emotional support animals

A Win for Service Dogs!

Pam Hogle The Thinking Dog Blog , , , , ,

Koala, a black Lab, studies her iPad
Koala is booking her next flight

The Department of Transportation released its new rules regarding travel with service dogs. This long-awaited ruling amends the Air Carrier Access Act’s (ACAA) regulations on travel with service animals. The 122-page ruling is available on the DoT website. An FAQ is also available. More than two years(!) have passed since DoT first requested public comment.

The ruling is worthwhile reading. It describes several issues considered and summarizes the comments and arguments presented around each. I’ll summarize some of the key points here, and let you delve into the details on your own.

The new rules take will effect January 11, 2021, after publication in the Federal Register on December 10, 2020.

1. Alignment with ADA on definition of a service dog

The ACAA has adopted similar wording and a similar approach to the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) in defining a service animal as “a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability.” More significantly for the traveling public, the ACAA is doing away with any requirement that airlines allow passengers to bring so-called Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) on board without paying a pet fee.

It also requires that airlines treat psychiatric service dogs the same way it treats other service dogs. Many airlines had treated these as ESAs and/or required additional documentation or other “hoops” for passengers traveling with psychiatric service dogs.

The amended ACAA excludes miniature horses from travel in the cabin of an airplane.

2. New paperwork requirements

The new ruling includes a paperwork requirement for all travelers with service dogs. Using the DoT official Air Transportation forms, each traveler who is accompanied by a service dog will be required to attest that the dog has been trained to assist with a disability, the dog behaves safely in public, and the dog is in good health and current on vaccines. If the traveler has any flight segments that are eight hours or longer, they must further attest that the dog “has the ability either not to relieve itself on a long flight or to relieve itself in a sanitary manner” (what counts as sanitary is unspecified).

Airlines can require that the traveler provide the forms up to 48 hours in advance of the flight if they’ve made their flight reservations by then. Airlines cannot, however, require that passengers traveling with service dogs check in earlier than other passengers or check in in-person. If a traveler’s reservation is made within 48 hours of departure, the airline can require the passenger to present the completed forms at the departure gate.

3. About the dog

Airlines may limit a passenger to two service dogs. Whether the passenger has one or two service dogs, though, dog(s) and human must all fit within the space of the handler’s seat and foot space on the aircraft. And they can require that the dog be “harnessed, leashed, or tethered” at all times in the airport and on the aircraft. This is a departure from the ADA, which makes allowance for unrestrained service dogs if that’s necessary for their work. The rationale given in the ruling references the unique environment of an aircraft and situation of being in close quarters, in a stressful environment, with no escape.

If a service animal is too large to fit in the passenger’s space, the airline must offer to move them to another seat with more space, if one is available in the same service class; move them to a different flight; or transport the dog in the cargo hold.

Airlines are not allowed to ban a service dog based on its breed (though some are still trying to do so). But any dog can be excluded from a flight if they exhibit aggressive or unsafe behavior.

A win for pets, too

These new rules aren’t perfect and won’t solve all the problems working dogs face when confronted by fake or poorly trained service animals, but removing ESAs from the picture will certainly reduce the frequency. The numbers are staggering — Airlines for America, an airline trade association Deni found recently while doing research, concluded that more than a million air travelers brought their ESAs aboard in 2018. The number of websites where pet owners could purchase “credentials” transforming their pets into ESAs, while also conveniently purchasing official-looking vests and tags, grew in a trajectory similar to the number of traveling ESAs, while the number of passengers paying pet fees plummeted.

Many of these pets, as I have written before, receive no training and are terrified when taken from their usual safe home life into the bustle of an airport, the stress, along with strange noises and smells, of an airplane, and then, too often, removed from their carriers to be clutched by their anxious owners who are somehow comforted by the presence of their traumatized pets. Not surprisingly, the number of complaints about scared animals doing what scared animals do had climbed as the number of ESAs skyrocketed. The DoT fielded 700 complaints in 2013 — and 3,000 in 2018, according to Deni’s research. These range from animals eliminating on planes to snapping, nipping, and serious bites.

Dogs trained by reputable trainers or guide- or service-dog training schools receive many hours of public-access training and pass rigorous evaluations. But not all service dogs are trained that way. And some dogs are fine in 99% of public settings but are terrified by air travel. So the new law is not a guarantee that the dog in the next seat will be as perfect as Lassie. But, while it doesn’t close every loophole or solve every problem, the new restrictions are likely to make working-while-traveling a lot safer for thousands of guide and service dogs — and their human partners.

HUD Also Tightening Rules for Emotional Support Animals

Pam Hogle The Thinking Dog Blog , , ,

sign reads "no pets allowed. service dogs welcome."

The DoT is not the only government agency that is tightening its rules around service and emotional support animals. On January 28, HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, released a notice of its updated rules.

A quick review:

  • The ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, allows people who use service dogs to take their service dogs with them to most public places.
  • Air travel is not covered by the ADA. The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) covers air travel. The Department of Transportation (DoT) announced proposed changes to the rules around travel with service and emotional support animals. Public comments will be accepted until mid-March.
  • HUD governs housing laws. The new rules have been announced without a public comment period.
  • The ADA public access laws apply only to service dogs (and some miniature horses); a person who has gotten an accommodation for an assistance animal that is not a service dog does not have the right to take that animal to public places that are not open to pets (for example, restaurants, stores, etc.).

HUD’s goal is to help housing providers understand their rights and obligations — and to help housing providers determine whether a request for an accommodation is legitimate.

Both the HUD and the DoT are reacting to dramatic increases in the number of requests for accommodation of emotional support dogs, including requests to allow a huge variety of animals, not always animals that are commonly owned as pets. They are also getting large numbers of requests with no or minimal documentation, including letters provided by online providers.

HUD’s new rules:

  • Adopt the ADA definition of a service dog
  • Treat service dogs and other assistance animals differently
  • Require that individuals ask for an accommodation for an assistance animal
  • Require that individuals provide “information that reasonably supports that the person seeking the accommodation has a disability” — and make the truth and accuracy of this information a requirement of the lease (that is, if the person is later found to have lied about having a disability, the housing provider could evict them)
  • Require that individuals provide “information which reasonably supports that the animal does work, performs tasks, provides assistance, and/or provides therapeutic emotional support with respect to the individual’s disability” with a similar provision about the accuracy of the information

Finally, with rare exceptions, housing providers do not have to accommodate animals that are not commonly kept in households as pets.

The document includes guidelines on what constitutes a “reasonable” accommodation and on how to document a need for an assistance animal that is not a service dog.

 

 

Flying Dogs, Redux — Comment Now on Proposed Rule Change

Pam Hogle The Thinking Dog Blog , , , , , , ,

Department of Transportation logoWell, it’s the topic that never dies. In a post just over a year ago, I shared the “final” rules that the Department of Transportation issued on traveling service and emotional support animals. My skepticism of the “final” part was well-placed. The DoT is proposing a new set of “final” rules.

These changes would bring the rules for air travel more in line with ADA laws governing public access, including recognizing psychiatric service animals.

The new rule would define a service animal as “a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability,” echoing language from the ADA.

The most dramatic changes are limiting travel access to service animals — specifically, service dogs — and no longer requiring airlines to accept emotional support animals in the cabin or treat them differently from pets.

The proposed rules would also allow the DoT to create forms “attesting to a service animal’s good behavior, certifying the service animal’s good health, and if taking a long flight attesting that the service animal has the ability to either not relieve itself, or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner” — and allow airlines to require that passengers traveling with service animals complete these forms.

Other provisions include allowing airlines to:

  • Require that passengers traveling with service animals check in earlier than other passengers
  • Limit the number of service animals to two per passenger
  • Require that the service dog(s) fit within the passenger’s foot space in the cabin
  • Deny travel to animals showing aggression

Notably, airlines could not, as Delta has tried to do, deny access to dogs based on their breed.

The 60-day public comment period opened on February 5, 2020. To comment, go to the docket page, where you can also read the full proposal and other comments.

“Final Word” on Flying Service Animals

Pam Hogle The Thinking Dog Blog , , , , , , ,

Your seat-mate on your next flight?

The US Transportation Department (DoT) has issued a “final” statement on service animals in air transportation. I’m a bit skeptical of that finality, but it’s definitely worth taking a look at what is the current last word.

When I last looked at this, airlines were issuing strict new policies, and the DoT was taking public comment on changes it was considering. They received more than 4,500 comments, and have released their final (for now) policy.

Here’s a summary:

  1. Airlines cannot categorically ban specific breeds of dogs. They also cannot categorically refuse to transport all animals that are not dogs, cats, or miniature horses. They can refuse reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders. The “emotional support peacock,” and possibly the pig, however, appear to be cleared for takeoff.
  2. Passengers may travel with a total of three service animals, including one ESA; the DoT will focus enforcement on passengers who’ve been prevented from traveling with up to 3 animals, but will not allow airlines to enforce a strict limit at all.
  3. Airlines may not categorically ban animals over a specific weight, but they are allowed, on a case-by-case basis to refuse to allow an animal in the cabin if it is too large or heavy. That could mean weight- or size-related bans on certain smaller aircraft, but not, as some airlines have tried, across-the-board weight-based bans.
  4. Airlines may ban “service” animals that are younger than 4 months, since  “those animals would not be trained to behave properly in a public setting.” But the DoT does “not anticipate exercising our enforcement resources” in this area.
  5. Airlines may not ban emotional support animals (ESAs) on flights longer than 8 hours. They can however require anyone traveling on longer flights with a service animal to provide documentation that the animal either “will not need to relieve itself on the flight or can do so in a way that does not create a health or sanitation issue on the flight.” There’s no hint as to how someone might document that. They may also require 48 hours’ notice that a passenger has a service animal and they may also require early check-in, in person, in addition to the documentation.
    Note that the document uses “service animal” as a broad term that includes ADA service animals, emotional support animals (ESAs), and psychiatric service animals (PSAs). I believe that this will prove to be an enormous hassle for people traveling with, say, guide dogs or mobility service dogs, on long flights.
  6. Airlines may request documentation from a medical professional from passengers seeking to travel with an ESA or PSA and can request but cannot require that passengers use a specific, airline-created form.
    In addition, they may ask any passenger traveling with a service animal “limited questions” to determine the passenger’s need for the animal, regardless of whether the animal has a tag, vest, or other service dog paraphernalia. What these questions are is not stated.
    Note that the ADA does not apply to air travel, so airline personnel are not limited to the ADA questions (whether it is a service animal and what task it does).
  7. Airlines may not require people with disabilities using task-trained, non-ESA/PSA service animals to produce documentation in advance of travel. However, airlines may request documentation related to “vaccination, training, or behavior” if the airline reasonably believes the documentation would help assess whether the animal poses a “direct threat to the health or safety of others.”
    There is no explanation of what form this documentation might take or how it might help make such a determination, so this point could be very problematic. They do not envision taking enforcement action against airlines asking for this documentation.
  8. Airlines may require passengers traveling with ESAs or PSAs to check in, in person, in the airport lobby and present their documentation — prior to entering the “sterile” area (post-security check). They may also require these passengers to provide 48 hours’ notice that they are traveling with an ESA or PSA and require them to check in up to an hour earlier than other passengers. These requirements do not apply to non ESA/PSA service animals (which are not defined).
  9. Airlines may require that service animals of all types be “contained” (including leashed), and complaints will be evaluated case-by-case. In general, requiring some means of tethering is allowed.
    But … While airlines may make other requirements to ensure safety and to ensure that other passengers have use of their “foot space” — but they also have to  allow the animal to provide emotional support or perform tasks. Translated, that means people may be permitted to remove their ESAs from crates (and we all know that people do so even when it’s not permitted).
  10. Airlines cannot limit the total number of service animals on any flight (including ESAs and PSAs).

That’s a lot. It’s similar to the interim document that has been in force for a little over a year. But it certainly does not address the clear problems that triggered the new document, which included rampant fakes, non-domesticated animals with no training traveling in crowded planes, along with untrained, stressed, and sometimes aggressive dogs, and people with trained service dogs being hassled and worse.

Under the new policy, the documentation that airlines can require for non-ADA service animals is vaguely defined, and what they can ask of service dog users is not defined at all. Airlines still will rely on check-in personnel, who are not animal behavior experts, to evaluate whether an animal poses a risk. They’ll still face pressure to accommodate unsuitable animals. Lots of them. I’m imagining planes full of people with 3 “service” animals apiece, all outside their carriers.

Walking into the lobby of an airport is an unusual activity and would be stressful for an animal not trained for or used to public spaces. Since there are no laws that grant public access to people with ESAs, and no training is required, this describes most ESA.

But that’s just the beginning; an untrained staffer might not notice that an animal is stressed at this early stage. Airline personnel have no expertise or way of evaluating whether an animal will remain calm under stress or whether the person can safely handle the animal during travel. Many handlers wouldn’t notice or be aware of signs of stress. The animal’s stress level is likely to rise as new, weird experiences pile up: TSA check; maybe riding on a tram of some sort; sitting in a crowded gate with loud noises and anxious people; being stuffed under a tiny seat, hemmed in by strangers; more loud noises and weird smells … Under increasing stress, it’s likely that more animals will react quite naturally — and people will get hurt. And when the untrained, stressed-out dog stuffed under the middle seat bites the passenger in the window seat, that poor person is still trapped in a tiny space with no way out.

The DoT’s mission was to protect the safety of all travelers, the rights of people who are legitimate service animal users, and the safety of traveling service and support animals. The new regulations were intended to address a tsunami of fake service and emotional support animals on airplanes, traveling with people ill-prepared to handle them safely. I don’t think that this document comes close to accomplishing any of those goals. In fact, the new policies might invite even more abuse than the old rules.