79742 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Department’s ACAA definition of a service 

animal in this final rule is similar to the definition 

of a service animal in the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) regulations implementing the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 CFR 35.104 and 28 CFR 

36.104. Although DOT has chosen to closely align 

its ACAA service animal definition with DOJ’s 

service animal definition under the ADA, the 

substantive requirements in this final rule differ 

from DOJ’s requirements for service animals under 

the ADA in various areas, e.g., allowing airlines to 

require service animal documentation and 

prohibiting the use of voice control over a service 

animal. 

2 In 2008, the Department amended 14 CFR 382 

by adding 14 CFR 382.117, a provision dedicated 

to the transport of service animals on aircraft. The 

Department’s 2008 amendment codified prior DOT 

guidance, which allowed airlines to require 

emotional support animal and psychiatric service 

animal users to provide a letter from a licensed 

mental health professional of the passenger’s need 

for the animal, and permitted airlines to require 48 

hours’ advance notice of a passenger’s wish to 

travel with an emotional support or psychiatric 

service animal to give airlines sufficient time to 

assess the passenger’s documentation. This final 

rule removes 14 CFR 382.117 and adds a new 

subpart, Subpart EE, on service animals. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 382 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2018–0068] 

RIN No. 2105–AE63 

Traveling by Air With Service Animals 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (Department or DOT) is 

issuing a final rule to amend the 

Department’s Air Carrier Access Act 

(ACAA) regulation on the transport of 

service animals by air. This final rule is 

intended to ensure that our air 

transportation system is safe for the 

traveling public and accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 11, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maegan Johnson, Senior Trial Attorney, 

Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC, 

20590, 202–366–9342, 202–366–7152 

(fax), maegan.johnson@dot.gov (email). 

You may also contact Blane Workie, 

Assistant General Counsel, Office of 

Aviation Consumer Protection, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC, 

20590, 202–366–9342, 202–366–7152 

(fax), blane.workie@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

This final rule defines a service 

animal as a dog, regardless of breed or 

type, that is individually trained to do 

work or perform tasks for the benefit of 

a qualified individual with a disability, 

including a physical, sensory, 

psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental 

disability.1 It allows airlines to 

recognize emotional support animals as 

pets, rather than service animals, and 

permits airlines to limit the number of 

service animals that one passenger can 

bring onboard an aircraft to two service 

animals. 

The final rule also allows airlines to 

require passengers with a disability 

traveling with a service animal to 

complete and submit to the airline a 

form, developed by DOT, attesting to the 

animal’s training and good behavior, 

and certifying the animal’s good health. 

For flight segments of eight hours or 

more, the rule allows airlines to require 

passengers to complete and submit a 

DOT form attesting that the animal has 

the ability either not to relieve itself on 

a long flight or to relieve itself in a 

sanitary manner. In addition, this final 

rule allows airlines to require a service 

animal user to provide these forms up 

to 48 hours in advance of the date of 

travel if the passenger’s reservation was 

made prior to that time. As an 

alternative, airlines may require a 

passenger with a disability seeking to 

travel with a service animal in the cabin 

to provide the forms at the passenger’s 

departure gate on the date of travel. 

However, the final rule prohibits 

airlines from requiring that a passenger 

physically check-in at the airport solely 

on the basis that the individual is 

traveling with a service animal, thus 

ensuring that service animal users are 

not prevented from enjoying the same 

convenience-related benefits provided 

to other passengers, such as online and 

curbside check-in. Service animal users 

may use the online check-in process 

available to the general public. 

This final rule also better ensures the 

safety of passengers and crewmembers 

by allowing carriers to require that 

service animals are harnessed, leashed, 

or otherwise tethered onboard an 

aircraft and includes requirements that 

would address the safe transport of large 

service animals in the aircraft cabin. 

Further, it specifies the circumstances 

under which the user of a service 

animal may be charged for damage 

caused by the service animal and 

addresses the responsibilities of codeshare partners. 

1. Statutory Authority 

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 

49 U.S.C. 41705, prohibits 

discrimination in airline service based 

on disability. When enacted in 1986, the 

ACAA applied only to U.S. air carriers. 

On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford 

Aviation Investment and Reform Act for 

the 21st Century (AIR–21) amended the 

ACAA to include foreign carriers. The 

ACAA, while prohibiting discrimination 

by U.S. and foreign air carriers in air 

transportation against qualified 

individuals with disabilities, does not 

specify how carriers must act to avoid 

such discrimination. The statute 

similarly does not specify how the 

Department should regulate with 

respect to these issues. In addition to 

the ACAA, the Department’s authority 

to regulate nondiscrimination in airline 

service on the basis of disability is based 

in the Department’s rulemaking 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 40113, which 

states that the Department may take 

action that it considers necessary to 

carry out this part, including prescribing 

regulations. 

The current rulemaking has presented 

questions about how the ACAA is 

reasonably interpreted and applied to 

require airlines to accommodate the 

needs of individual passengers whose 

physical or mental disability 

necessitates the assistance of a service 

animal in air transportation. In 

approaching these questions, the 

Department recognizes that the ACAA’s 

nondiscrimination mandate is not 

absolute. The statute requires airlines to 

provide accommodations that are 

reasonable given the realities and 

limitations of air service and the 

onboard environment of commercial 

airplanes. Animals on aircraft may pose 

a risk to the safety, health, and wellbeing of passengers and crew, and may 

disturb the safe and efficient operation 

of the aircraft. Any requirement for the 

accommodation of passengers traveling 

with service animals onboard aircraft 

necessarily must be balanced against the 

health, safety, and mental and physical 

well-being of the other passengers and 

crew, and must not interfere with the 

safe and efficient operation of the 

aircraft. 

2. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

revise the Department’s Air Carrier 

Access Act (ACAA) regulation on 

traveling by air with service animals 

(formerly 14 CFR 382.117) in 14 CFR 

part 382.2 This final rule is prompted by 

a number of compelling needs to revise 

these regulations: (1) The increasing 

number of service animal complaints 

received from, and on behalf of, 

passengers with disabilities by the 

Department and by airlines; (2) the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79743 

3See, e.g., Psychiatric Service Dog Society, DOT– 

OST–2009–0093–0001, 1–2, at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2009- 

0093-0001 (Apr. 21, 2009); Comment from Airlines 

for America at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2751 (Dec. 4, 

2017); Comment from International Air Transport 

Association at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-269 (Dec. 1, 

2017); Comment from Kuwait Airways at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017- 

0069-2679 (Dec. 1, 2017); and Comment from 

National Air Carrier Association at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017- 

0069-2771 (Dec. 4, 2017). 

4See U.S. Department of Transportation, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, ‘‘Traveling by Air with 

Service Animals,’’ 85 FR 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020). 

5The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public 

Law 115–254, Sec. 437 (Oct. 5, 2018). 

6See DOJ’s ADA definition of a service animal in 

28 CFR 35.104 and 28 CFR 36.104. 

7Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 23832 (May 

23, 2018). 

8Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 85 FR 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020). 

9See https://www.regulations.gov/docket?

D=DOT-OST-2018-0068. 

inconsistent definitions among Federal 

agencies of what constitutes a ‘‘service 

animal;’’ (3) the disruptions caused by 

requests to transport unusual species of 

animals onboard aircraft, which has 

eroded the public trust in legitimate 

service animals; (4) the increasing 

frequency of incidents of travelers 

fraudulently representing their pets as 

service animals; and (5) the reported 

increase in the incidents of misbehavior 

by emotional support animals. In 

addition, DOT has received multiple 

requests for the Department to regulate 

in this area.3 Each of these purposes 

underlying this rulemaking, as well as 

the requests for rulemaking, were 

discussed in depth in the Department’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

issued on February 5, 2020.4 Please refer 

to that discussion for additional 

background. 

This final rule also responds to a 

congressional mandate. The FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the FAA 

Act) requires the Department to conduct 

a rulemaking proceeding on the 

definition of the term ‘‘service animal’’ 

and to develop minimum standards for 

what is required for service and 

emotional support animals.5 Congress 

also required the Department to 

consider whether it should align DOT’s 

ACAA definition of a service animal 

with the service animal definition 

established by the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) in its rule implementing 

the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA).6 In response, and as described in 

more detail below, the Department has 

chosen to revise its service animal 

definition under the ACAA to be more 

closely aligned with DOJ’s service 

animal definition under the ADA, 

although the substantive requirements 

in DOT’s ACAA service animals rule 

differ from DOJ’s requirements for 

service animals under the ADA in a 

number of respects. This final rule is 

responsive to, and fulfills the 

requirements found in, the FAA Act. 

3. Recent Rulemaking Activities 

On May 23, 2018, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) titled ‘‘Traveling 

by Air with Service Animals.’’ 7 In the 

ANPRM, the Department sought 

comment on how to amend the 

Department’s ACAA regulations to 

address concerns raised by individuals 

with disabilities, airlines, flight 

attendants, airports and other aviation 

stakeholders regarding service animals 

on aircraft. On February 5, 2020, a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

on Traveling by Air with Service 

Animals was published in the Federal 

Register.8 The Department sought in the 

NPRM to propose a rule that would 

ensure passengers with disabilities can 

continue traveling with service animals 

in air transportation while also reducing 

the likelihood that there would be safety 

or health issues at the airport or onboard 

aircraft. 

The Department received 

approximately 15,000 comments on the 

NPRM.9 While most of the comments 

received in response to the NPRM were 

from individual commenters, the 

Department also received many 

comments from disability rights 

advocacy organizations, airlines, 

airports, transportation worker 

associations, animal health and training 

organizations, and a number of other 

special-interest organizations. The 

Department has carefully reviewed and 

considered all of the comments received 

and is issuing this final rule to ensure 

access to individuals whose physical or 

mental disability necessitates the 

assistance of a service animal in air 

transportation, while also considering 

the realities, risks, and limitations 

associated with transporting animals on 

aircraft. 

4. Summary of the Major Provisions 

Subject Final rule 

Definition of Service Animal ............ A service animal is as a dog, regardless of breed or type, that is individually trained to do work or perform 

tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, 

intellectual, or other mental disability. 

Emotional Support Animals ............ Carriers are not required to recognize emotional support animals as service animals and may treat them 

as pets. 

Treatment of Psychiatric Service 

Animals.

Psychiatric service animals are treated the same as other service animals that are individually trained to 

do work or perform a task for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability. 

Species ........................................... Carriers are permitted to limit service animals to dogs. 

Health, Behavior and Training Form Carriers are permitted to require passengers to remit a completed hardcopy or electronic version of the 

Department’s ‘‘U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation Form’’ as a condition of transportation. 

Relief Attestation ............................. Carriers are permitted to require individuals traveling with a service animal on flights eight hours or longer 

to remit a completed hardcopy or electronic version the Department’s ‘‘U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Relief Attestation’’ as a condition of transportation. 

Number of Service Animals per 

Passenger.

Carriers are permitted to limit the number of service animals traveling with a single passenger with a disability to two service animals. 

Large Service Animals .................... Carriers are permitted to require a service animal to fit on their handler’s lap or within its handler’s foot 

space on the aircraft. 

Control of Service Animals ............. Carriers are permitted to require a service animal to be harnessed, leashed, or otherwise tethered in areas 

of the airport that they own, lease, or control, and on the aircraft. 

Service Animal Breed or Type ........ Carriers are prohibited from refusing to transport a service animal based solely on breed or generalized 

physical type, as distinct from an individualized assessment of the animal’s behavior and health. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79744 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Subject Final rule 

Check-In Requirements .................. Carriers are not permitted to require a passenger with a disability to physically check-in at the airport, rather than using the online check-in process, on the basis that the individual is traveling with a service animal. Airlines may require a passenger with a disability seeking to travel with a service animal to provide 

the service animal form(s) at the passenger’s departure gate on the date of travel. 

Advance Notice Requirements ....... Carriers may require individuals traveling with a service animal to provide a U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation Form and, if applicable, a U.S. Department of Transportation 

Service Animal Relief Attestation up to 48 hours in advance of the date of travel if the passenger’s reservation was made prior to that time. 

5. Summary of the Economic Analysis 

The Department has prepared a 

regulatory evaluation in support of the 

final rule to amend the ACAA service 

animal regulations. Under this final 

rule, a service animal is limited to a dog, 

regardless of breed or type, that is 

individually trained to do work or 

perform tasks for the benefit of a 

qualified individual with a disability. It 

allows airlines, for the first time, to 

recognize emotional support animals 

(ESAs) as pets rather than service 

animals. Because airlines charge 

passengers for transporting pets, and are 

prohibited from charging passengers 

traveling with service animals, 

passengers previously had an incentive 

to claim their pets were ESAs. Airlines 

and other passengers have also reported 

increased incidence of misbehavior by 

ESAs on aircraft and in the airport. The 

misbehavior has included animals’ 

urinating, defecating, and in some 

instances, harming people and other 

animals at the airport or on the aircraft. 

The primary economic impact of this 

rule is that it will eliminate a market 

inefficiency. Treating ESAs as service 

animals amounts to a price restriction 

that sets the price of accommodating 

passengers who travel with ESAs at zero 

dollars, despite the fact that airlines face 

non-zero resource costs to accommodate 

those passengers. 

Table ES–1 summarizes the results of 

the regulatory evaluation. The final rule 

creates a potential burden on passengers 

who travel with service animals as it 

allows airlines to require such 

passengers to submit two U.S. DOT 

forms. We estimate that the forms could 

create as much as 74,000 burden hours 

and $1.1 million in costs per year in 

2018 dollars. 

Evaluating other impacts was more 

difficult due to data limitations. To 

gauge the potential magnitude of these 

impacts, we combined the limited data 

with reasonable assumptions about ESA 

transport that could occur under the 

final rule and a demand elasticity from 

a surrogate market. The analysis 

indicates that the final rule could be 

expected to generate annual cost savings 

to airlines between $15.6 million and 

$21.6 million and annual net benefits of 

$3.9 to $12.7 million. 

TABLE ES–1—SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS DUE TO FINAL RULE

[2018 Dollars, millions] 

Impact Annual value 

Costs: 

Paperwork burden for passengers traveling with service animals ...................................................................................... $1.1. 

Cost savings to airlines associated with providing ESA travel ............................................................................................ ¥$21.6 to ¥$15.6. 

Benefits: 

Lost benefits to individuals who no longer travel with ESAs ............................................................................................... ¥$10.6 to ¥$7.8. 

Reduction in negative externalities caused by ESAs .......................................................................................................... Not quantified. 

Transfers: 

Increased fees paid by passengers travelling with ESAs to airlines ................................................................................... $54.0 to $59.6. 

Net benefits (benefits minus costs) ..................................................................................................................................... $3.9 to $12.7. 

Discussion 

1. Definition of a Service Animal 

In developing the definition of a 

service animal, the Department carefully 

considered whether emotional support 

animals should be treated as service 

animals, whether psychiatric service 

animals should be treated the same as 

other service animals, whether to limit 

service animals to certain species of 

animals, whether certain breeds or 

generalized physical types of animals 

should not be considered service 

animals, and whether the Department’s 

definition of a service animal under the 

ACAA should be similar to the DOJ 

definition of a service animal under the 

ADA. Each of these issues is discussed 

in turn below. 

A. Emotional Support Animals 

The NPRM 

In the NPRM, the Department 

explained that the ACAA regulations 

currently recognize two types of service 

animal: (1) Any animal that is 

individually trained or able to provide 

assistance to a qualified person with a 

disability; and (2) emotional support 

animals, defined as ‘‘any animal shown 

by documentation to be necessary for 

the emotional well-being of a 

passenger.’’ Emotional support animals 

are intended to mitigate a passenger’s 

disability by their presence, and are 

expected to be trained to behave in 

public, but are not individually trained 

to do work or perform tasks for the 

benefit of a passenger with a disability. 

In the NPRM, the Department 

proposed to allow airlines to treat 

emotional support animals as pets, 

rather than service animals. The 

Department proposed to do so by 

redefining a ‘‘service animal’’ as a dog 

that is individually trained to do work 

or perform a task for the benefit of a 

qualified individual with a disability. 

Under the Department’s proposed 

definition, airlines would not be 

required to recognize comfort animals, 

companionship animals, or any other 

non-task-trained animals as service 

animals. The Department indicated that 

the proposal was intended to align the 

definition of a service animal under the 

ACAA with the DOJ’s definition of a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79745 

10See DOJ’s ADA definition of a service animal 

at 28 CFR 35.104 and 28 CFR 36.104. 

11FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public Law 

115–254, Sec. 437 (Oct. 5, 2018). 

12For ease of reference we will refer to these 

organizations collectively as ‘‘A4A.’’ 

13Comment from Airlines for America (A4A), the 

Regional Airline Association, (RAA), and the 

National Air Carrier Association (NACA) 

(collectively referred to as A4A) at https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

14Comment from Association of Professional 

Flight Attendants (APFA), https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19238. 

15Comment from California Chapter of the 

American Council of the Blind (ACB California), 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19145. 

16Comment from American Veterinary Medical 

Association (AVMA), https://beta.regulations.gov/ 

comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19283. 

service animal under the ADA.10 One 

purpose of this alignment was to reduce 

confusion for individuals with 

disabilities, airline personnel, and 

airports (which are generally subject to 

the ADA rather than the ACAA). 

In the NPRM, the Department sought 

comment on how its proposed service 

animal definition would impact 

individuals with disabilities who rely 

on emotional support animals when 

traveling on aircraft. Furthermore, 

although airlines could choose to 

continue to recognize emotional support 

animals and transport them for free 

pursuant to an airline’s established 

policy, the Department specifically 

sought comment on whether individuals 

with disabilities who use emotional 

support animals to mitigate their 

disabilities would be less likely to travel 

by air if they were no longer permitted 

to travel with their emotional support 

animals. In addition, since the 

Department proposed that airlines 

would be permitted to treat emotional 

support animals as pets, the Department 

sought comment on whether individuals 

would be able to transport emotional 

support cats or other small animals as 

pets in the cabin for a fee, and whether 

the limits on the number of pets an 

airline would allow per flight could 

impact their transport. 

The Department also requested 

comment in the NPRM on whether 

emotional support animal users could 

train their animals to do work or 

perform tasks to assist them with their 

disability, thereby transforming the 

animal from an emotional support 

animal to a psychiatric service animal. 

Although the Department proposed 

not to treat emotional support animals 

as service animals, the Department also 

sought comment on whether it should 

recognize emotional support animals as 

a separate and distinct accommodation 

for passengers with disabilities. 

Specifically, the Department sought 

comment on whether to allow airlines to 

mandate stricter medical documentation 

requirements for individuals traveling 

with emotional support animals; 

whether airlines should be allowed to 

require that emotional support animals 

be contained in an FAA-approved incabin pet carrier in the airport and on 

the aircraft; and whether limiting 

emotional support animals to one per 

passenger would mitigate a passenger’s 

disability sufficiently on a flight or at 

the passenger’s destination. The 

Department did so as part of the 

mandate in the FAA Act, which 

required the Department to conduct a 

rulemaking proceeding on the definition 

of the term ‘‘service animal,’’ and to 

develop minimum standards for what is 

required for service and emotional 

support animals.11

Comments Received 

Of the approximately 15,000 

comments in response to the NPRM, 

more than 10,000 of those comments 

concerned the transport of emotional 

support animals. More than 3,000 

individuals submitted comments in 

support of DOT’s proposal to exclude 

emotional support animals from the 

ACAA definition of a service animal 

and to allow airlines to treat emotional 

support animals as pets. Furthermore, a 

large majority of airline industry 

stakeholder organizations that 

submitted comments on this issue (i.e., 

airlines and airline organizations, 

airports, flight attendants, and other 

transportation worker organizations), 

expressed their support for DOT’s 

proposal to allow airlines to treat 

emotional support animals as pets. 

Furthermore, approximately half of the 

disability rights advocacy organizations 

that submitted comments on this issue 

(mainly those organizations that 

represent individuals with allergies and 

individuals with visual impairment who 

use guide dogs) also supported DOT’s 

proposal to allow airlines to treat 

emotional support animals as pets. 

Supporters of DOT’s proposal to 

exclude emotional support animals from 

the service animal definition primarily 

expressed safety concerns. They 

described incidents of misbehavior by 

emotional support animals, including 

acting aggressively toward people and 

other service animals by biting, 

growling, and lunging; and urinating, 

defecating, and otherwise failing to be 

under the control of their handler. 

Commenters expressed general safety 

concerns for travelers and airline crew 

given these disturbances. Some 

commenters expressed the view that 

many emotional support animal users 

may not actually be individuals with 

disabilities, but instead are individuals 

who are misrepresenting their pets as 

service animals to avoid paying airline 

pet fees. 

Airlines for America (A4A), the 

Regional Airline Association, and the 

National Air Carrier Association jointly 

commented 12 that numerous incidents 

on aircraft have demonstrated that 

emotional support animals are 

substantially more likely to misbehave 

during a flight due to the stressful and 

challenging aircraft environment.13

These organizations emphasized that 

emotional support animal misbehavior 

poses a substantial risk to flight safety, 

and that aircraft cannot reasonably carry 

untrained animals in the cabin that are 

uncontained. Similarly, the Association 

of Professional Flight Attendants 

(APFA) commented that ‘‘emotional 

support animals have been known to 

bite passengers and Flight Attendants, 

urinate, defecate, cause allergic 

reactions and encroach on the space and 

comfort zone of other passengers who 

have purchased tickets,’’ and that an 

untrained emotional support animal can 

put passengers at risk during an 

emergency evacuation.14 The California 

Chapter of the American Council of the 

Blind (ACB California) also commented 

that emotional support animals pose a 

risk to people and other service animals 

as its members have reported that their 

guide dogs have been barked at and 

growled at on many occasions.15

Similarly, the American Veterinary 

Medical Association (AVMA) 

commented that untrained emotional 

support animals ‘‘are often not 

acclimated to various stressful 

situations in the same manner that 

service animals are trained,’’ which 

‘‘puts the safety and well-being of both 

the animal and those sharing the 

animal’s space at risk.’’ 16

The second concern most frequently 

expressed by commenters in support of 

DOT’s proposal related to those 

individuals who misrepresent their pets 

as service animals, and the growing 

number of online mental health 

professionals willing to provide pet 

owners with emotional support animal 

and psychiatric service animal 

documentation for a fee. American 

Airlines commented that the ‘‘increase 

in the availability of fraudulent ESA 

credentials has enabled people who are 

not truly in need of animal assistance to 

abuse the rules and evade airline 

policies regarding animals in the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79746 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

17Comment from American Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19138. 18Comment from Open Doors Organization, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19305. https://beta.regulations.gov/ 

comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19305. 19Comment from Association of Late Deafened 

Adults, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOTOST-2018-0068-17669. 20Comment from American Association of 

Airport Executives, (AAAE), https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19196. 

21Comment from Ginger G.B. Kutsch, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19306. 

22Comment from the Allergy and Asthma 

Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-17955. 

23Comment from the Asthma and Allergy 

Foundation of America, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-18498. 

24Comment from Gabrielle Ruiz, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19304. 

25 Joint Comment from PVA, Access Living of 

Metropolitan Chicago, American Association of 

People with Disabilities, Bazelon Center for Mental 

Health Law, Christopher and Dana Reeve 

Foundation, the National Council on Independent 

Living, National Disability Rights Network, and the 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429. For ease of reference we will refer to 

these organizations collectively as ‘‘PVA.’’ 

cabin.’’ 17 Similarly, Open Doors 

Organization commented that airlines 

can show evidence of letters written by 

certain mental health professionals on 

the web that result from fee-based 

online evaluations or consultations with 

minimal therapeutic interaction 

between the health professional and the 

traveler.18 Likewise, the Association of 

Late Deafened Adults commented that 

people who falsely claim their pets are 

service animals can purchase a fake 

service animal vest for their pet online 

without the pet going through any 

period of training.19

Some commenters also support DOT’s 

proposed service animal definition, 

limiting service animals to task-trained 

animals, because they believe that only 

service animals trained to do work or 

perform tasks for the benefit of a person 

with a disability can effectively function 

as service animals. The American 

Association of Airport Executives 

(AAAE) commented that disability 

mitigation training, which enables an 

animal to know how to guide 

individuals with vision impairments, 

retrieve items for individuals with 

mobility impairments, and perform 

other tasks and functions for individuals 

with disabilities, is critical to mitigating 

potential risks and to ensure safety of 

passengers in the terminal.20 An 

individual commenter remarked that ‘‘a 

critical part of a service animal’s 

training includes a systematic 

socialization process that gradually and 

humanely exposes the dog to a variety 

of public places and settings . . . 

[which] ensures that service animals can 

both reliably perform their essential 

duties in all types of settings, and that 

venues like busy airport and crowded 

aircraft cabins will not trigger behaviors 

that are unsafe for the disabled handler, 

or for others to be around.’’ 21

The Department also received a 

significant number of comments from 

individuals suffering from allergies, or 

individuals and organizations 

commenting on behalf of allergy 

sufferers, in support of the proposal to 

allow airlines to treat emotional support 

animals as pets. These commenters 

describe how the recent increases in the 

number of service animals on aircraft, 

ostensibly emotional support animals, 

has created an untenable environment 

for allergy sufferers in the aircraft cabin. 

Furthermore, these commenters believe 

that DOT’s proposed rule would result 

in an overall decrease in the number of 

service animals on aircraft, which 

would improve the level of unwanted 

fur-related allergens on aircraft. The 

Asthma and Allergy Network 

commented that a training requirement 

for service animals would help mitigate 

the number of animals on aircraft.22 The 

Asthma Allergy Foundation of America 

also commented that it supports DOT’s 

proposal, which permits airlines the 

flexibility to treat emotional support 

animals as pets, because it will ‘‘reduce 

the risk of animals triggering asthma 

attacks or severe allergic reactions.’’ 23

On the other hand, more than 6,000 

commenters either supported the 

Department’s continued recognition of 

emotional support animals as service 

animals, or supported a rule allowing 

emotional support animals to be 

recognized as a separate accommodation 

for individuals with disabilities. The 

individual commenters who support the 

Department’s continued recognition of 

emotional support animals as service 

animals include individuals who suffer 

from autism, debilitating depression, 

anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, 

and a range of other mental and 

emotional disabilities. One individual 

commenter indicated that she believed 

that DOT’s proposal is discriminatory 

toward veterans with disabilities and 

those with mental health problems, 

stating: ‘‘ESAs like mine are prescribed 

by [a] healthcare professional in order to 

ease stress, anxiety, depression and 

PTSD. I have PTSD and anxiety and I 

will testify to the benefit of my ESA. It 

is far better than dangerous and harmful 

drugs that I would otherwise need to 

take.’’ 24

Other individual commenters 

described their disabilities and how 

they are able to travel and, in some 

cases, complete everyday functions 

because of the presence of their 

emotional support animals. Some of 

these commenters described how 

certain individuals with disabilities 

would no longer be able to fly if the 

Department passed its proposed 

definition of a service animal, since 

many individuals suffering from mental 

and emotional disabilities have low 

incomes and can barely afford the cost 

of their own ticket for air transportation. 

For example, a joint comment from 

Paralyzed Veterans for America (PVA) 

and other advocacy organizations noted 

that even if a passenger’s emotional 

support animal is able to travel as a pet, 

these fees can cost upwards of $175 

each way, and that ‘‘people with 

disabilities are disproportionately low 

income and these fees would likely 

make it very difficult for emotional 

support animals users to travel[.]’’ 25

Several individual commenters also 

described the inconceivability of leaving 

their emotional support animals behind, 

as many are either unable to fly without 

their emotional support animal, or 

unable to function without their 

emotional support animal at their 

destination for long periods of time. 

The Department also received 

comments from licensed mental health 

professionals and other health care 

workers who describe the harmful 

impact that DOT’s rule would have on 

individuals who suffer from mental and 

emotional disabilities. These 

commenters describe their patients, 

many of whom were prescribed an 

emotional support animal to help 

accommodate a serious mental or 

emotional disability, and how the 

Department’s proposed rule appears to 

have a disproportionately negative 

impact on individuals with mental 

disabilities, in comparison to those with 

physical disabilities. 

Half of disability rights advocacy 

organizations that commented on the 

NPRM opposed the Department’s 

proposal to treat emotional support 

animals as pets. They argue primarily 

that emotional support animals provide 

a vital accommodation for many 

individuals suffering from a wide range 

of serious mental and emotional 

disabilities. The Autistic Self Advocacy 

Network commented that emotional 

support animals ‘‘can assist with 

sensory regulation, anxiety, and provide 

focus for social communication’’ and 

without the calming effect of an 

emotional support animal, individuals 

with autism or other mental disabilities 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79747 

26Comment from the Autistic Self Advocacy 

Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232. 

27Comment from the Disability Rights Education 

Defense Fund (DREDF), https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19264. 

28 Id. 

29Comments from Disability Rights Florida, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19336, and PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429. 

30Comment from the Oklahoma Disability Law 

Center, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237. 

31Comment from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429. 

32The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), which enforces the Fair 

Housing Act regulations, recognizes two types of 

assistance animals: (1) Service animals, and (2) 

other trained or untrained animals that do work, 

perform tasks, provide assistance, and/or provide 

therapeutic emotional support for individuals with 

disabilities (‘‘support animal’’). See Service 

Animals and Assistance Animals for People with 

Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs, 

FHEO Notice: FHEO–2020–01, https://

www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/ 

HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf (Jan. 28, 2020), 

and https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/ 

documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24-20.pdf. 

33Comment from the Humane Society of the 

United States (Humane Society), https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19184. 

34Comment from Opening Doors, PLLC, https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-7322. 

35Comment from U.S. Support Animals, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19248. 

36 Id. 

37Comment from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429. 

38We acknowledge that emotional support 

animals are permitted as a reasonable 

accommodation for a person with a disability under 

the Fair Housing Act. However, we note that the 

large space available to the animal and the limited 

number of other individuals in close proximity to 

the animal differs significantly when compared to 

the confined space on an aircraft cabin and the 

many other passengers in close proximity to the 

animal on aircraft. 

may be unable to function without the 

assistance of an ESA for several days or 

weeks, which may result in their 

inability to travel.26 The Disability 

Rights Education Defense Fund 

(DREDF) similarly commented that the 

‘‘use of an emotional support animal 

may be the only option for effective 

mitigation of their mental health 

symptoms’’ because for some 

individuals with psychiatric disabilities, 

‘‘medications are ineffective and few or 

no other clinical mental health 

interventions are available or successful 

for them.’’ 27 The DREDF further 

commented that ‘‘[f]requently, an 

emotional support animal is the primary 

intervention that enables a person with 

a psychiatric disability to succeed with 

daily activities—and sometimes to stay 

alive.’’ 28

Many of the disability rights 

advocates that supported DOT’s 

continued recognition of emotional 

support animals either (1) expressed 

support for stricter requirements on the 

transport of emotional support animals, 

or (2) supported DOT recognition of 

emotional support animals not as 

service animals, but as a separate 

accommodation for individuals with 

disabilities with its own distinct set of 

regulations. Commenters that favored 

stricter requirements for service animal 

users, such as Disability Rights of 

Florida and PVA, submitted comments 

in support of a rule that would allow 

carriers to require behavior attestations 

from emotional support animal users, 

although these organizations rejected 

measures such as the mandatory 

containment of emotional support 

animals in pet carriers.29 Similarly, the 

Oklahoma Disability Law Center 

commented that it would also support a 

rule that allowed carriers to require 

behavior attestations, as well as a rule 

that would allow airlines to require 

emotional support animal users to 

produce documentation from a licensed 

mental health professional following an 

in-person visit.30

Organizations that supported a DOT 

ACAA rule treating emotional support 

animals as a separate accommodation 

from service animals, such as PVA, 

commented that the ‘‘Department 

should recognize emotional support 

animals as an accommodation because 

emotional support animals are different 

from service animals in that they are not 

trained to perform work or tasks to 

mitigate a disability.’’ 31 The Humane 

Society of the United States commented 

that DOT should adopt a rule that 

would allow emotional support animals 

as a separate accommodation known as 

an ‘‘assistance animal,’’ 32 regulated 

separately from service animals, similar 

to the Fair Housing Act rule of the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD).33 Opening Doors, 

PLLC, another interested stakeholder 

that commented in support of DOT’s 

treating emotional support animals as a 

separate accommodation, stated that a 

‘‘benefit of aligning the definition of 

‘emotional support animal’ with 

‘assistance animal’ is that [the Fair 

Housing Act (FHA)] already has a 

framework in place for evaluating 

reasonable accommodation requests.’’ 34

In response to the Department’s 

request for comment on the feasibility of 

turning an emotional support animal 

into a psychiatric service animal, U.S. 

Support Animals commented that 

‘‘requiring a person with an emotional 

disability to train their emotional 

support animal to be a psychiatric 

service dog would be incredibly 

burdensome on most disabled people 

and often an impossible standard to 

meet.’’ 35 U.S. Support Animals further 

commented that ‘‘emotional support 

animals should not be trained to 

perform a specific task’’ because the 

benefit of an emotional support animal 

is the animal’s presence; ‘‘there is often 

no task that can even be defined for the 

animal to perform that would help 

alleviate the symptoms that the 

passenger exhibits.’’ 36 In addition, PVA, 

using rabbits as an example, commented 

that it ‘‘does not believe that it is 

possible to convert all emotional 

support animals into service 

animals.’’ 37

DOT Response 

The Department recognizes that 

whether to require airlines to recognize 

emotional support animals as service 

animals is a contentious question, with 

strongly held views on all sides, and 

with no perfect solution likely to satisfy 

all stakeholders. After careful review of 

the comments in this area, the 

Department has determined that the 

most appropriate course is to adopt a 

definition of service animal that covers 

only dogs, regardless of breed or type, 

that are individually trained to do work 

or perform tasks for the benefit of a 

qualified individual with a disability. 

This definition excludes all non-tasktrained animals, such as emotional 

support animals, comfort animals, and 

service animals in training. 

The Department recognizes several 

benefits to adopting this definition. 

First, the rule is expected to reduce 

confusion among airlines, passengers, 

airports, and other stakeholders by more 

closely aligning the Department’s 

definition of a service animal with DOJ’s 

definition of a service animal under the 

ADA, which applies to a broad array of 

entities, including airports, and which 

covers only dogs that are individually 

trained to do work or perform tasks for 

the benefit of an individual with a 

disability. The Department has long 

recognized that under its prior rule, air 

transportation was the only mode of 

transportation on which emotional 

support animals must be 

accommodated.38 Indeed, under the 

ADA, emotional support animals are not 

required to be accommodated in public 

spaces such as restaurants, hotels, 

theaters, or airports. This mismatch 

between the Department’s ACAA 

regulation and the DOJ’s ADA 

regulation was particularly striking 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79748 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

39Comment from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429. 

40Comment from, U.S. Support Animals at 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19248. 

41 14 CFR 382.117(e). 

42 14 CFR 382.27(c)(8). 

43Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 85 FR 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020). 

44Traveling by Air with Service Animals, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 85 FR 6448 (Feb. 5, 2020). 

given that passengers in air 

transportation are confined with service 

animals in the narrow space of an 

aircraft cabin for the duration of the 

flight. 

Second, after reviewing the comments 

submitted during both the ANPRM and 

NPRM, we find persuasive the view of 

advocates who commented that tasktrained service animals are also 

generally provided enhanced training in 

how to behave in public, while 

emotional support animals may not 

have received this degree of training. 

We also find persuasive the information 

provided by airlines and other 

stakeholders indicating that emotional 

support animals, or animals being 

presented to the airline as emotional 

support animals, are responsible for a 

significant percentage of the incidents of 

animal misbehavior onboard aircraft. 

Finally, it is reasonable to predict that 

the Department’s definition will result 

in an overall reduction in the number of 

uncrated animals onboard aircraft, 

thereby reducing the overall number of 

animal misbehavior incidents (and the 

overall number of potential allergic 

reactions) onboard aircraft. 

For many of these same reasons, we 

have declined to adopt a process to 

accommodate emotional support 

animals onboard, not as service animals, 

but as a separate accommodation for 

individuals with disabilities with its 

own distinct set of requirements, such 

as stricter documentation standards, 

containment in a pet carrier, etc. In our 

view, allowing emotional support 

animals with a stricter set of 

requirements would perpetuate tiered 

systems that give rise to confusion and 

the continued opportunity for abuse and 

increased safety risk. As such, the final 

rule allows airlines to treat emotional 

support animals as pets. We note, 

however, that airlines may choose to 

continue to transport emotional support 

animals without charge at their 

discretion. Furthermore, even if airlines 

decide after the effective date of this 

rule to charge pet fees for emotional 

support animals, this change would not 

impact the ability of individuals with 

psychiatric or mental health disabilities 

to continue to travel with their 

psychiatric service animals onboard 

aircraft without being charged a pet fee. 

This rule requires airlines to recognize 

animals that are individually trained to 

do work or perform tasks for the benefit 

of individuals with mental health 

disabilities as service animals, including 

psychiatric service animals. 

We solicited comment on the specific 

question whether and at what cost 

emotional support animals could be 

task-trained, and could therefore qualify 

as psychiatric service animals. We 

received few comments on this issue. 

PVA, for example, commented that an 

emotional support rabbit could not be 

individually trained to perform a task or 

function, but does provide emotional 

support for the individual by its 

presence.39 U.S. Support Animals stated 

that ‘‘requiring a person with an 

emotional disability to train their 

emotional support animal to be a 

psychiatric service dog would be 

incredibly burdensome on most 

disabled people and often an impossible 

standard to meet.’’ 40 While we 

understand PVA’s concern that there are 

currently emotional support animals 

such as rabbits that cannot be trained, 

the Department’s final rule recognizes 

only dogs as service animals, and it is 

our understanding that the vast majority 

of emotional support animals are dogs, 

and dogs can be task-trained to perform 

many different tasks and functions. We 

also note that the rule does not require 

service animal users to incur the cost of 

training by third party schools or 

organizations; service animal users are 

free to train their own dogs to perform 

a task or function for them. 

B. Psychiatric Service Animals 

The NPRM 

In the NPRM, the Department 

proposed to change its service animal 

requirements to ensure that psychiatric 

service animals would be treated the 

same as other service animals. 

Psychiatric service animals are 

individually trained to do work or 

perform tasks for an individual with a 

psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental 

disability. In the NPRM, the Department 

proposed to remove requirements for 

psychiatric service animal users that 

allowed airlines (1) to require 

psychiatric service animal users to 

provide a letter from a licensed mental 

health professional of the passenger’s 

need for the animal,41 (2) to require 48 

hours’ advance notice of a passenger’s 

intent to travel with a psychiatric 

service animal to give airlines sufficient 

time to assess the passenger’s 

documentation, 42 and (3) to require 

check in one hour before the check-in 

time for other passengers. The 

Department’s proposed definition of a 

service animal sought to ensure that 

individuals with mental and psychiatric 

disabilities who rely on psychiatric 

service animals would be treated the 

same as individuals with physical 

disabilities who rely on task-trained 

service animals. The Department’s 

proposal was based on the fact that 

there is no valid basis for allowing 

airlines to treat certain tasked-trained 

service animals differently from other 

task-trained animals. 

In the NPRM, the Department 

indicated that it was aware of concerns 

about passengers who falsely claim to 

have a mental health condition that may 

require the use of a service animal. We 

recognized that it was this specific 

concern that originally led the 

Department to adopt heightened 

documentation and check-in 

requirements for users of both emotional 

support animals and psychiatric service 

animals. We noted in the NPRM, 

however, that ‘‘unscrupulous passengers 

may also falsely claim to have other 

hidden disabilities such as seizure 

disorder or diabetes to pass off their pets 

as service animals and avoid paying 

airline pet fees.’’ 43 In other words, the 

concerns that led the Department to 

adopt heightened documentation and 

check-in requirements for users of 

psychiatric service animals is not 

unique to psychiatric service animals. 

For these reasons, the proposed final 

rule did not draw distinctions between 

psychiatric service animals and other 

types of service animals. 

In the NPRM, we indicated that if the 

rule were adopted as proposed, the 

Department would monitor the 

experience of airlines in accommodating 

the use of psychiatric service animals, 

particularly given the concern that 

unscrupulous passengers may attempt 

to pass off their pets as psychiatric 

service animals. We indicated that we 

would ‘‘consider revisiting whether it is 

reasonable and appropriate to allow 

additional requirements for the use of 

such animals if there is a demonstrated 

need—for example, if there is a notable 

increase in instances of passengers 

falsely representing pets as mentalhealth-related service animals.’’ 44

Comments Received 

Most individuals, disability rights 

organizations, airlines, and other 

stakeholders who commented on these 

topics supported the elimination of 

regulatory distinctions between 

psychiatric service animals and other 

service animals. Commenters generally 

observed that the Department’s prior 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79749 

45See Comments from Air Canada Airlines, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19328; Allegiant Air, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19164; Asiana Airlines https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19340, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19340; Spirit Airlines, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19221; and the Michigan Developmental 

Disabilities Council, https://beta.regulations.gov/ 

comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19191. 

46Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

47Comment from All Nippon Airways (ANA), 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19025. 

48Comment from American Kennel Club, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19163. 

49Comment from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429. 

50 In response to the ANPRM, Assistance Dogs 

International (ADI) noted specifically that dogs 

have been assisting individuals with disabilities for 

over 100 years. Comment from Assistance Dogs 

International, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-4409. 

51Comment from AAAE, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19196. 

52Comment from Assistance Dogs International, 

North America (ADI–NA), https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-17915. 

53Comment from American Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19138. 

approach unfairly discriminated against 

individuals with particular types of 

disabilities. Some commenters also 

noted that the proposed rule harmonizes 

DOT’s approach with that of other 

Federal agencies in this respect. In 

contrast, four airlines (Air Canada, 

Allegiant Airlines, Asiana Airlines, and 

Spirit Airlines) and one advocacy 

organization 45 (the Michigan 

Developmental Disabilities Council) 

recommended that the Department 

retain heightened documentation 

requirements for psychiatric service 

animal users because of concerns that 

individuals who wish to travel with 

their pets in the cabin for free may start 

misrepresenting their pets as psychiatric 

service animals. 

With respect to monitoring potential 

falsification of pets as psychiatric 

service animals, we received a range of 

responses. A4A expressed concern that 

‘‘the fraud will migrate to the PSA 

category,’’ and urged the Department to 

explain how it would collect data to 

monitor the issue.46 All Nippon 

Airways (ANA) expressed a similar 

view.47 American Kennel Club urged 

the Department to monitor fraud with 

respect to psychiatric service animals.48

PVA expressed concerns about the 

Department’s stated intent to monitor 

potential fraud by individuals who 

attempt to pass off their pets as 

psychiatric service animals. PVA 

indicated that ‘‘the Department provides 

no information about why suspicion 

should be cast on psychiatric service 

animal users versus animals that assist 

passengers with other non-apparent 

disabilities.’’ 49 PVA also noted that 

without a clear sense of how that 

monitoring would take place, the public 

would not know whether any 

conclusions are based on accurate data. 

DOT Response 

The Department agrees with 

commenters who expressed the view 

that it is inappropriate to allow airlines 

to impose greater burdens on 

psychiatric service animal users than on 

individuals who utilize service animals 

that are trained to do work or perform 

tasks for the benefit of individuals with 

physical or other types of disabilities. 

Accordingly, the Department will no 

longer draw a distinction between 

psychiatric service animal users when 

traveling in air transportation and other 

service animal users. This means that 

psychiatric service animals will be 

subject to the same regulations as other 

service animals. Most notably, 

psychiatric service animal users will no 

longer be required to provide a letter 

from a licensed mental health 

professional detailing the passenger’s 

need for the animal, nor will they be 

required to check in one hour before the 

check-in time for other passengers. 

The Department will, however, 

monitor whether unscrupulous 

individuals are attempting to pass off 

their pets as service animals for nonapparent disabilities, including (but not 

limited to) psychiatric disabilities. This 

process is not intended to single out or 

unduly burden psychiatric service 

animal users. Indeed, in the NPRM, the 

Department noted the possibility that 

individuals could also attempt to pass 

off their pets as service animals for nonapparent physical disabilities, such as 

diabetes. The Office of Aviation 

Consumer Protection welcomes the 

input and assistance of airlines, 

disability advocacy organizations, and 

other stakeholders on how best to 

conduct the monitoring to ensure 

accurate data. 

C. Species 

The NPRM 

In the NPRM, the Department 

proposed to limit the species of animals 

that airlines would be required to 

recognize as service animals to dogs. 

Under the Department’s proposal, while 

airlines could choose to transport other 

species of animals that assist 

individuals with disabilities in the 

cabin for free pursuant to an established 

airline policy, they would only be 

required under Federal law to recognize 

dogs as service animals. The 

Department’s proposal considered the 

fact that dogs are the most common 

animal species used to assist 

individuals with their disabilities, both 

on and off aircraft, and that dogs have 

both the temperament and ability to do 

work and perform tasks while behaving 

appropriately in a public setting and 

while being surrounded by a large group 

of people. 

The Department decided against 

adopting a proposal that would include 

other species as service animals, 

including miniature horses and 

capuchin monkeys. However, the 

Department requested specific comment 

on whether it should recognize those 

animals under its definition of a service 

animal. 

Comments Received 

The Department received 

approximately 1,100 comments on this 

topic from individuals with disabilities. 

Commenters generally support dogs as 

service animals, which is unsurprising 

as dogs have been, and continue to be, 

the most common species of service 

animal relied upon by individuals with 

disabilities.50 The AAAE commented 

that dogs represent approximately 90 

percent or more of animals traveling on 

aircraft, and supported recognizing dogs 

exclusively as service animals because 

they are easily trained, and can hold 

their elimination function for extended 

periods of time.51 Assistance Dogs 

International, North America (ADI–NA) 

noted that dogs have both the 

temperament and the capability to assist 

individuals with disabilities by 

mitigating their disabilities through the 

performance of tasks.52 American 

Airlines also noted that limiting the 

species of service animals to dogs 

provides greater predictability and 

access for most people with 

disabilities.53 The International Air 

Transport Association (IATA) and 

individual foreign airline commenters 

also support including dogs exclusively 

as service animals. These commenters 

argued that requiring all carriers, both 

domestic and foreign, to recognize only 

dogs, would bring the regulations for the 

domestic carriage of service animals in 

alignment with those for international 

carriage, since foreign carriers have only 

been required under DOT’s ACAA 

regulation to transport dogs as service 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79750 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

54Comment from International Air Transport 

Association (IATA), https://beta.regulations.gov/ 

comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041. 

55Comment from Air Canada, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19328. 

56 DOJ, while not recognizing miniature horses as 

service animals, requires entities covered by the 

ADA to make reasonable modifications in their 

policies, practices, or procedures to permit an 

individual with a disability to use a miniature horse 

that has been individually trained to do work or 

perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with 

a disability. DOJ sets forth four assessment factors 

to assist entities in determining whether reasonable 

modifications can be made to allow a miniature 

horse into a specific facility—(1) whether the 

miniature horse is housebroken; (2) whether the 

miniature horse is under the owner’s control; (3) 

whether the facility can accommodate the miniature 

horse’s type, size, and weight; and (4) whether the 

miniature horse’s presence will compromise 

legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe 

operation of the facility. See 28 CFR 35.136(i); 28 

CFR 36.302(c)(9). 

57Comment from DREDF, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19264. 

58Comment from Autistic Self Advocacy 

Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232. 

59Comment from The Disability Coalition (New 

Mexico), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19219. 

60Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog 

Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092. 

61Comment from Starfleet Service Dogs, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-18551. 

62Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

63Comment from American Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19138.https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19138. 

64Comment from Ethiopian Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-10984. 

65Comment from Transport Workers Union, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19183. 

66Comment from the Autistic Self Advocacy 

Network, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19232. 

67Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

68Comment from Helping Hands: Monkey 

Helpers for the Disabled, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-18160. 

animals.54 Air Canada also commented 

that no country other than the United 

States has required the acceptance of 

service animals other than dogs.55

More than 400 individual 

commenters, however, supported also 

including miniature horses in the 

Department’s definition of a service 

animal. These commenters noted that 

some individuals with disabilities may 

not be able to use dogs to accommodate 

their disability because of allergies or 

religious and/or cultural reasons. 

Furthermore, these commenters note 

that excluding miniature horses runs 

counter to DOT’s mission of promoting 

consistency among Federal regulations, 

as DOJ requires regulated entities, in 

certain circumstances, to recognize 

miniature horses as a reasonable 

accommodation under the ADA.56 The 

DREDF commented that DOT’s proposal 

to ‘‘eliminate access for miniature 

horses is particularly concerning 

because these animals have access to 

public accommodations as a reasonable 

accommodation under the Department 

of Justice’s Americans with Disabilities 

Act.’’ 57 Similarly, the Autistic Self 

Advocacy Network commented that 

DOT’s proposal to limit service animals 

to dogs is arbitrary and inconsistent 

with DOT’s stated goal of harmonizing 

Federal regulatory requirements, and 

that DOT’s proposal to exclude 

miniature horses is more restrictive than 

DOJ’s regulations implementing Title III 

of the ADA, which allow people with 

disabilities to use miniature horses on 

an individualized basis.58 Finally, The 

Disability Coalition (New Mexico) 

commented that by diverging from the 

ADA, DOT would be promoting 

confusion rather than reducing it.59

Disability rights advocates that 

commented in support of including 

miniature horses in DOT’s ACAA 

definition of a service animal 

commented that space on the aircraft 

should not be a concern when 

considering whether a miniature horse 

can be accommodated in an aircraft 

cabin. The commenters argued that the 

Department’s ACAA rule has always 

required airlines to allow miniature 

horses to accompany an individual with 

a disability on aircraft, subject to aircraft 

size limitations and FAA safety 

regulations. Psychiatric Service Dog 

Partners commented that many 

miniature horses are comparable in size 

to a St. Bernard, and that many can fold 

their legs and lie down more easily than 

their larger equine counterparts.60

Similarly, Starfleet Service Dogs 

commented that the height of a 

miniature service horse, from its 

withers, should generally be 34 inches 

or shorter, and that in most cases a Great 

Dane will be larger and take up more 

room than a miniature horse.61

Airlines and other industry 

stakeholders who oppose the inclusion 

of miniature horses argue that miniature 

horses are too big to be accommodated 

in the cabin of an aircraft, and that 

potential safety concerns could arise 

from transporting miniature horses in 

the aircraft cabin. A4A asserted that a 

miniature horse’s size, weight, and 

inability to curl up in a passenger’s 

allotted foot space poses a substantial 

risk to flight safety, including the safety 

of passengers and crew, and that the 

presence of miniature horses in an 

aircraft cabin would pose a serious risk 

of injury to passengers and crew during 

moderate to severe turbulence or an 

emergency situation due to these 

animals’ weight and size.62 American 

Airlines likewise commented that 

miniature horses are classified as 

livestock, have hooves, are not as 

flexible as dogs, are unable to manage 

their elimination functions the way a 

trained service dog can, and that a 

miniature horse’s hooves could 

puncture an aircraft evacuation slide in 

the event of an evacuation, potentially 

disabling it.63

A smaller number of disability 

advocacy organizations support the 

inclusion of cats and other animal 

species as service animals. Ethiopian 

Airlines commented that only dogs and 

cats should be permitted as service and 

emotional support animals.64 Similarly, 

the Transport Workers Union of 

America recognizes that while dogs are 

the most common service animals, other 

types of animals may also be trained to 

provide needed assistance to 

individuals with disabilities.65 The 

Autistic Self Advocacy Network 

commented that cats can be trained to 

perform tasks, such as detecting 

seizures.66 Conversely, A4A commented 

that cats have neither the temperament 

nor ability to be trained to do work or 

tasks to assist an individual with a 

disability or to behave appropriately in 

an aircraft cabin.67

The Department also specifically 

sought comment on whether it should 

recognize capuchin monkeys in its 

revised service animal definition. 

Several advocacy organization 

commenters argued that capuchin 

monkeys deserve special treatment 

under DOT’s ACAA rule and that DOT 

should require airlines to transport 

these animals, so long as they remain in 

a carrier, because of the invaluable 

accommodations these animals provide 

to individuals with disabilities. Helping 

Hands: Monkey Helpers for the Disabled 

commented that its capuchin monkeys 

are transported in pet carriers, often 

undetected, and wear diapers so that the 

possibility of bodily fluids escaping the 

carrier are de minimis, and the 

possibility of disease transmission is 

prevented.68

Airlines and other organizations such 

as AVMA continue to believe that other 

animal species, and capuchin monkeys 

in particular, should not be included in 

DOT’s definition of a service animal 

because of animal welfare concerns, the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79751 

69Comment from AVMA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19283. 

70Comment from ADI–NA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-17915. 

71Comment from A4A, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

72AAAE commented that dogs represent 

approximately 90 percent or more of animals 

traveling on aircraft and according to Psychiatric 

Service Dog Partners, miniature horses are 

substantially less common. 

Miniature horses are not at all common as pets, 

nor is there reason to think they would become so. 

Generally, a person is unable to and does not 

acquire a miniature horse without deliberate 

planning. Further, if someone is to travel with a 

large animal with needs like that of a mini-horse, 

the training and planning that travel requires carries 

with it greater assurances of handler responsibility 

than do the tag-along possibilities of many pets. 

There is no good reason to believe that allowing 

access with service miniature horses would 

translate to any increase in the public trying to 

bring an assortment of pets with them as service 

animals. 

See comment from Psychiatric Service Dog 

Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092. 

potential for serious injury, and 

zoonotic risks.69 ADI–NA commented 

that capuchin monkeys are not 

domesticated animals and subjecting 

these animals to stress in the air travel 

environment increases the chance of 

their behaving aggressively or at least 

disruptively during air travel.70 Finally, 

A4A commented that capuchin 

monkeys would likely accompany a 

qualified trainer on an aircraft, for the 

purposes of transporting the animal for 

delivery to an individual with a 

disability, instead of accompanying an 

individual with a disability, which 

ultimately brings the transport of 

capuchin monkeys beyond the scope of 

DOT’s existing ACAA rule.71

DOT Response 

The Department has considered the 

comments received and has decided to 

adopt, as proposed, a rule limiting the 

species of service animals to dogs only. 

This decision considers that dogs are 

the most common animal species used 

by individuals to mitigate disabilities 

both on and off aircraft. A rule requiring 

airlines to accept trained service dogs 

will permit the vast majority of service 

animal users to travel with their service 

animals while also minimizing 

confusion and safety concerns for 

airlines, airports, and individuals with 

disabilities. Overall, dogs have the 

temperament and ability to be trained to 

do work and perform tasks while 

behaving appropriately in a public 

setting, and while being surrounded by 

a large group of people in the close 

confines of an aircraft cabin. Although 

airlines may choose to transport other 

species of animals, such as cats, 

miniature horses, and capuchin 

monkeys, that assist individuals with 

disabilities in the cabin for free 

pursuant to an established airline 

policy, they would only be required 

under Federal law to recognize trained 

dogs as service animals. 

Although some service animal users 

would prefer to, and in fact do, use 

miniature horses instead of dogs as 

service animals, the number of 

individuals that use trained miniatures 

horses as service animals is quite small 

compared to that of service animal dog 

users.72 The number of miniature horses 

transported in the cabin by airlines 

annually is also exceptionally small, 

and airlines are free to accommodate the 

transport of miniature horses for 

passengers if they choose to do so. 

There are also practical concerns related 

to the carriage of miniature horses that 

may make it difficult for airlines to 

accommodate these animals on small 

aircraft safely. While one commenter 

noted that miniature horses are more 

flexible than large horses, as a practical 

matter they are far less flexible than 

dogs and are unable to curl up at the feet 

of the handler and fit into the space 

directly in front of the service animal 

user’s seat, like most dogs. In certain 

instances, miniature horses may need to 

occupy the space in front of more than 

one seat to be accommodated on an 

aircraft, and in some instances, they 

may need to occupy the space in front 

of an entire row of seats to be 

accommodated in the aircraft. 

The Department was also 

unpersuaded that airlines should be 

required to carry capuchin monkeys. As 

the Department stated in its proposal, 

although trained capuchin monkeys can 

assist persons with limited mobility 

with their daily tasks, capuchin 

monkeys may present a safety risk to 

other passengers as they have the 

potential to transmit diseases and may 

exhibit ‘‘unpredictable aggressive 

behavior.’’ Further, capuchin monkeys 

fall outside of the regulatory framework 

because qualified trainers, rather than 

individuals with disabilities, typically 

travel by air to deliver the monkeys to 

an individual with a disability, and 

would not be accompanied by the 

service animal user. 

D. Breed or Type of Dog 

The NPRM 

The Department proposed to continue 

to prohibit carriers from refusing to 

transport a trained dog as a service 

animal based solely on breed or 

generalized physical type. Under the 

Department’s proposal, airlines would 

continue to assess each animal 

individually to determine whether a 

specific animal poses a direct threat to 

the health or safety of others, instead of 

determining whether to transport a 

service animal based on stereotypes or 

generalized assumptions about how a 

breed or type of dog may or may not 

behave. The Department also 

specifically sought comment on whether 

the unique environment of a crowded 

airplane cabin in flight justifies 

permitting airlines to prohibit pit bulltype dogs, or any other particular breed 

or type of dog, from traveling on aircraft 

under the ACAA, even when those dogs 

have been individually trained to 

perform as service animals to assist a 

passenger with a disability. 

Comments Received 

The Department received nearly 700 

comments on whether airlines should 

be permitted to restrict service dogs 

based on breed or type. Most 

commenters supported the Department’s 

proposal, opposing a departmental 

regulation that would categorically 

exclude any specific dog breed or type. 

These commenters noted that 

individuals with disabilities use a wide 

range of dog breeds as service animals 

to accommodate a variety of disabilities, 

and airlines should not be permitted to 

refuse transportation to certain breeds or 

types of dogs as long as the dogs do not 

pose a direct threat and are individually 

trained to do work or perform tasks for 

the benefit of an individual with a 

disability. Most, if not all, disability 

advocates supported the Department’s 

proposal to prohibit dog breed or type 

restrictions, arguing that the 

determination of whether a particular 

service animal poses a direct threat 

should be based on an individualized, 

observed, and objective assessment by 

the airline, and should not be based on 

generalized assumptions or stereotypes 

about the dog’s type or breed. Disability 

advocates also expressed support for 

DOT’s proposal because it is consistent 

with DOJ’s ADA regulations, with 

respect to prohibiting regulated entities 

from limiting a service animal to a 

specific breed. Various commenters also 

cited studies that have concluded that 

environmental factors, rather than a 

dog’s breed, determine a dog’s 

propensity to harm a person or animal. 

Regarding a specific breed, the 

Department received the most feedback 

in the comments about pit bulls. 

According to Wisdom Panel, a pit bull 

DNA testing organization, the term ‘‘pit 

bull’’ does not refer to a single 

recognized breed of dog, but rather to a 

genetically diverse group of breeds that 

are associated by similar physical 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79752 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

73https://help.wisdompanel.com/s/article/DoesWisdom-Panel-test-for-Pit-bull. 

74 Id. 

75Comment from the Humane Society of the 

United States and the Humane Society Legislative 

Fund, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOTOST-2018-0068-19184. 

76https://atts.org/breed-statistics/ 

statistics-page1/. 

77Comment from the Humane Society of the 

United States and the Humane Society Legislative 

Fund, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOTOST-2018-0068-19184. 

78Comment from the Humane Society of the 

United States and the Humane Society Legislative 

Fund, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOTOST-2018-0068-19184. 

79 Id. 

80Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 81Comment from American Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19138. 

82 Id. 

83See Comments from Air Canada Airlines, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19328, and Spirit Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19221. 

84Comment from Deutsche Lufthansa Airlines 

(Lufthansa), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19351. 

85Comment from Lufthansa Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19351. 

86Comment from DogsBite.org, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-18935. 

87 Id. 

88Comment from ANIMALS 24–7, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-12212. https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-12212. 

89 Id. 

traits.73 Wisdom Panel explains that pit 

bull-type dogs have historically been 

bred by combining guard-type breeds 

with terriers for certain desired 

characteristics, and, as such, they may 

retain many genetic similarities to their 

original breeds and other closely related 

breeds.74 According to the Humane 

Society, 46 percent of dogs in the 

United States were of mixed breed as of 

2012.75 The American Temperament 

Test Society found that more than 85 

percent of pit bull-type dogs have tested 

with above average temperaments (85.6 

percent of Golden Retrievers and 85 

percent of German Shepherds tested the 

same).76 According to the Humane 

Society, an AVMA study found that 

physical breed standards/visual 

identification as a way of identifying a 

dog’s breed, which is the method used 

by airlines to identify dog breed, is 

seriously flawed. 77 Furthermore, the 

Humane Society states that an American 

Journal of Sociological Research study 

found that animal professionals, 

veterinarians, and animal control 

officers were unable to identify correctly 

dog breeds visually when compared 

with DNA evidence, and that dogs with 

blocky heads and thick necks were 

commonly misidentified as pit bulls 

because there is no clear definition or 

set of characteristics that define a ‘‘pit 

bull’’ type.78 Commenters also cited a 

growing body of evidence suggesting 

that pit bulls do not have a stronger bite 

strength than similar-sized dogs. 

According to a study cited by the 

Humane Society, which looked at 150 

scientific papers from 1969 to 2009, and 

two legal cases, many claims about the 

jaw strength of pit bull-type dogs are 

based on misinterpretations with no 

reliable data or sources.79 Commenters 

also noted that numerous municipalities 

across the country are rescinding their 

pit bull bans, realizing that the bans are 

misguided. Furthermore, commenters 

argued that if DOT ultimately requires 

that all service animals be trained, there 

would be no need to ban pit bulls for 

fear of their behavior. 

The Department also received many 

comments in support of allowing 

airlines to ban specific breeds of service 

animals. Airlines and airline 

organizations expressed concerns that 

not allowing airlines to restrict service 

animals based on breed could result in 

an unsafe flying environment and 

argued that airlines should have the 

discretion to choose whether to 

transport dogs that are capable of 

inflicting serious harm. A4A argued that 

not allowing airlines to restrict transport 

of service animals based on breed or 

generalized type of dog would increase 

the risk of animal misbehavior, which 

could result in serious injury to other 

passengers, crew, and service animals.80

They argued that certain breeds of dog, 

which account for a small minority of 

the total dog population, are not suited 

to function as trained service animals. 

They also noted that certain breeds raise 

legitimate fears from other passengers 

and animals, including other service 

dogs and handlers. American Airlines 

asserted that airplanes are a unique 

environment—‘‘they are crowded spaces 

with no opportunity for egress—which 

could be triggering, and triggering an 

animal with large and powerful jaws 

and neck muscles that can be ferocious 

if ‘provoked,’ is a direct threat to the 

health and safety of our crews, 

passengers, and other service 

animals.’’ 81 American Airlines further 

argued that there is precedent for 

adopting a more stringent approach in 

the airline environment because air 

travel differs from other places of public 

accommodation. Some airlines argued 

that individualized assessments are not 

enough.82 For example, Spirit Airline 

and Air Canada argued that some 

animals are more prone to aggression 

and may not exhibit such behavior until 

they are onboard an aircraft.83 Thus, 

even with the ability to refuse 

transportation to dogs that exhibit 

aggressive behavior, it may, in some 

instances, be too late by the time an 

animal that eventually exhibits 

aggressive behavior has boarded an 

aircraft. 

Foreign airlines and commenters 

raised concerns about jurisdictions 

outside of the United States that impose 

entry restrictions on certain dog breeds. 

Deutsche Lufthansa Airlines (Lufthansa) 

urged DOT to consider allowing airlines 

to restrict service animals of specific 

breeds because, with respect to 

international travel from the United 

States, there are other additional foreign 

regulations to comply with concerning 

the transport of animals.84 Specifically, 

Lufthansa noted that France and 

Germany, for example, have 

implemented strict entry bans for 

specific breeds of dogs, such as 

Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American 

Pitbull Terriers, Mastiff type dogs, and 

Tosa Inu (France); and Pit Bull Terriers, 

American Staffordshire Terriers, 

Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and Bull 

Terrier (Germany), and that requiring 

airlines to transport all breeds may 

present a conflict of laws that would 

cause severe disruption, not only to the 

airline but also to passengers.85

Many individual commenters also 

opposed recognizing pit bulls as service 

animals. According to dogbites.org, 

which obtains data on canine-related 

injuries and fatalities from news reports, 

photographs, police reports, coroner 

reports, and court filings, canines killed 

512 individuals in the United States 

between 2005 and 2019.86 Of the 512 

individuals killed by dogs, dogbites.org 

reports that pit bulls were involved in 

346 of these deaths (66 percent of the 

deaths) despite only comprising about 7 

percent of the total U.S. dog 

population.87 Similarly, media reports 

and news accounts tracked by 

ANIMALS 24–7 since 1982 indicate that 

approximately one pit bull in 100 will 

kill or disfigure a human, or kill another 

pet or livestock animal, each year.88

According to ANIMALS 24–7, two 

recent studies published in prominent 

scientific journals point toward 

anatomical differences in dog brain 

structure among various breeds, which 

in dogs bred for centuries to fight, 

appear to be linked to reactivity and 

aggression.89


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79753 

90See Frequently Asked Questions about Service 

Animals and the ADA, Questions 22–24, available 

at https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_

qa.html https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_

animal_qa.html (July 20, 2015): 

[I]f an individual uses a breed of dog that is 

perceived to be aggressive because of breed 

reputation, stereotype, or the history or experience 

the observer may have with other dogs, but the dog 

is under the control of the individual with a 

disability and does not exhibit aggressive behavior, 

the public accommodation cannot exclude the 

individual or the animal from the place of public 

accommodation. The animal can only be removed 

if it engages in the behaviors mentioned in 

§ 36.302(c) (as revised in the final rule) or if the 

presence of the animal constitutes a fundamental 

alteration to the nature of the goods, services, 

facilities, and activities of the place of public 

accommodation. 

See also 75 FR 56236, 52266–56267 (September 

15, 2010): 

[I]f an individual uses a breed of dog that is 

perceived to be aggressive because of breed 

reputation, stereotype, or the history or experience 

the observer may have with other dogs, but the dog 

is under the control of the individual with a 

disability and does not exhibit aggressive behavior, 

the public accommodation cannot exclude the 

individual or the animal from the place of public 

accommodation. The animal can only be removed 

if it engages in the behaviors mentioned in 

§ 36.302(c) (as revised in the final rule) or if the 

presence of the animal constitutes a fundamental 

alteration to the nature of the goods, services, 

facilities, and activities of the place of public 

accommodation. 

91 DOJ explains that it did not classify emotional 

support animals as service animals because the 

provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort 

and companionship does not constitute work or 

tasks. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability by Public Accommodations and in 

Commercial Facilities, 75 FR 56236, 56269 (Sept. 

15, 2010). 

DOT Response 

The Department is declining in this 

final rule to adopt a categorical 

exclusion for particular breeds or types 

of dogs as service animals and will 

continue at this time to prohibit airlines 

from refusing to accommodate a dog 

that is individually trained to do work 

or perform tasks for the benefit of a 

qualified person with a disability and 

that otherwise satisfies the requirements 

of a service animal based solely on the 

dog’s breed or generalized type. 

However, the final rule specifies that 

airlines are permitted to make an 

individualized assessment based on 

reasonable judgement and objective 

evidence to determine if a service 

animal poses a direct threat to the 

health or safety of others. The 

Department believes that this standard, 

which is based on objective evidence of 

the dog’s behavior, rather than 

generalized assumptions about how a 

breed or type of dog would be expected 

to behave, provides airlines with the 

best means of determining whether the 

particular animal poses a direct threat to 

the health and safety of others. 

Furthermore, prohibiting airlines from 

banning particular breeds of dogs, 

including pit bull-type dogs, on aircraft 

is consistent with DOJ guidance under 

the ADA. We note that DOJ also rejects 

an outright ban on service animals 

because of their breed in implementing 

its regulations under the ADA. DOJ has 

advised municipalities that prohibit 

specific breeds of dogs that they must 

make an exception for a service animal 

of a prohibited breed, unless the dog 

poses a direct threat to the health or 

safety of others, a determination that 

must be made on a case-by-case basis.90

Commenters suggesting that airlines are 

not able accurately to distinguish a pit 

bull-type dog from a non-pit bull-type 

dog that may have similar features 

unless DNA testing has been conducted 

further supports the Department’s 

position that categorically excluding 

particular breeds is not appropriate. 

The Department also recognizes the 

concerns raised by IATA and foreign 

airlines that certain foreign jurisdictions 

may have laws prohibiting passengers 

from bringing certain breeds of dogs into 

these jurisdictions. To address this 

concern, the Department has included 

language, in section 382.79(a)(3), that 

makes clear that an airline may deny 

transport to a service animal if the 

animal’s carriage would violate 

applicable health or safety requirements 

of a foreign government. 

The Department understands the 

concerns raised about pit bulls and 

certain other breeds or types of dogs that 

have a reputation of attacking people 

and inflicting severe and sometimes 

fatal injuries. The Department also 

understands that there may be concerns 

that certain dogs may be dangerous, 

particularly dogs that have been bred to 

fight, which may be linked to a 

heightened degree of reactivity and 

aggression. The Department will 

continue to monitor published studies 

or accounts of dog behavior by breed or 

type and reports of incidents involving 

service dogs, and if there are compelling 

studies or data indicating that there are 

particular dog types or breeds that are 

established to pose a heightened threat 

to the health and safety of people in 

close proximity, we will revisit this 

issue. At this time, however, the 

Department finds that the airlines’ 

ability to conduct an individualized 

assessment of a service animal’s 

behavior to determine whether the 

service animal poses a direct threat to 

the health or safety of others is an 

adequate measure to ensure that 

aggressive animals are not transported 

on aircraft, rather than permitting 

airlines to ban an entire breed or type 

of dog. 

E. Considerations on Alignment With 

DOJ Definition 

The NPRM 

In the NPRM, the Department 

proposed to define a service animal as 

a dog that is individually trained to do 

work or perform tasks for the benefit of 

a qualified individual with a disability, 

including a physical, sensory, 

psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental 

disability. DOT’s proposed definition of 

a service animal, which is more closely 

aligned with DOJ’s definition of a 

service animal under the ADA, is 

intended to address concerns raised by 

airlines, airports, and disability 

advocates about challenges associated 

with inconsistencies between the 

definition of a service animal in the 

airport environment and on aircraft. 

DOT’s existing service animal 

regulations require airlines to recognize 

emotional support animals, and all 

species of service animals, with limited 

exceptions. Meanwhile, DOJ’s ADA 

regulations, which apply to public and 

commercial airports and airport 

facilities operated by businesses like 

restaurants and stores, limit service 

animals to dogs, and do not recognize 

emotional support animals as service 

animals.91 The significant 

inconsistencies between DOT’s former 

ACAA definition of a service animal, 

and DOJ’s ADA definition of a service 

animal have presented practical 

challenges for airlines and airports and 

the traveling public. The Department, 

through its NPRM proposal, sought to 

promote greater consistency among 

Federal regulatory requirements, to 

decrease confusion for individuals 

traveling with service animals, to 

recognize the distinct characteristics of 

an aircraft cabin as compared to other 

indoor environments, and to streamline 

the treatment of service animals in the 

context of air travel. 

Comments Received 

The Department received more than 

7,200 comments on the proposed 

definition of a service animal, with a 

nearly even split between individual 

commenters who supported or opposed 

the Department’s proposed definition. 

Most disability rights advocates and 

all of the airlines and airline 

organizations that commented on the 

NPRM expressed support for the 

Department’s proposed definition of a 

service animal. The American Council 

of the Blind supported the proposal, 

stating that limiting service animals to 

trained animals will make the 

requirements for airlines and their 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79754 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

92Comment from American Council of the Blind, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-18365. 

93Comment from International Air Transport 

Association, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041. 

94Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

95Comment from U.S. Support Animals, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19248. 

96 Id. 

97Comments from U.S. Support Animals, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19248 and Autism Self Advocacy Network, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19232. 

98HUD, which enforces Fair Housing Act 

regulations, recognizes two types of assistance 

animals: (1) Service animals, and (2) other trained 

or untrained animals that do work, perform tasks, 

provide assistance, and/or provide therapeutic 

emotional support for individuals with disabilities 

(‘‘support animal’’). See Service Animals and 

Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in 

Housing and HUD-Funded Programs, FHEO Notice: 

FHEO–2020–01 at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/ 

PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf 

(Jan. 28, 2020), and https://www.hud.gov/sites/ 

dfiles/PA/documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24- 

20.pdf. 

99Although the Department, in this final rule, has 

closely aligned its service animal definition under 

the ACAA with DOJ’s service animal definition 

under the ADA, the substantive requirements in 

this rule differ from DOJ’s requirements for service 

animals under the ADA in numerous respects. For 

instance, in this final rule, the Department allows 

carriers to require passengers traveling with service 

animals to submit a DOT health and behavior 

attestation form and for long flights, a DOT service 

animal relief attestation form. Conversely, DOJ 

regulations prohibit covered entities from requiring 

documentation from a service animal user, such as 

proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or 

licensed as a service animal. See 28 CFR 35.136(f), 

28 CFR 36.302(c)(6). 

100The term ‘‘safety assistant’’ is used in the 

Department’s disability regulation. See 14 CFR 

382.29(b). 

101See Frequently Asked Questions about Service 

Animals and the ADA, Questions 27, available at 

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_

qa.html, (July 20, 2015), ‘‘The ADA requires that 

service animals be under the control of the handler 

at all times. In most instances, the handler will be 

the individual with a disability or a third party who 

accompanies the individual with a disability.’’ 

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_

qa.html. 

employees less complicated and more 

succinct; 92 while other groups 

supported the definition because it is 

more consistent with DOJ’s ADA 

definition of a service animal. These 

commenters argued that a more 

consistent definition would benefit 

travelers with disabilities. 

The majority of airlines and airline 

organizations likewise supported the 

Department’s proposal, in the interest of 

greater regulatory consistency. IATA 93

commented that a service animal 

definition that is more consistent 

between the ACAA and the ADA will 

provide greater clarity for airlines, 

airports, individuals with disabilities, 

and the traveling public. Likewise, A4A 

commented that DOT’s proposal to more 

closely align its definition with DOJ’s 

rules implementing the ADA would not 

only decrease confusion for individuals 

with a disability, airline personnel, and 

airports, but would also establish a clear 

distinction between a legitimate service 

animal that is trained to do work or 

perform a task for the benefit of a person 

with a disability and a pet.94

Several disability advocates opposed 

the Department’s proposed definition of 

a service animal. U.S. Support Animals 

urged the Department to focus on the 

language of the ACAA, which prohibits 

airlines from discriminating against 

individuals with disabilities, and 

discouraged DOT from seeking to align 

its definition of a service animal with 

DOJ’s ADA rule, when the ADA was 

enacted four years after the ACAA 95

U.S. Support Animals further 

commented that if Congress intended 

for the ACAA to be ‘‘subordinate’’ to the 

ADA, it could have easily repealed the 

ACAA and included its provision in the 

ADA.96 Both U.S. Support Animals and 

the Autistic Self Advocacy Network 

commented that it would be improper 

for the Department to align its ACAA 

definition of a service animal with DOJ’s 

ADA definition because unlike the 

ADA, which is broadly applicable to a 

number of contexts, the ACAA applies 

only to air transportation, and its 

regulations should pertain to the 

specific circumstances of air travel.97

These commenters believe that it would 

be more appropriate for DOT to align its 

regulations with HUD, which enforces 

FHA regulations,98 because 

discrimination in housing is more 

analogous to air travel as travelers who 

depend on service animals for 

assistance will likely be at their 

destination for longer periods of time 

and the loss of their service animal 

would be more acute. Specifically, the 

Autistic Self Advocacy Network notes 

that while an individual with a 

disability may be impacted somewhat 

by being separated from their service 

animal for a few hours while at 

establishments covered by the ADA, 

e.g., stores, restaurants, movie theaters, 

etc., the impact of being separated from 

a service animal is more significant in 

the housing and transportation context 

as the separation would be for a much 

longer duration. 

DOT Response 

The Department has considered the 

comments it received and Congress’s 

mandate in the FAA Act that the 

Department consider whether it should 

align its ACAA definition of a service 

animal with the service animal 

definition established by the DOJ in its 

rule implementing the ADA. In this 

final rule, the Department is revising its 

definition of a service animal under the 

ACAA as a dog, regardless of breed or 

type, that is individually trained to do 

work or perform tasks for the benefit of 

a qualified individual with a disability, 

including a physical, sensory, 

psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental 

disability. Species of animals other than 

dogs, emotional support animals, 

comfort animals, companionship 

animals, and service animals in training 

are not service animals under this 

definition. This revised definition does 

not preclude airlines from allowing 

passengers to travel with animals that 

are not included within the revised 

service animal definition; however, 

airlines are not required by Federal law 

to treat those animals as service 

animals. This revised definition is more 

in line with DOJ’s definition of a service 

animal and takes into consideration, as 

commenters raised, the challenges 

associated with the inconsistencies 

between the definition of a service 

animal in the airport environment and 

on aircraft that stakeholders have 

identified.99

2. Definition of Service Animal Handler 

The NPRM 

The Department proposed to define a 

service animal handler as a qualified 

individual with a disability who 

receives assistance from a service 

animal(s) that does work or performs 

tasks that are directly related to the 

individual’s disability, or a safety 

assistant 100 who accompanies an 

individual with a disability traveling 

with a service animal(s). The 

Department proposed that the service 

animal handler would be responsible for 

keeping the service animal under 

control at all times, and caring for and 

supervising the service animal, which 

includes toileting and feeding. The 

DOT’s proposed definition of a service 

animal handler differed from DOJ’s 

technical assistance, which states that a 

service animal handler can be either an 

individual with a disability or a third 

party who accompanies the individual 

with a disability.101 The Department 

proposed to limit the definition of 

service animal handlers to the 

individual with a disability who is 

being helped by the animal and a safety 

assistant, meaning another individual 

who is required to travel with the 

person with a disability to assist that 

person in an evacuation from the 

aircraft, in order to make clear that 

service animal trainers and other 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79755 

102Comments from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429, and DREDF, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19264. 

103Comment from Disability Rights Florida, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19336. 

104Comment from Open Doors Organization, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19305. 

105Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog 

Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092. 

106See Comment from Association of Asian 

Pacific Airlines (AAPA), https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19323, ‘‘[w]e also support DOT’s proposal to 

limit the definition of a service animal handler to 

a qualified individual with a disability or a safety 

assistant travelling with them, who will be 

responsible for keeping the animal under control at 

all times, and caring for and supervising the service 

animal, including toileting and feeding.’’ Also, see 

comment from A4A at Service animal handler, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19240, ’’[w]e support DOT’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘service animal handler’’ as ‘‘a 

qualified individual with a disability who receives 

assistance from a service animal(s) that does work 

or performs tasks that are directly related to the 

individual’s disability, or a safety assistant, as 

described in section 382.29(b), who accompanies an 

individual with a disability traveling with a service 

animal(s).’’ 

107The definition of service animal handler in 14 

CFR part 382 is solely for the purpose of 

determining the individuals who would be 

responsible for the care and control of an animal 

that does work or performs tasks that are directly 

related to an individual’s disability. It does not 

mean that these individuals would be considered 

service animal handlers under 14 CFR part 121. 

Specifically, they are not considered ‘‘persons 

necessary for the safe handling of animals’’ in 

section 14 CFR 121.583(a)(4)(ii), which provides 

that a person necessary for the safe handling of 

animals is excluded from the passenger-carrying 

requirements of part 121. See 14 CFR 

121.583(a)(4)(ii). 

passengers traveling with an individual 

with a disability on aircraft who are not 

safety assistants would not be 

considered service animal handlers 

under the ACAA rules. The Department 

sought comment generally on its 

decision to define the term ‘‘service 

animal handler’’ and sought comments 

on its proposed definition. The 

Department also sought comment on 

what impact, if any, its exclusion of 

third parties as service animal handlers 

might have on individuals with 

disabilities who are traveling on aircraft 

with a service animal. 

Comments Received 

Disability advocates, such as PVA and 

DREDF, opposed DOT’s proposed 

definition of a service animal handler, 

arguing that the Department should 

make its definition of a service animal 

handler consistent with DOJ’s ADA 

guidance on service animal handlers, 

which includes third parties.102

Disability Rights Florida also 

commented that it ‘‘urges DOT to use 

the DOJ ADA formulation to allow a 

third party, such as a parent, caretaker 

or aide, to also be a service animal 

handler for a young child or other 

individuals with a disability.’’ 103

Some disability advocates also 

opposed DOT’s proposal to define safety 

assistants as service animal handlers, 

arguing that safety assistants are not 

service animal handlers, as their 

purpose is to ensure safe 

disembarkation from the aircraft, not to 

handle a passenger’s service animal. 

Open Doors Organization commented 

that a ‘‘safety assistant’s sole purpose is 

to assist a traveler with a disability in 

the event of an emergency, not to 

provide personal care assistance or any 

other non-safety-related help to a 

traveler.’’ 104 Similarly, Psychiatric 

Service Dog Partners commented that a 

‘‘member of the disabled service animal 

user’s party should not need to meet the 

‘safety assistant’ description in 14 CFR 

382.29 in order to provide handling 

assistance.’’ 105 Conversely, with respect 

to airlines, the Association of Asian 

Pacific Airlines (AAPA) s and A4A both 

expressed support for DOT’s proposal to 

include safety assistant in its definition 

of a service animal handler.106

DOT Response 

The Department has decided to define 

the term ‘‘service animal handler’’ in its 

disability regulation differently from 

proposed.107 The Department is 

persuaded by the comments supporting 

the recognition of third-party service 

animal handlers consistent with DOJ’s 

ADA guidance and is revising its 

proposed definition of a service animal 

handler in this final rule to more closely 

align with DOJ’s treatment of a service 

animal handler. The revised definition 

includes third parties in the DOT 

definition of a service animal handler. It 

also excludes safety assistants because, 

as commenters noted, safety assistants 

do not necessarily serve the same role 

as service animal handlers. The revised 

definition also provides for the situation 

where a child with a disability, who 

may not be able to control a service 

animal physically, is accompanied by a 

parent or other third party who 

physically handles and controls the 

service animal on the child’s behalf. 

3. Service Animal Documentation 

In the NPRM, the Department 

proposed to allow airlines to require 

individuals traveling with a service 

animal to submit three DOT-created 

forms: (1) A certification of a service 

animal’s good behavior and training; (2) 

a certification of good health; and (3) for 

flight segments of eight hours or more, 

a certification that the animal would not 

need to relieve itself or could relieve 

itself in a way that does not create a 

health or sanitation risk. The 

Department proposed that each form 

include a warning to service animal 

users that it would be a Federal crime, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, to make 

false statements or representations on 

these forms to secure disability 

accommodations. The Department also 

proposed to allow airlines to require 

passengers to submit completed 

versions of these forms as a condition of 

travel. The Department sought comment 

on its proposal to standardize the 

service animal documentation process 

by allowing airlines to require DOT 

forms, and its proposal that the DOT 

forms be the only documentation that an 

airline could require from a passenger 

traveling with a service animal. The 

Department recognized that the DOJ 

does not allow these types of forms for 

public accommodation under the ADA. 

The Department reasoned, however, that 

air transportation is unique because it 

involves transporting a large number of 

individuals in a confined space 

thousands of feet in the air with no 

means of egress; accordingly, it stated 

that it would be appropriate for airlines 

to require these forms to ensure that the 

animal does not pose a health or safety 

risk to other passengers or service 

animals before boarding the cabin of the 

aircraft. 

DOT received nearly 500 comments 

on its proposal to allow airlines to 

require service animal handlers to 

submit the various forms to airlines. We 

will discuss each form and its elements 

in greater detail below. 

A. Behavior and Training Form 

The NPRM 

First, the Department proposed to 

allow airlines to require a U.S. 

Department of Transportation Air 

Transportation Service Animal Behavior 

and Training Attestation Form 

(Behavior and Training Form), to be 

completed by the service animal 

handler, which often is the same person 

as the individual with a disability who 

receives assistance from the service 

animal. The proposed Behavior and 

Training Form would have required the 

handler to certify that: (1) The animal 

has been individually trained to do 

work or perform tasks for the benefit of 

the passenger with a disability; (2) the 

animal has been trained to behave 

properly in public; (3) the handler is 

aware that the service animal must be 

under the handler’s control at all times; 

(4) the handler is aware that if the 

animal misbehaves in a way that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79756 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

108The Department was aware of airline policies 

requiring or recommending that passengers with 

disabilities traveling with service animals carry 

vaccination, training, or behavior documentation 

with them. However, these airline policies often 

were applied only to ESAs or PSAs. In 2019, the 

Department’s Office of Aviation Consumer 

Protections stated that ‘‘[w]hile section 382.117 

clearly sets forth the type of medical documentation 

that airlines may request from ESA and PSA users 

to reduce likelihood of abuse by passengers wishing 

to travel with their pets, the regulation does not 

explicitly permit or prohibit the use of additional 

documentation related to a service animal’s 

vaccination, training, or behavior.’’ See Guidance 

on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in 

Air Travel, Final Statement of Enforcement 

Priorities Regarding Service Animals, 84 FR 43480, 

43484 (Aug. 21, 2019). 

109See Comments from PVA, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429 and DREDF, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19264. PVA and Disability Rights Florida did 

argue that such forms could be required of 

emotional support animal users; however, this issue 

is now moot in light of the Department’s decision 

to allow airlines not to recognize emotional support 

animals as service animals. 

110Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

111Comment from Spirit Airlines, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19221. 

112Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog 

Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092. 

113Comments from ADI–NA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-17915; America’s VetDogs, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-18138; and Open Doors Organization, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19305. 

114Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240 and IATA, https://beta.regulations.gov/ 

comment/DOT-OST-2018-0068-19041. 

indicates it has not been properly 

trained, then the airline may treat the 

animal as a pet; and (5) the handler is 

aware that the handler may be liable for 

damage caused by the service animal’s 

misbehavior, so long as the airline 

charges passengers without disabilities 

for similar kinds of damage. 

The Department proposed to allow 

airlines to require this form as a 

condition of transport for individuals 

traveling with service animals because 

the form would allow airlines to receive 

direct assurances from service animal 

users of their animal’s good behavior 

and training. The form would have also 

served as an instrument to educate 

passengers traveling with service 

animals on how service animals in air 

transportation are expected to behave, 

and that the airline could charge 

passengers for damage caused by a 

service animal, so long as the airline 

had a policy of charging other 

passengers for similar kinds of damage. 

The Department also reasoned that the 

form itself would have the potential to 

serve as a deterrent for individuals who 

might otherwise seek to claim falsely 

that their pets are service animals, as 

those individuals may be less likely to 

falsify a Federal form and thus risk the 

potential for criminal prosecution. 

The Department sought comment on 

its proposal to allow airlines to require 

the DOT Behavior and Training Form, 

the general content of the form, and 

whether the form would help ensure 

that service animals are properly 

trained. DOT also sought comment on 

whether the form would serve as an 

effective fraud deterrent for passengers 

who might try to misrepresent their pets 

as service animals, and the impact this 

form would potentially impose on those 

individuals traveling with traditional 

service animals who were not 

previously required to provide 

documentation to airlines.108

Comments Received 

The proposed Behavior and Training 

Form was opposed by nearly sixty 

percent of individuals, and the great 

majority of the disability rights 

advocacy organizations, who 

commented on the issue. Those 

commenters who opposed this form, 

such as the National Council on 

Disability, the American Council for the 

Blind, and DREDF, argued that it would 

be unduly burdensome for passengers 

with disabilities, especially to those 

who had never been required to submit 

any type of documentation to travel 

with their service animal in the past. 

PVA commented that ‘‘[d]ecades of 

access without documentation have 

been provided for the vast majority of 

service animal users,’’ and that 

requiring all passengers with disabilities 

who use service animals to attest to 

their animal’s behavior and training, 

and provide a health form to gain access 

‘‘burdens an individual’s civil rights 

without any justification that such 

burden is needed.’’ 109 Other opponents 

argued that the forms were unnecessary 

and inconsistent with other Federal 

civil rights laws. 

The proposed Behavior and Training 

Form was supported by about forty 

percent of individuals, all of the airline 

and industry organizations, and a 

minority of advocacy organizations that 

commented on the issue. Supporters of 

the form, such as A4A, argued that it 

would provide a uniform method of 

ensuring that animals have been 

properly trained to perform a task or 

function and trained to behave in 

public, and the consistency of a DOT 

form would facilitate a smoother travel 

experience for persons with 

disabilities.110 Spirit Airlines 

commented that the DOT forms would 

‘‘lessen the opportunity for confusion 

and promote uniformity across domestic 

air travel.’’ 111 Psychiatric Service Dog 

Partners also commented that if DOT 

permitted airlines to require a form, it 

is important that the forms be uniform, 

transferable among airlines, and 

available to individuals with disabilities 

in an accessible format to reduce 

burdens on individuals traveling with 

service animals.112

While a number of organizations 

(such as ADI–NA, America’s VetDogs, 

and the Open Doors Organization) 

strongly oppose documentation 

requirements for individuals with 

disabilities traveling with trained 

service animals, these organizations 

commented that if the Department were 

to allow airlines to require behavior and 

training attestations, it would be less 

burdensome on individuals with 

disabilities if these attestations could be 

made through a check-box system 

available on each airline’s website 

during the reservation process.113 A4A 

and IATA indicated that the only 

effective way to reduce fraud is to 

require passengers to obtain a 

certification from an accredited service 

dog training organization such as 

Assistance Dogs International or the 

International Guide Dog Federation that 

the animal has been properly trained 

(either by the organization itself or by 

the dog’s handler).114

DOT Response 

The Department is of the view that 

allowing airlines to require individuals 

with disabilities to attest to their 

animal’s good behavior and training 

serves the important purpose of 

ensuring that passengers are aware of 

how their animals are expected to 

behave on aircraft. Furthermore, the 

Department believes that allowing 

airlines to require an attestation 

completed by the service animal users, 

rather than a veterinarian or other third 

party, as a means of verifying the service 

animal’s good behavior, training and 

good heath, will impose minimal 

burdens on service animal users. The 

Department also believes that a behavior 

and training attestation will assure 

airline personnel and the traveling 

public that an animal, which is being 

presented as a service animal for 

uncrated transport in the aircraft cabin, 

has been both trained to perform a task 

or function for the passenger with a 

disability, and has been trained to 

behave in public. As such, this final rule 

allows airlines to require passengers 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79757 

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). 116Other 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. 

117A current list of high risk rabies countries may 

be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/importation/ 

bringing-an-animal-into-the-united-states/rabiesvaccine.html. See 42 CFR 71.51(e). 

118https://www.aphis.usda.gov/library/forms/ 

pdf/APHIS7001.pdf. 

119Comment 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. 

120See 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. 

121Comment from AVMA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19283. 

traveling with a service animal to 

submit a completed U.S. Department of 

Transportation Service Animal Air 

Transportation Form (Air 

Transportation Form), as described 

more fully below, which includes an 

attestation from the service animal 

handler of a service animal’s good 

behavior and training. 

The Department is adopting its 

proposal that the only forms that 

airlines may require of passengers with 

service animals are the forms developed 

by the Department. In 2019, the 

Department’s Office of Aviation 

Consumer Protections had stated that it 

does not ‘‘intend to take action against 

an airline for asking service animal 

users to present documentation related 

to a service animal’s vaccination, 

training, or behavior, so long as it is 

reasonable to believe that the 

documentation would assist the airline 

in determining whether an animal poses 

a direct threat to the health or safety of 

others.’’ 115 This final rule makes it clear 

that airlines are not permitted to require 

any other documentation as a condition 

of transport, beyond the ones described 

in the rule. As such, service animal 

users will no longer have to navigate 

different forms propounded by different 

airlines. 

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

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. 

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

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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79758 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

122 Id. 

123 Id. 

124Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

125Comment from Open Doors Organization, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19305. 

126We recognize that instances of rabies in the 

United States are rare, and that dogs are generally 

required to be vaccinated for rabies. 

127PVA 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-OST2018-0068-19429, and DREDF, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19264. 

128See 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). 

129The Federal crime notification is discussed in 

greater detail in the next section below. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 DOTissued 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. 

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. 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79759 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–C 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3ER10DE20.002</GPH>
79760 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

130Comment from A4A, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

131 Id. 

132Comment from American Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19138. 

133Comment from Air Canada, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19328. 

134Comments 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. 

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

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79761 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–C 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3ER10DE20.003</GPH>
79762 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

135Comments 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. 

136Comments from and A4A, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

137Comment from Asiana Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19340. 

138Comment from Allegiant Air, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19164. 139Comments 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/. 140Comment from the California Chapter of the 

American Council of the Blind (ACB California) at 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19145. 

141Comment 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. 

142Comment from ANA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19025. 

143Comment from Asiana Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19340. 

144Comments 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. 

145Comments 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). 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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 safalsestatementreports@

dot.gov 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

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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79763 

147PRM 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; carrierdesigned 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. 

148Comment from Allegiant Air, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19164. 

149Comment 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. 

150Comments 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/. 

151Comments from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19348, and Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-17092. 

152Comment from ANA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19025. 

153Comment from Psychiatric Service Dog 

Partners, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-17092. 

154Comments from American Kennel Club, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19163, and Hope Service Dogs, 

Comment from Hope Service Dogs, Inc., https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-18702. 

155Comment from A4A, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

156Comment from ADI–NA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-17915. 

157Comment from ADI–NA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-17915. 

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

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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79764 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

158Comment from IATA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19041. 

159Airlines may require that the Relief Form be 

completed for each flight segment scheduled to take 

8 hours or more. 

160 14 CFR 382.79(a)(3); see also 14 CFR 382.7(g). 

161 14 CFR 382.80. 

162 14 CFR 382.75. 

responsibility of the passenger to 

comply with any and all applicable 

foreign laws, regulations, and 

paperwork requirements when traveling 

with their dog internationally.’’ 158

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. 

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

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 safetyrelated 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79765 

163Part 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). 

164Comment from American Council for the 

Blind, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOTOST-2018-0068-18365. 

165 Id. 

166Comment from America’s VetDogs, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-18138. 

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 CheckIn 

The NPRM 

In the NPRM, the Department stated 

that it would prohibit airlines from 

requiring individuals traveling with a 

service animal to provide the DOTissued 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. 

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 PostTraumatic 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79766 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

167Comment from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19348. 

168 Id. 

169Comment from Ginger G.B. Kutsch, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19306. 

170Comments 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. 

171Comment from the AAPA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19323. 

172 Id. 

173Comments 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. 

174Comment from and A4A, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

175Comments 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. 

176Comments 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. 

177Comment from ANA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19025. 

178 Id. 

179Comment from Open Doors Organization, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-19305. 

180Comment from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19348. 

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

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

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

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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79767 

181See 14 CFR 382.27(g). 

182Comments from Guide Dog users of Canada, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-18917, and Service Dogs of Virginia, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-32397. 

183Comment from American Council for the 

Blind, https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOTOST-2018-0068-18365. 

184Comment from the Oklahoma Disability Law 

Center, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237. 

185Comment from the Oklahoma Disability Law 

Center, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068-19237. 

186Comment from Service Dogs of Virginia, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-32397. 

187Comment from Hope Service Dogs, Inc., 

https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2018-0068-18702. 

188This 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). 

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 conveniencerelated 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. 

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

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

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

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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79768 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

189Comment from Service Dogs of Virginia, 

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST2018-0068-32397. 

190 Id. 

191See 14 CFR 382.3. 

192 85 FR 6452; see also Final Statement at 20– 

21 (carriers may not refuse transportation to a dog 

based solely on its breed). 

(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. 

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

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. 

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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79769 

193 Id. at 6454. 

194This principle also appears in section 382.74, 

relating to the ways in which a carrier may identify 

that an animal is a service animal. 

195The prior service animal rule had a nearly 

identical provision. See 14 CFR 382.117(g). 

196Comment from AAAE, https:// 

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19196. 

197Comment from Spirit Airlines, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19221. 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79770 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

198Comment from A4A, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 199Comment from PVA, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19429. 

200Comments 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. 

201While 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. 

202Comments 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=DOTOST-2018-0068-19237. 

203Comment from The Disability Coalition (New 

Mexico), https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/ 

DOT-OST-2018-0068-19219. 

204Comment from A4A, https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2018- 

0068-19240. 

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. 

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

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. 

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

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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79771 

205 14 CFR 382.7(c). 

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 nonsubstantive. 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79772 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

206See 14 CFR 399.73. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS DUE TO FINAL RULE

[2018 Dollars, millions] 

Impact Annual value 

Costs: 

Paperwork burden for passengers traveling with service animals .................................................................................. $1.3. 

Cost savings to airlines associated with providing ESA travel ........................................................................................ ¥$21.6 to ¥$15.6. 

Benefits: 

Lost benefits to individuals who no longer travel with ESAs ........................................................................................... ¥$10.6 to ¥$7.8. 

Reduction in negative externalities caused by ESAs ...................................................................................................... Not quantified. 

Transfers: 

Increased fees paid by passengers travelling with ESAs to airlines ............................................................................... $54.0 to $59.6. 

Net benefits (benefits minus costs) ........................................................................................................................... $3.7 to $12.5. 

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. 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79773 

207Comment 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-usflights. 

208For 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. 

209Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). ‘‘May 2018 

National Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates: United States.’’ https://www.bls.gov/oes/ 

current/oes_nat.htm. 

210See 40 CFR 1508.4. 

211 Id. 

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. 

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. 

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

Form Passengers Hours Total hours Hourly time 

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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382 

Air Carriers, Civil rights, Consumer 

protection, Individuals with Disabilities, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79774 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 382 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41705. 

■ 2. Amend § 382.3 by adding in 

alphabetical order the definitions of 

service animal and service animal 

handler to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 382.7, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 codesharing 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 382.27 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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 carriersupplied 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 inflight 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

■ 5. Revise the heading of subpart E and 

add §§ 382.72 through 382.80 to subpart 

E to read as follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 79775 

Subpart E—Accessibility of Aircraft 

and Service Animals on Aircraft 

Sec. 

* * * * * 

382.72 Must carriers allow a service animal 

to accompany a passenger with a 

disability? 

382.73 How do carriers determine if an 

animal is a service animal? May a carrier 

require that a service animal be under 

the control of the service animal user or 

handler? 

382.74 How many service animals must a 

carrier transport in the cabin of aircraft? 

382.75 May a carrier require documentation 

from passengers with disabilities seeking 

to travel with a service animal? 

382.76 May a carrier require a service 

animal user to physically check-in at the 

airport as a condition of travel with a 

service animal? 

382.77 May carriers restrict the location and 

placement of service animals on aircraft? 

382.78 May carriers charge individuals with 

disabilities for the damage their service 

animal causes? 

382.79 Under what other circumstances 

may carriers refuse to provide 

transportation to a service animal 

traveling with a passenger with a 

disability? 

382.80 May carriers impose additional 

restrictions on the transport of service 

animals? 

§ 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. 

§ 382.73 How do carriers determine if an 

animal is a service animal that must be 

accepted for transport? May a carrier 

require that a service animal be under the 

control of the service animal user or 

handler? 

(a) You may rely on one or more of 

the factors set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through)(3) of this section to determine 

if an animal is a service animal that 

must be accepted for transport. 

(1) You may make two inquiries to 

determine whether an animal qualifies 

as a service animal. You may ask if the 

animal is required to accompany the 

passenger because of a disability and 

what work or task the animal has been 

trained to perform. You must not ask 

about the nature or extent of a person’s 

disability or ask that the service animal 

demonstrate its work or task. 

(2) You may observe the behavior of 

an animal. A trained service animal will 

remain under the control of its handler. 

It does not run freely around an aircraft 

or an airport gate area, bark or growl 

repeatedly at other persons or other 

animals on the aircraft or in the airport 

gate area, bite, jump on, or cause injury 

to people, or urinate or defecate in the 

cabin or gate area. An animal that 

engages in such disruptive behavior 

demonstrates that it has not been 

successfully trained to behave properly 

in a public setting and carriers are not 

required to treat it as a service animal 

without a carrier in the cabin, even if 

the animal performs an assistive 

function for a passenger with a 

disability. 

(3) You may look for physical 

indicators, such as a harness or vest on 

the animal, to determine if the animal 

is a service animal. 

(b) You may require that a service 

animal be harnessed, leashed, or 

otherwise tethered at all times by the 

service animal user or service animal 

handler while in areas of the airport that 

you own, lease or control, or on an 

aircraft. 

§ 382.74 How many service animals must 

a carrier transport in the cabin of aircraft? 

You are not required to accept more 

than two service animals for a single 

passenger with a disability. 

§ 382.75 May a carrier require 

documentation from passengers with 

disabilities seeking to travel with a service 

animal? 

(a) If a passenger with a disability 

seeks to travel with a service animal, 

you may require the passenger to 

provide you, as a condition of 

permitting the service animal to travel 

in the cabin, a current completed U.S. 

Department of Transportation Service 

Animal Air Transportation Form. 

Current means the form was completed 

on or after the date the passenger 

purchased his or her airline ticket. 

(b) On a flight segment scheduled to 

take 8 hours or more, you may, as a 

condition of permitting a service animal 

to travel in the cabin, require the 

passenger with a disability traveling 

with the service animal to confirm that 

the animal will not need to relieve itself 

on the flight, or that the animal can 

relieve itself in a way that does not 

create a health or sanitation issue on the 

flight by providing a current DOT 

Service Animal Relief Attestation Form. 

Current means the form was completed 

on or after the date the passenger 

purchased his or her airline ticket. 

(c) You are not permitted to require 

documentation from passengers with 

disabilities traveling with service 

animals beyond the completion of the 

forms identified in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section except to comply with 

requirements on transport of animals by 

a Federal agency, a U.S. territory or a 

foreign jurisdiction. 

(d) As a U.S. air carrier, if you require 

service animal users to submit the forms 

identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, you must have copies of 

these forms available for passengers at 

each airport you serve. As a foreign air 

carrier, if you require service animal 

users to submit the forms identified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

you must have copies of the forms 

available for passengers at each airport 

serving a flight you operate that begins 

or ends at a U.S. airport. 

(e) If you have a website, you must 

have the forms identified in paragraphs 

(a) and (b) available to passengers in an 

accessible format. You must mail copies 

of the forms identified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) to passengers upon request. 

(f) If you require a passenger with a 

disability traveling with a service 

animal to submit the forms identified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in 

advance of the passenger’s date of 

travel, you must provide the passenger 

the option of submitting the completed 

form(s) to you electronically or by 

hardcopy. 

(g)(1) If a passenger’s reservation was 

made more than 48 hours in advance of 

the first originally scheduled departure 

time on the passenger’s itinerary, you 

may require that passenger provide up 

to 48 hours advance notice by 

submitting the form identified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If a passenger’s reservation was 

made more than 48 hours in advance of 

the first originally scheduled departure 

time on the passenger’s itinerary and a 

flight segment on the passenger’s 

itinerary is scheduled to take 8 hours or 

more, you may require that the 

passenger provide up to 48 hours 

advance notice by submitting the form 

identified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(3) If a passenger’s reservation was 

made less than 48 hours in advance of 

the first originally scheduled departure 

time on the passenger’s itinerary, you 

may not require that passenger provide 

advance notice of his or her intent to 

travel with a service animal. You may 

require that the passenger complete the 

forms identified in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section and submit a copy of 

the form to you at the passenger’s 

departure gate on the date of travel. 

(h) If the passenger does not meet the 

advance notice requirements you 

establish consistent with this section, 

you must still provide the 

accommodation if you can do so by 

making reasonable efforts, without 

delaying the flight. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3
79776 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 238 / Thursday, December 10, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 382.76 May a carrier require a service 

animal user to check-in physically at the 

airport? 

You may not require a passenger with 

a disability to check-in physically at the 

airport, rather than using the online 

check-in available to the general public, 

on the basis that the passenger is 

traveling with a service animal. 

§ 382.77 May carriers restrict the location 

and placement of service animals on 

aircraft? 

(a) You must permit a service animal 

to accompany a passenger with a 

disability on the passenger’s lap or in 

the passenger’s foot space, unless this 

location and placement would: 

(1) Be inconsistent with safety 

requirements set by the FAA or the 

foreign carrier’s government; or 

(2) Encroach into another passenger’s 

space. 

(b) Before refusing to transport a large 

service animal that cannot be 

accommodated on the passenger’s lap or 

in the passenger’s foot space without 

encroaching into another passenger’s 

space, you must offer the passenger the 

opportunity to move with the animal to 

another seat location within the same 

class of service, if available on the 

aircraft, where the animal can be 

accommodated. You are not required to 

reseat other passengers to accommodate 

a service animal except as required for 

designated priority seats in Subpart F. 

(c) If there are no alternatives 

available to enable the passenger to 

travel with the service animal in the 

cabin of the scheduled flight, you must 

offer the passenger the opportunity to 

transport the service animal in the cargo 

hold free of charge or travel on a later 

flight to the extent there is space 

available on a later flight and the 

transport is consistent with the safety 

requirements set by the FAA or a foreign 

carrier’s government. 

§ 382.78 May carriers charge individuals 

with disabilities for the damage their 

service animal causes? 

While you generally cannot charge an 

individual with a disability for 

transporting service animals, or for 

providing other services that this part 

requires, you may charge a passenger 

with a disability for damage caused by 

his or her service animal so long as you 

normally charge individuals without 

disabilities for similar kinds of damage. 

§ 382.79 Under what other circumstances 

may carriers refuse to provide 

transportation to a service animal traveling 

with a passenger with a disability? 

(a) You may deny transport to a 

service animal under the following 

circumstances: 

(1) The animal poses a direct threat to 

the health or safety of others (see 

definition in § 382.3); 

(2) The animal causes a significant 

disruption in the cabin or at an airport 

gate area, or its behavior on the aircraft 

or at an airport gate area indicates that 

it has not been trained to behave 

properly in public (e.g., running freely, 

barking or growling repeatedly at other 

persons on the aircraft, biting or 

jumping on people, or urinating or 

defecating in the cabin or gate area); 

(3) The animal’s carriage would 

violate applicable safety or health 

requirements of any U.S. federal agency, 

U.S. territory or foreign government; or 

(4) The passenger with a disability 

seeking to travel with a service animal 

in the cabin of the aircraft does not 

provide completed current forms as set 

forth in § 382.75 (a) and (b) to the carrier 

when requested to do so. 

(b) In determining whether to deny 

transport to a service animal on the 

basis that the animal poses a direct 

threat under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, you must make an 

individualized assessment, independent 

of the dog’s breed or type, based on 

reasonable judgment that relies on the 

best available objective evidence to 

ascertain the nature, duration, and 

severity of the risk; the probability that 

the potential injury will actually occur; 

and whether reasonable modifications 

of policies, practices, or procedure will 

mitigate the risk. A current completed 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Service Animal Air Transportation 

Form may be used in making this 

determination. 

(c) In determining whether to deny 

transport to a service animal on the 

basis that the animal has misbehaved 

and/or has caused a significant 

disruption in the cabin under paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section, you must make an 

individualized assessment, independent 

of the dog’s breed or type, based on 

reasonable judgment that relies on the 

best available objective evidence to 

ascertain the probability that the 

misbehavior and/or disruption will 

continue to occur; and whether 

reasonable modifications of policies, 

practices, or procedure will mitigate the 

misbehavior and/or the disruption. A 

current completed U.S. Department of 

Transportation Service Animal Air 

Transportation Form and a current 

completed U.S. Department of 

Transportation Service Animal Relief 

Attestation Form may be used in making 

this determination. 

(d) In conducting the analysis 

required under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, you must not deny 

transportation to the service animal if 

there are means available short of 

refusal that would mitigate the problem 

(e.g., muzzling a barking service dog or 

taking other steps to comply with 

animal health regulations needed to 

permit entry of the service animal into 

a domestic territory or a foreign 

country). 

(e) If you refuse to provide 

transportation to a service animal based 

on any provision in this part, you must 

provide the individual with a disability 

accompanied by the service animal a 

written statement of the reason for the 

refusal. This statement must include the 

specific basis for the carrier’s opinion 

that the refusal meets the standards of 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section 

or is otherwise specifically permitted by 

this part. You must provide this written 

statement to the individual with a 

disability accompanied by the service 

animal either at the airport, or within 10 

calendar days of the refusal of 

transportation. 

§ 382.80 May carriers impose additional 

restrictions on the transport of service 

animals? 

Carriers are not permitted to establish 

additional restrictions on the transport 

of service animals outside of those 

specifically permitted by the provisions 

in this part, unless required by 

applicable FAA, TSA, or other Federal 

requirements or a foreign carrier’s 

government. 

§ 382.117 [Removed] 

■ 6. Remove § 382.117. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Elaine L. Chao, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26679 Filed 12–7–20; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES3