have to navigate different forms propounded by different airlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE20.002

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10DE20.003

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Number of Service Animals per Passenger

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

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

5. Advance Notice or In-Person Check-In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Service Animal Identification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Service Animal Restraints

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

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

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

8. Denying Transportation to a Service Animal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Large Service Animals on Aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Damage Caused by Service Animals

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Codeshare Flights

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

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

Effective Date of Final Rule

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

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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

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

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

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

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

E. Executive Order 13084

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

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

H. National Environmental Policy Act

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382

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

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

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

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 41705.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (a) You may rely on one or more of the factors set forth in
paragraphs (a)(1) through)(3) of this section to determine if an animal
is a service animal that must be accepted for transport.
    (1) You may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal
qualifies as a service animal. You may ask if the animal is required to
accompany the passenger because of a disability and what work or task
the animal has been trained to perform. You must not ask about the
nature or extent of a person's disability or ask that the service
animal demonstrate its work or task.
    (2) You may observe the behavior of an animal. A trained service
animal will remain under the control of its handler. It does not run
freely around an aircraft or an airport gate area, bark or growl
repeatedly at other persons or other animals on the aircraft or in the
airport gate area, bite, jump on, or cause injury to people, or urinate
or defecate in the cabin or gate area. An animal that engages in such
disruptive behavior demonstrates that it has not been successfully