all service animals
(including ESAs) are expected to be sufficiently trained to behave in
public.\15\ We do not expect service animals to have completed public
access training by the age of four months.\16\ Accordingly, as a
general matter, we do not envision that it would be a violation of Part
382 to prohibit the transport of service animals younger than four
months, as those animals would not be trained to behave properly in a
public setting, and we in any event do not anticipate exercising our
enforcement discretion to take action against airlines that implement
such prohibitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The preamble of the Department's 2008 final rule on
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel''
states that ESAs ``must be trained to behave appropriately in a
public setting.'' See 73 FR 27614, 27659 (May 13, 2008).
    \16\ According to the International Association of Assistance
Dog Partners, an assistance dog should be given 120 hours of public
access training over a period of six months or more. See https://www.iaadp.org/iaadp-minimum-training-standards-for-public-access.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Weight Restrictions
    After the comment period to the Interim Statement closed, at least
one airline announced that it would not accept ESAs or PSAs over 65
pounds.\17\ Section 382.117(f) allows airlines to determine whether
factors preclude a given service animal from being transported in the
cabin. These factors include ``whether the animal is too large or too
heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a
direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause
a significant disruption of cabin service, [or] whether it would be
prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight's
destination.'' Importantly, the rule further provides that ``if no such
factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must
permit it to do so.'' 14 CFR 382.117(f). Under this rule, an animal may
be excluded from the cabin if it is too large or too heavy to be
accommodated in the specific aircraft at issue. However, in our view, a
categorical ban on animals over a certain weight limit, regardless of
the type of aircraft for the flight, is inconsistent with section
382.117. We also note that the FAA's guidance pertaining to the
location and placement of service animals on aircraft (FAA Order
8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 33, Section 6 at ] 3-3546) does not indicate that
animals over a certain size must be categorically prohibited from the
cabin on the basis of safety. We will continue to monitor this issue
and to take enforcement action as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ It is unclear why the airline imposed the 65-pound limit
only on ESAs and PSAs, and did not include other service animals,
aside from an apparent view that large ESAs and PSAs pose greater
safety threats than other types of large service animals. As we
indicate in the section on containment, however, airlines have other
means of ensuring safety for large animals aside from banning them
outright.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Flight-Length Restrictions
    After the comment period to the Interim Statement closed, at least
one airline announced that it would not accept ESAs on flights lasting
eight hours or more. In our view, Part 382 as written clearly prohibits
such policies. Specifically, section 382.117(a)(2) provides that, as a
condition of permitting any service animal to travel in the cabin on
flights scheduled to take eight hours or more, airlines may require the
passenger using the service animal to provide documentation that the
animal will not need to relieve itself on the flight or that it can do
so in a way that does not create a health or

sanitation issue on the flight. Pursuant to section 382.27(a)(9),
airlines may require 48 hours' advance notice and check-in one hour
before the check-in time for the general public in order to accommodate
any service animal on a flight scheduled to last eight hours or more.
Thus, in our view, while Part 382 permits airlines to ask for
documentation, advance notice, and early check-in to transport service
animals on flights scheduled to last eight hours or more, the rule does
not permit airlines to prohibit service animals outright on such
flights. The Enforcement Office intends to use its available resources
to ensure that airlines comply with existing regulations with respect
to this issue.
5. Letter or Form From a Mental Health Professional for an ESA or PSA
User
    After the comment period on the Interim Statement closed, several
airlines announced that they would restrict the types of medical forms
that they would accept from users of ESAs and PSAs. Specifically, these
airlines indicated that they would not accept documentation on the
letterhead of a licensed mental health professional treating the
passenger's mental or emotional disability; instead, they would only
accept the medical forms found on the airlines' own websites. In our
view, Part 382 clearly prohibits this practice. Section 382.117(e)
states that an airline is not required to accept an ESA or PSA for
transportation in the cabin unless the passenger provides medical
documentation that meets the specific criteria of section
382.117(e).\18\ A document can meet the specific criteria of section
382.117(e) without being a form created by an airline. In other words,
while an airline may ask or encourage a passenger to request that the
licensed mental health professional treating the passenger fills out
the airline's own proprietary medical form, airlines may not reject a
medical form or letter that meets the criteria found in the rule. The
Enforcement Office intends to use its available resources to ensure
that airlines comply with the existing regulation with respect to this
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 382.117(e) states that airlines may refuse
transportation of an ESA or PSA in the cabin unless the passenger
provides documentation, no older than one year from the date of the
passenger's scheduled initial flight, on the letterhead of a
licensed mental health professional, stating that: (1) The passenger
has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--Fourth Edition; (2) the
passenger needs the ESA or PSA as an accommodation for air travel
and/or for activity at the passenger's destination; (3) the
individual providing the assessment is a licensed medical health
professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional
care; and (4) the date and type of the mental health professional's
license and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Direct Threat Analysis--Documentation Requests for Traditional
Service Animals
    After the comment period on the Interim Statement closed, at least
one airline indicated that it would ask, but not require, passengers
with all types of service animals (including traditional service
animals such as guide dogs) to carry veterinary forms, to be presented
to airline personnel on request.
    As we explained in the documentation section above, Part 382
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. Accordingly, we do 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.
    However, Part 382 draws relevant distinctions between ESA/PSAs and
other types of service animals relating to advance notice. Section
382.27(a) provides that, subject to certain exceptions (including
travel with an ESA or PSA), airlines may not require passengers with
disabilities to provide advance notice in order to obtain services or
accommodations required by law. Therefore, if an airline requires a
non-ESA/PSA service animal user to present documentation related to a
service animal's vaccination, training, or behavior before the check-in
time for the general public, such action in our view clearly violates
the advance notice provisions of section 382.27 and we will take
enforcement action appropriately.

Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities

    The purpose of this Final Statement is to provide the public with
greater transparency with respect to the Enforcement Office's
interpretation of existing requirements and its exercise of enforcement
discretion surrounding service animals. Our enforcement efforts will be
focused on clear violations of the current rule that have the potential
to impact adversely the largest number of persons. These determinations
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
    This guidance is not legally binding in its own right and will not
be relied on by the Department as a separate basis for affirmative
enforcement or other administrative penalty. Conformity with this
guidance (as distinct from existing statutes and regulations at Part
382) is voluntary only, and nonconformity will not affect rights and
obligations under existing statutes and regulations.
    1. Species and Breed Restrictions. The Enforcement Office intends
to use available resources to ensure that dogs, cats, and miniature
horses are accepted for transport. Airline policies that categorically
refuse transport to all service animals that are not dogs, cats, or
miniature horses violate the current disability regulation. Categorical
restrictions on dog breeds are inconsistent with Part 382 and the
Department's enforcement priorities. Airlines will not be subject to
enforcement action if they continue to deny transport to snakes, other
reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders; however, airlines will remain
subject to potential enforcement action if they categorically refuse to
transport other animals.
    2. Number Restrictions. We will focus our enforcement efforts on
ensuring that airlines are not restricting passengers from traveling
with one ESA and a total of three service animals if needed. Airlines
may not impose categorical restrictions on the total number of service
animals to be transported in the aircraft cabin.
    3. Weight Restrictions. Airlines may not impose a categorical
restriction on service animals over a certain weight, without regard to
specific factors that would preclude transport of that animal in the
cabin.
    4. Age Restrictions. We do not anticipate exercising our
enforcement resources to ensure the transport of service animals that
are clearly too young to be trained to behave in public.
    5. Flight-Length Restrictions. Airlines may not categorically
restrict service animals on flights scheduled to last 8 hours or more,
and would be subject to potential enforcement action if they do so. On
flights scheduled to last 8 hours or more, airlines may ask for 48
hours' advance notice, early check-in, and documentation that the
animal will not need to relieve itself on the flight or that it can do
so in a way that does not create a health or sanitation issue on the
flight.
    6. Proof that an Animal is a Service Animal. If a passenger's
disability is not clear, airlines may ask limited questions to
determine the passenger's need for the animal even if the animal has
other indicia of a service animal such as a harness, vest, or tag.
    7. Documentation Requirements. We do not anticipate taking
enforcement action against an airline for asking users

of any type of service animal to present documentation related to the
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. We will monitor airlines' animal documentation
requirements to ensure that they are not being used to unduly restrict
passengers with disabilities from traveling with their service animals.
Airlines may ask or encourage an ESA and PSA user to submit the medical
form provided on the airline's website, but may not reject
documentation provided by an ESA or PSA user from a licensed mental
health professional treating the passenger that meets all of the
criteria found in the rule itself.
    8. Lobby Verification. We do not anticipate taking enforcement
action against an airline if it requires passengers with ESAs or PSAs
to present service animal documentation in the lobby/ticket counter
area, rather than the gate/sterile area.
    9. Advance Notice/Check-In. Airlines may require ESA/PSA users to
provide up to 48 hours' advance notice of travel with an ESA/PSA, and
may require ESA/PSA users to appear in the lobby for processing of
service animal documentation up to one hour prior to the check-in time
for the general public. However, airlines may not require non-ESA/PSA
users to provide advance notice of travel with a service animal, or
require non-ESA/PSA users to appear in the lobby for processing of
service animal documentation.
    10. Containment. We will exercise our discretion with respect to
containment issues for all service animals on a case-by-case basis,
with a focus on reasonableness. For example, in general, tethering and
similar means of controlling an animal that are permitted in the ADA
context would appear to be reasonable in the context of controlling
service animals in the aircraft cabin. Other factors bearing on
reasonableness include, but are not limited to, the size and species of
the animal, the right of other passengers to enjoy their own foot
space, and the continued ability of the animal to provide emotional
support or perform its task while being restrained or kept in a pet
carrier.

Effective Date

    This Final Statement is effective upon publication. Airlines are
expected to review their policies and revise them, if necessary, to
comply with the Department's disability regulation. As a matter of
enforcement discretion, we intend to refrain from taking enforcement
action with respect to the issues set forth in this Final Statement for
a period of up to 30 days from the date of publication so long as the
airline demonstrates that it began the process of compliance as soon as
this notice was published in the Federal Register. This timeframe
should provide airlines with adequate time to review and revise their
policies as needed to comply with the ACAA and the Department's
disability regulation.

    Issued this 8th day of August, 2019, in Washington, DC.
James C. Owens,
Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2019-17482 Filed 8-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 10, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1998-4388

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  TRANSPORTES AEREOS SIERRA MADRE, S.A. de C.V.
         Date Filed:  May 23, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance
with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  May 23, 2002, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Eugene E. Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER>           DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                               Action date:  June 10,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 10, 2003, through June 10,
2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: January 24, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4102-4103]
[DOCID:fr24ja11-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-80-000]

Washington 10 Storage Corporation; Notice of Filing

January 13, 2011.
    Take notice that on January 12, 2011, Washington 10 Storage
Corporation filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) to
correct typographical errors contained in its January 4, 2011, SOC
filing in Docket No. PR11-78-000 as more fully described in the filing.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and

interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 21, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1287 Filed 1-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 69 (Thursday, April 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19940]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP11-1-000]

Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC; Notice of Extension of Time
Request

    Take notice that on March 31, 2020, Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC
(Pine Prairie) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time, until May 18, 2023, to
construct and place into service two underground storage caverns
(Cavern Nos. 6 and 7) which are part of the Phase III Expansion portion
of its Pine Prairie Energy Center facilities. The Phase III Expansion
Project was authorized on May 19, 2011 and the Pine Prairie Energy
Center was originally authorized on November 23, 2004.
    Pine Prairie was initially required to construct the Phase III
Expansion facilities and place them into service by May 19, 2014. On
April 22, 2014, the Office of Energy Projects, by delegated order,
extended the deadline through May 18, 2017. On March 28, 2017 the
Office of Energy Projects, by delegated order, extended the deadline
through May 18, 2020. Pine Prairie now requests a three-year extension
of this deadline through May 18, 2023. To date, Pine Prairie has not
been able to construct Cavern Nos. 6 and 7 because the required
approvals from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources have been
delayed.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on the extension motion
may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish
to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this
request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).
However, only motions to intervene from entities that were party to the
underlying proceeding will be accepted.
    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA
facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For
those extension requests that are contested,\1\ the Commission acting
as a whole will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\2\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension. The Commission will not consider arguments that re-litigate
the issuance of the certificate order, including whether the Commission
properly found the project to be in the public convenience and
necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for the
certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\3\ At
the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance. The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on all of those extension requests that
are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \2\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \3\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20, 2020.

    Dated: April 3, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07496 Filed 4-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P