1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4910-9X Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 234 and 235
Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0211
RIN 2105-AE07 Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents In volving Animals During Air Transport
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), De partment of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is issuing a final rule to amend the requirement for air carriers to report inci dents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport. The final rule will: expand the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats; expand the definition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs transported by covered carriers, regardless of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment (e.g., shipped by a breeder); re quire covered carriers to file a calendar-year report in December, even if the carrier did not have any reportable incide nts during the calendar year; require covered carriers to provide in th eir December reports the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the cale ndar year; and require covered carriers to provide in their December reports th e total number of animals transported in the calendar year.
DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane Workie, Tim Kelly, or Vinh Q. Nguyen, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Pro ceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation,2 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), blane.workie@dot.gov , tim.kelly@dot.gov , or vinh.nguyen@dot.gov

. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action The Department is issuing a final rule to am end the requirement for air carriers to report incidents involving the loss, injur y, or death of an animal during air transport. The Department is taking action to provide consumers with a fuller pi cture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals and to clarify which entities are subject to the reporting requirement (i.e., any U.S. air carriers that provide sche duled passenger air trans portation or only reporting carriers), as well as which flight s are covered (i.e., only domestic scheduled passenger flights or all scheduled passenger flights, including intern ational flights). The legal authority for the Department’s regulatory acti on is 49 U.S.C. 41721. 2. Summary of Regul atory Provisions The final rule: (1) expands the reporting re quirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats (“covered carriers”); (2) expands the definition of “animal” to any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States and any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is sh ipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight, including shipments by trainers and breeders; (3) requires covered carriers to file a calendar-year report for December, even if the carrier did not have any reportable incidents dur ing the calendar year; (4) requires covered carriers to provide in their December reports the total num ber of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air3 transport in the calendar year; (5) requires cove red carriers to provide intheir December reports the total number of animals transported in the ca lendar year; and (6) requires covered carriers to provide in their December reports a certification signed by an authorized carrier representative affirming that the report is true, correct, and complete. 3. Summary of Regul atory Analysis The quantifiable costs of this rulemaking ex ceed the quantifiable benefits. The present value of monetized net benefits for a 20-year analysis period is estimated to be -$729,166 at a 7% discount rate. However, when unquantified co sts and benefits are taken into account, we anticipate that the benefits of this final rule will justify the costs. Unquantifiable benefits of the final rule include providing consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals and producing opportunities for more comprehensive enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. 54, sin ce the Department shares the reports involving animal incidents with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the governm ent entity that enforces the AWA. Background The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or “AIR– 21” (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed into law on April 5, 2000, includes section 710, “Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.” This provision was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41721. Section 41721 states than an air carrier that provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit monthl y to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or deat h of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier and that the Secretary of transportation shall4 publish data on incidents and compla ints involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport in a manner comparable to ot her consumer complaint and incident data. On August 11, 2003, DOT, through its Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), issued a final rule implementing section 710 of AIR–21. See 68 FR 47798. The rule required air carriers that provide scheduled passenger air transportation to submit a re port to APHIS on any incident involving the loss, injury, or d eath of an animal during air tr ansportation provided by the air carrier. Under the rule, the reports would then be shared with DOT, which would publish the data, as required by AIR–21, in a format sim ilar to the manner in which it publishes data on consumer complaints and other incidents. Howe ver, issues arose regarding whether APHIS had the capability to accept such inform ation directly from the carrier s and pass it on to DOT. In order to resolve such issues, on February 14, 2005, DOT made a tech nical change in the rule to require reporting airlines to submit the requi red information directly to DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD) rather than APHIS and to make the rule part of DOT’s economic regulations. See 70 FR 7392. The rule was codified at 14 CFR 234.13. Section 234.13 required air carriers that prov ide scheduled passenger air transportation to submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents invol ving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation within 15 days after th e end of the month during which the incident occurred. It defined “animal” as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a familyhousehold in the United States. The air transport of an animal covered the entire period during whic h an animal is in the custody of an air carrier, from check-in or delivery of the animal to the carrier prior to departure until the animal is returned to the owner or guardian of the anim al at the final destination of the animal. 1 Section

1 There are three categories fo r animals transported in scheduled passenger air transportation: “unassigned in the cabin;” “accompanied baggage;” and “liv e cargo shipments.” Animals categorized as “unassi gned in the cabin” are5 234.13 also listed the information that is to be included in each report (e .g., carrier and flight number, date and time of the incident). Howe ver, because § 234.13 is contained in part 234 of Title 14 and that part applies only to the domes tic scheduled passenger flights of carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue (“reporting carriers”), there was confusion regarding wh ich entities are required to submit a report to the ACPD on incidents involving loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation as well as which flights are covered (i.e., only domestic schedule d passenger flights or all scheduled passenger flights, including international flights). In August 2010, the Department received a petition for rulemaking on this matter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), an advocacy group which works to protect the lives and advance the interest of anim als through the legal system. In its petition, ALDF requests that the Department’s regulation requir ing the reporting of loss, injur y, or death of animals in air transport be revised to require ai rlines to report any such inci dent involving any animal they carry. It contends that the data that are cu rrently collected by the Department capture only incidents affecting pets, even though pets make up only part of the total number of animals transported by airlines. The ALDF proposed that the rule s should apply to all species of animals, not just cats and dogs. At about the same time, Senators Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, and Joseph Lieberman wrote to the Secretary of Tran sportation urging the Department to amend the rule so that airlines would be required to repor t all incidents involving th e loss, injury, or death

usually small pets that remain with the owner in the cabin for the duration of the flight. Air carriers may allow a limited number of passengers per flight to transport their animals as “unassigned in the cabin.” Pursuant to 14 CFR part 382, service animals accompanying individuals with a disability are not included in this category. Animals categorized as “accompanied baggage” are pe ts traveling with passengers on the f light that are checked as baggage, remain in the custody of the air carrier for the duration of the flight, and are transported in the cargo compartment. Animals categorized as “live cargo shipments” are animals th at are not associated with passengers on the flight and are transported in the cargo compartment. While “accompanied baggage” and “live cargo shipments” may or may not be in different areas of the cargo hold of an aircraft, the primary diffe rences between these two categories are shipping procedures and price points.6 of cats and dogs that occur while they are trav eling in an airline’s care, custody, or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States or is part of a commercial shipment. On June 29, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents I nvolving Animals During Air Transport.” See 77 FR 38747. The Department announ ced in the NPRM that it was proposing to amend the rule regarding the reporting of incidents involving animals during air transport. The Department sought comment on whether it should: (1) expand the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats; (2) expand the de finition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs transported by the carrier, regardle ss of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commerc ial shipment (e.g., shipped by a breeder); (3) require covered carriers to provide in their Decem ber reports the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transp ort that year; and (4) require covere d carriers to report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year in the December reports. We also solicited comments on whether covered carriers should be required to file negative repor ts if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or deat h of an animal during a particular month or year—i.e., reporting “0” for any reporting category where there were no such incidents. The Department received 5,414 comments in response to the NPRM. Of these, two comments were from airlines, representing the views of Delta Air Lines (Delta) and Spirit Airlines (Spirit). Two airline associations, Airlines for America (A4A) and the Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA), submitted a join t comment. Six animal rights organizations each submitted a comment: the ALDF, the Amer ican Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), the7 Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), the American Society for the Prev ention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), People for the Ethical Treatment of An imals (PETA), and Where is Jack? Inc. We also received comments from two scientific resear ch organizations: the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR). Finally, 5,403 individual consumers submitted comments. The Department has carefully reviewed and considered the comments received. The commenter s’ positions that are germane to the specific issues raised in the NPRM are set forth below, as are the Department’s responses. Summary of Final Regulatory Analysis The regulatory analysis summarized in the table below shows that the estimated monetized costs of the reporting requirement exceed the estimated monetized benefits at a 7% discount rate. The present value of monetized net benefits for a 20-year analysis period is estimated to be -$729,166 at a 7% discount rate. Additional benefits we re also identified forwhich quantitative estimates could not be developed. The Department believes that the nonquantifiable benefits of the repor ting requirement justify the costs and cause the total benefits of the rule to exceed its total costs. Non-quantifiable benefits include providing consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals and producing opportunities for more comprehensive enforcem ent of the AWA, 7 U.S.C. 54, since the Department shares the reports involving animal incidents with APHIS, the government entity that enforces the AWA. A more detailed discu ssion of the monetized benefits and costs of the final rule is provided in the Regulatory Analysis a nd Notices section below.

VALUE OF QUANTITATIVE NET BENEFITS FOR RULE REQUIREMENTS Discounting Period/Rate Present value8 Monetized Benefits ........................................ Monetized Costs *

............................................ Monetized Net Bene fits ................................... 20 years, 7% discounting ............ 20 years, 7% discounting ............ 20 years, 7% discounting ............ $0 $729,769 ($729,769)

* This rule will only im pose monetary costs on covered air carriers Comments and Responses 1. Entities covered Question posed in the NPRM : The NPRM proposed to requ ire all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a desi gn capacity of more than 60 seats to submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents i nvolving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport within 15 days after the end of the month during which the incident occurred. The then-existing reporting requirement only applie d to the domestic sche duled passenger flights of carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue. We also invited comments on whether there is any benefit to expanding the applicability of the rule any further to encompass more U.S. carriers and wh ether the reporting requirements should apply to indirect cargo air carriers operating under the provisions of 14 CFR part 296.
Comments : Most of the comments the Departme nt received do not address whether the rule should be applicable to all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled se rvice with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats. A number of animal rights advocacy gr oups, such as ASPCA, AWI, and AAVS, expressed support for expanding the a pplicability of the rule further to encompass more carriers. AWI states that there has been confusion over th e airlines and flights c overed under the law, and this change would clarify the coverage and provide the public with more information. AAVS states the change would be an im portant step to ensure an accurate picture of how animals are protected while in air transport. AAVS is also in favor of covering indirectcargo air carriers that cater only to pets.9 A4A generally objects to the proposals in the NPRM and states that there would be no benefit to expanding the applicabil ity of the rule to encompass more U.S. carriers. A4A also states that indirect cargo air carriers operating under the pr ovisions of 14 CFR part 296 should not be covered. Spirit, the only carrier to co mment on this issue, doe s not object to expanding the reporting requirement to incl ude passenger carriers operating at least one aircraft with more than 60 seats. DOT response : We carefully considered all of th e comments filed on the various issues in this rulemaking. On the issue of which entiti es should be covered we have decided to require all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats to submit a report to the AC PD on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation within 15 days af ter the end of the month during which the incident occurred. As discussed above, the 49 U.S.C. 41721 states , “An air carrier that provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit monthl y to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or deat h of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier. ” 49 U.S.C. 40102 define s “air carrier” as “a citizen of the United States unde rtaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.” Section 41721 doe s not contain any language that would limit the applicability of the reporting obligation to only large carriers or “reporting carriers” (i .e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger re venue). For these reasons, we believe that expanding the applicability of the reporting requirement to all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a desi gn capacity of more than 60 seats is more consistent with the language of section 41721.10 Contrary to A4A’s asserti ons, we believe that expandi ng the applicability of the requirement from just the “reporting carriers” (i .e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled pa ssenger revenue) to all carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats will provide consumers and other interested parties a more complete picture of the treatment of animals on scheduled passenger flights. However, we agree with A4 A in regards to excludi ng indirect cargo air carriers from the reporting requirement. Pursua nt to 14 CFR part 296, an indirect cargo air carrier is any U.S. citizen who undertakes to enga ge indirectly in air transportation of property, and uses for the whole or any part of such transportation the services of air carrier or a foreign air carrier that has received DOT aut horization. We have concluded th at requiring indirect cargo air carriers to report incidents involving animals would exceed the scope of 49 U.S.C. 41721, which, as discussed above, states: “An ai r carrier that provides schedu led passenger air transportation shall submit monthly to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier.” Therefore, we will not require such entities to submit a report on any incidents involving the loss, in jury, or death of an animal during air transportation. 2. Expand the definition of “animal” Question posed in the NPRM : The NPRM proposed to continue to define “animal” as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is be ing kept as a pet in a family household in the United States (i.e., the de finition in effect up to this time), but also expand the definition to include any dog or cat wh ich, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight. We also invited comments on11 whether the definition of “animal” should be e xpanded further to include not only dogs and cats in commercial shipments but all species of animals in commercial air transportation.
Comments : This proposal is the most contentious topic of the NPRM. All the animal rights advocacy groups believe that “animal” should include all species of animals in commercial air transportation, not just cats and dogs. The animal rights advocacy groups state that cats, dogs, and household pets make up only a portion of all the animals that are transported by carriers. They assert that carriers transport a wide variety of animal species, such as primates, rabbits, ferrets, mice, and rats, for research facilities, zoos, and pet retailers. These groups argue that carriers should be required to report incidents involving all types of animal, not just cats, dogs, and household pets, in order to provide co mplete and reliable da ta that will allow consumers, carriers, and legislators to make in formed decisions regarding the safety of the transport of all animals. Most individual comments also urge the Depart ment to include all species of animals in commercial air transportation, not just cats and d ogs, in the definition of “animal.” (The vast majority of these individual comments appear to be form letters from members of the animal rights advocacy groups.) Senators Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, and Joseph Lieberman filed a comment in response to the NPRM reiterating the support ex pressed in their 2010 letter for expanding the definition of “animal” to include all cats and dog s that are in an airline’s care, custody, or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is being transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment. The scientific research organizations ad amantly oppose expanding the definition of “animal.” AZA argues that it strongly belie ves the Congressional intent of the underlying12 authorizing legislation is to focus on the loss, injury, or death of family pets through air transportation. AZA states that if the definiti on of “animal” is expanded to include all species, the resource and logistical burde n placed upon the airlines could effectively force airlines to completely discontinue the transport of all anim als, creating catastrophic consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the sustainabili ty of the animal collections in their care. NABR urges that any changes to the existing definition of “animal” recognize that the term should not apply to dogs and cats bred fo r use in research. NABR states that the Department assumes that dogs and cats that are tr ansported as part of a commercial shipment are likely being transported for the purpose of being so ld as a pet in a family household and that this assumption is flawed as dogs and cats being transporte d to research facilities in the United States are not intended to be sold as pets. NABR states th at commercial dealers that breed dogs, cats, and other species needed for research purposes must be licensed by the USDA and are subject to the standards and regulations mandated by the AWA. NABR states that these commercial dealers are inspected by APHIS and reports of the inspections are already available to the public on the USDA website. NABR also states that it opposes expanding the definition of “animal” to include all species of animals because such an expansion would conflict with the legislative history of AIR–21, which does not show an inte nt to require this type of reporting. A4A also opposes expanding the definition of “animal” on the basis that doing so would conflict with Congressional inte nt. A4A argues that the origin al regulations published in 2003 specifically analyzed Congress’ in tent when it used the term “anim al,” and that the Department’s research into the statute’s legislative history f ound that when Congress us ed the term animal, it meant pets. A4A asserts further that passengers care most about pet incidents and do not want nor are interested in expanding the definition of “animal.” A4A states that passengers are13 satisfied with the current reporting program and th at complaints about animal policies regularly ranks last in the 12 categories of complaints that the Department lists every month in its consumer report. A4A argues that this indicates that passengers are satisfied with the balance the current regulation strikes (i.e. , full disclosure of pet incident s without including information on commercial animal shipments that A4A says pa ssengers do not care about). DOT response : We have decided to define “anim al” as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is be ing kept as a pet in a family household in the United States and any dog or cat which, at the ti me of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger fli ght. We are not expanding the definition of “animal” to cover all species of animals. We believe it would be unduly burdensome to require covered carriers to report the death, loss, or injury of all species of animals because there potentially could be thousands of individual animals such as fis h, rodents, and insects that are transported by air carriers in a singl e commercial shipment. As explained below, we do not agree with A4A’s arguments. We believe that expanding the definition of “animal” to include any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment will provide consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals. Many dogs and cats that are being shipped on scheduled passenger flights other than as pets by their owners are likely being transported for the purpose of being sold as a pet in a family household in the United States. Moreover, even though the old definition of “anim al” only included any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is bei ng kept as a pet in a family household, virtually all of the reports of deaths, in juries, and loss involved cats and dogs. Specifically, cats and dogs accounted for 95% of deaths, 100% of the injuri es, and 98% of the losses. Based on these14 considerations, we believe that expanding the definition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs will provide consumers with more complete data that will allow them to make more informed decision. 3. Require covered carriers to provide in their December reports the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport Question posed in the NPRM : The NPRM proposed to requ ire each covered carrier to provide in its December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the calendar year. The then-existing requirement did not require covered carriers to provide any summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the calendar
year. Comments : Most of the comments the Departme nt received did not address whether carriers should be required to provide in their December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths. Only one of the animal rights advocacy groups specifically addresse s this proposal. AWI states that the public will benefit from having the airlines’ December reports include the total number of animals lost, injured, or killed. NABR, the only scientific research organiza tion to address this issue, opposes any additional monthly or annual inci dent reports. NABR asserts that additional monthly or annual incident reports are unnecessary for laboratory anim al breeders to evaluate carriers, comply with current AWA requirements, and carry out their responsibilities to animals and customers. A4A also opposes requiring carriers to provide in its December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, in juries, and deaths. A4A states that this proposal provides no benefit beyond the current requirements. A4A a sserts that current anim al incident reporting15 practices already provide passenge rs with very detailed information providing transparency on pet incidents, which was the intent of the Ac t and is what passengers care about most. DOT response : We have decided to require c overed carriers to provide in their December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the year. We do not believe it to be burdensome fo r the covered carriers to submit this data. To comply with this requirement, a covered carrier must simply add up the number of animal incidents in each category that it reported in the previous months. This complements the requirement to report the total number of animals transported (see below). We have included in the final rule a standardized tabl e that covered carriers must use in the December reports when reporting the total number of animal losses, in juries, and deaths in the calendar year. 4. Require covered carriers to include in th e December report the to tal number of animals transported in the calendar year. Question posed in the NPRM : We invited comments on whether carriers should be required to report the total number of animals tran sported during that year. The then-existing rule did not require covered carri ers to report the total number of animals transported during that year. We also asked whether covered carriers shoul d be required to report only once per year (in the December reports) on the total number of an imals transported during that year, or whether the total number of animals transpor ted should be reported each month.
Comments : A number of animal rights advo cacy groups and U.S. carriers support requiring covered carriers to repo rt the total number of animals transported during that year. These commenters agree that providing the to tal number of animal transported will allow consumers to calculate rates of animal loss, inju ry, and death per unit of animals transported for each airline (e.g., 1.04 deaths per 10,000 animals tr ansported) and that would help consumers16 and other interested parties to compare the rate of animal incidents from on e carrier to another or one year to another. AWI states that the public will benefit from having the airlines’ December reports include the total number of animals tran sported during the year. AAVS asserts that this information would give consumers information that can be used to correctly compare air carriers and their records. AAVS also states that inform ation should be provided monthly as well as in December to provide an accurate and up to date understanding of air car riers’ record with regards to animal transport. ALDF states that requiring carriers to repor t on the total number of animals transported will provide the context necessary to understand the incident re ports. ALDF argues that, among other benefits, determining the number of incide nts per unit of animals transported will allow covered carriers to determine whether their pract ices are reducing the rate of incidents, help consumers make more informed decisions on wh ich carrier to entrust their animals to, and provide legislators critical info rmation with which to determine if there is a problem that warrants stronger legislative remedies. ALDF adds that the carriers shou ld provide this data monthly. Spirit states that it does not obj ect to the proposal to require airlines to report the total number of animals transported annually. Spir it believes that this information would allow consumers to compare the total number of animal s transported against th e number of incidents involving animals in air transport, further highlighting the infreque ncy of these incidents. Spirit adds that the Department should not require monthly reporting of the total number of animals transported. Spirit argues that incidents involving animals in air transport are random and extremely infrequent, and the number of incident s per unit of animals tr ansported in any given month has little if any valu e because the rate of incidents is so low.17 Delta states that it supports requiring carriers to report the total number of animals transported during the year, but with two qualifications: 1) the existing definition of “animal” should remain unchanged (i.e., any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a familyhousehold in the United St ates); and 2) the rate calculated by the Department should not be the nu mber of animal incidents “per unit of animals transported,” but rather, the number of incident s per passenger enplanem ent. Delta’s argument regarding the definition of “animal ” is discussed above. With re spect to the ra te calculated, Delta argues that the process proposed by the Depa rtment would lead to the gathering of data that can be easily skewed by small sample sizes . Delta asserts that calculating the number of incidents per unit of passenger enplanements take s all relevant data into account and conveys an incident rate in the full context of each carrier’s operation. Delta believes that this approach would be consistent with other data reporte d by carriers to the Department, e.g., oversales, mishandled baggage, consumer complaints, all of which are calculated per passenger enplanement. Delta states that since carriers al ready report these other is sues per enplanement, the data are readily available and would not require any new data -gathering processes. A4A, on the other hand, opposes requiring cove red carriers to include in the December report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year. A4A argues that the monthly consumer report provides very detaile d information on every animal incident to consumers and that providing general statistics that include commercial animal shipments is not relevant to what passengers care about most—trans porting pets in the baggage compartment on a flight. A4A asserts that carriers would need to reconfigur e their systems because current procedures for tracking animal incidents are inadequate for tr acking the total number of animals transported. A4A argues further that the Department vastly underestimates the cost of this proposal.18 DOT response : We have decided to require covere d carriers to include in the December reports the total number of animals transported in the calendar year. We believe the requirement to report the total number of animals transpor ted is important for providing consumers a complete picture of a covered carrier’s animal transport record, as the number of animals transported by each airline may vary widely. Cons umers can use this data to calculate rates of animal loss, injury, and death per unit of anim als transported for each airline (e.g., 1.04 deaths per 10,000 animals transported). While we recognize changes may be needed, we do not agree with A4A’s assertion that current procedures fo r tracking animal incidents are inadequate for tracking the total number of animals transported. One of the two air ca rriers that submitted comments in response to the NPRM, Spirit, does not believe it is burdenso me to report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year. Additionally, fo r many years the former Continental Airlines voluntarily in cluded this information in the an imal incident reports that it filed with the Department. 5. Require covered carriers to file negative reports Question posed in the NPRM : We solicited comments on whether carriers should be required to file negative reports if the carrier did not have any inci dents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during a particul ar month or year — i.e ., reporting “0” for any reporting category where there were no such incide nts. The then-existing rule did not require covered carriers to file negative reports.
Comments : Most of the comments the Departme nt received did not address whether carriers should be required to pr ovide negative reports if the carrier did no t have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during a particular month or year.19 A couple of animal rights advocacy groups e xpressed support for negative reporting by carriers. Specifically, AWI states that it endorses the proposal to have ai rlines file reports in December even if they have had no animal-relate d incidents at any time during the year. AWI agrees with the Department’s reasoning that “[ r]equiring negative reportin g in the recap in the December report over a signature and certification of an official of the airline provides an additional incentive for complete and accurate reporting by carriers.” ALDF asserts that negative reporting would improve reporting accur acy and reinforce the importance of these requirements. ALDF argues that the negative re ports should be provide d monthly because it would further the goals of accuracy and clarity in the reporting process and help to keep the safety of animals as an important issue for carrier s every month, rather than simply at the end of the year during a busy reporting and travel season. A4A and Spirit oppose the ne gative reporting requireme nt. A4A argues that a requirement to file a “negative” report when there are no animal incidents to report will provide no benefit to the public and will incur unnecessary co st to carriers. Spirit asserts that completing, filing, and processing negative repor ts will create an unnecessary burden on the carrier and the Department because the reports wi ll not provide the Department w ith any information that it did not already know. Spirit furthe r states that monthly negative reporting would impose an undue burden on all air carriers covered by the rule. DOT response : We have decided to require covere d carriers to file negative reports in their December reports if the car rier did not have any incident s involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during the calendar year. Thus , each covered carrier woul d be required to file a report for the previous calendar year by January 15 even if the carrier did not experience any incidents involving animals and/or carried no animals during that that year. We do not believe it20 to be unduly burdensome for covered carriers that did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal to enter “0” into the appropriate categories and submit their December report. In addition, we believe that re quiring covered carriers to affirmatively certify that there were no reportable animal incidents during the calendar year provides an additional incentive to ensure that the reports are comple te and accurate. Covere d carriers will not be required to file negative reports in any other monthly report (i.e., January through November).

REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND NOTICES A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planni ng and Review), DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and Executive Order 13563 (I mproving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

This action has been determined not to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportati on’s Regulatory Policies and Proce dures. As a result, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management a nd Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and is consistent with the requirements in both orders. Executive Order 13563 refers to non-quantifiable valu es, including equity and fairness. A summary of the costs and benefits of this final rule follows. For mo re details, please refer to a copy of the final regulatory evaluation, which has been placed in the docket.21 1. Cost of Monthly Reports Other than December Report The cost of filing monthly reports is minimal. Aside from the December report, a carrier is required to report only duri ng the months where the carrier experiences a reportable animal incident. Currently, 15 of the 27 carriers that are affected are already required to collect information on incidents involving th e loss, injury, or death of an animal. For these 15 carriers, which account for approximately 90 percent of the domestic market, there are no additional costs. For the 12 other carriers that do not currently have to re port, the cost varies depending on whether or not there is a reporta ble incident during any given m onth. For example, if a carrier experiences no reportable incidents all year, then the recurrent cost of filing monthly reports for January to November is $0. However, if the ca rrier experiences a repo rtable incident every month of the year, the cost w ould be $466.32 per year. This is based on our estimate that it would take a paralegal working in scheduled air transportation making $38.86 per hour (the average wage rate including benefits) one hour to prepare and submit one monthly report. So, if all 12 carriers that do not currently have to repo rt were to each experi ence a reportable incident every month of the year, the total cost would be $5,595.84. Therefore, the cost of monthly reports will be between $0 and $5,595.84 per year depending on the number of reportable incidents. Even the high estimat e would still be a minimal cost. 2. Cost of the December Report Covered carriers are required to submit a December report. In addition to including information on any incidents involving the loss, inju ry, or death of an animal during air transport that occurred in the month of December, the De cember report must include the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year and the total number of animals that were tran sported in the calendar year.22 The burden on covered carriers to submit in their December report the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year is minimal. The cost varies depending on whether or not a carrier experienced a ny reportable incidents during the calendar year. For example, if a carrier experiences no reportable in cidents all year, then the cost is $38.86, the estimated cost of a paralegal working in scheduled air trans portation to prepare and submit one report. If a carrier had one or more an imal incidents in a year, it will be required add up all the values in any report th at it filed throughout the year. We estimate that it will take a paralegal working in scheduled air transportation0.5 hour to find the sum of all the values the carrier filed throughout the year. If all 27 covered carriers each experienced a reportable incident in the calendar year, the total cost will be $1,573.83 ($524.61 for the carrier s to add together all the reportable incidents in th e calendar year and $1,049.22 for the carriers to prepare and submit one report). Therefore, the cost of the December reports will be between $38.86 and $1,573.83 per year depending on the number of reportable incidents. The burden on covered carriers to submit in their December reports the total number of animals that were transported in the calendar ye ar is more substantial because it will require covered carriers that transpor t covered animals in the baggage /cargo compartment to create and maintain systems that will record and keep track of the number of animals transported throughout the year. At the same time, some carri ers, such as Spirit Ai rlines, do not transport animals. Additionally, some covered carriers may al ready have a system in place. These carriers will incur no costs. Therefore, we estimate th at first year start-up costs for the computer hardware and software would be appr oximately $270,000 for the entire industry. 2

2 This estimate is based on the 2007 Supporting Statement fo r the obligation of U.S and foreign carriers to file with the Department an annual report detailing disability-relate d complaints the carriers received from passengers in the calendar year, as required by 14 CFR part 382, the Department’s rule implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) in the Department’s Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel 14 CFR part 382.23 We estimate that the subsequent yearly costs to maintain the systems will be minimal. If a carrier does not transport animals in the calendar year, such as Spirit Ai rlines, then there will be no cost. If we assumed that annual maintenance cost s averaged $40,000 for the entire industry, the total cost of maintenance over 20 years discounted at 7% would be about $424,000. Factoring in the initial $270,000 start-up cost brings the total cost of the re quirement to report in the December reports the total number of animals transported in the calendar year to be about $694,000. 3. Cost of Expanded Definition of an Animal The cost of the proposed expanded definition of an animal would impact airlines, but the cost would still be minimal. Since 2008, the averag e number of reported incidents per year is 47. If we were to assume that it takes a para legal one hour to prepare and submit a report per incident, then we have estimated that the cost to the industry is $1,826.42 pe r year. This is based on our estimate of a paralegal’s salary discussed above. Various trade sour ces indicate that dogs and cats transported as part of a commercial ship ment may account for as much as half of all dogs, cats, and other household pets that are tran sported by covered carriers. If we were to assume that expanding the definition to include d ogs and cats transported as part of a commercial shipment would result in an additional 47 repo rted incidents per year (i.e., a total of 94 incidents), the additional cost of $1,826.42 is still minimal. The benefits of the rule, while difficult to quantify, exceed the costs. Comprehensive data are not immediately available as to the total number of anim als that air carriers currently transport. Neither trade associations for animal transportation providers nor most airlines collect data on the number of animals transported a nnually by air. Trad e association (e.g., pet transportation firms) and industr y (airlines) sources estimate th e actual number of pets that24 carriers transport annually at up to 800,000. This rule will pr ovide consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in th e transportation of animal s. If the benefit of expanding reporting requirements to dogs and cats transported as a commercial shipment were as little as a $0.34 per animal shipped, the benefits of the rule would exceed the costs. B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This final rule has been analyzed in accordan ce with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This fi nal rule does not include any provision that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, th e relationship between th e 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 preem pted from regulating in this area by the Airline Deregulation Act. See 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 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. I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic im pact on a substantial number of small entities. A direct air carrier or a foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of not more than 60 seats or a maxi mum payload capacity of not more than 18,000 pounds). See 14 CFR 399.73. This rule does not impos e new duties or obligations on small entities. The rule applies only to U.S. carriers that ope rate scheduled servi ce with at least one25 aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seat s. Therefore, this re quirement does not affect small entities.
D. Executive Order 13084 This rule has been analyzed in accordance w ith the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordinati on with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial dire ct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. E. Paperwork Reduction Act As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department has submitted the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (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 publi c must be provided 30 days to comment. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection requirements shoul d direct them to the Office of Ma nagement and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20503, and s hould also send a copy of their comments to: Department of Transportation, Office of Aviati on Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of info rmation requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after publica tion of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its fu ll effect if OMB receive s it within 30 days of publication.26 We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this rule. The Depa rtment may not impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. The Department intends to renew the OMB control number for the information collection requirements resulting fr om this rulemaking action. The OMB control number, when renewed, will be announced by separate notice in the Federal Register. The ICR was previously published in the Federal Register as part of the NPRM. See 77 FR 38750. The Department invited interested pers ons to submit comments on any aspect of each of these three information collections, including the following: (1) the necessity and utility of the information collection; (2) th e accuracy of the estimate of the burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collecte d; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection without reducing the qua lity of the collected information. The final rule renews and modifies the info rmation collection titled “Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Tran sport” (OMB No. 2105-0552). The collection of information contained in the final rule is a requirement that U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft having a de signed seating capacity of more than 60 passenger seats report to the Department’s ACPD an y incidents involving the loss, injury, or death during air transport of cats and do gs that were part of a commercial shipment. (Cats and dogs that were being ke pt as a household pet at the time of such a loss, injury, or death are already required to be reporte d by these airlines.) As disc ussed above, this requirement expands the reporting requirement from 15 carriers to 27 carriers, an increase of 12 carriers. The collection of information also requires covered ca rriers to state in their report for the month of27 December the total number of animal s that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year and the total number of animals th at were transported inthe calendar year. Title : Reports by Carriers on Incidents i nvolving Animals During Air Transport. OMB Control Number : 2105–0552 Type of Request : Modification of expired In formation Collection Request Respondents : U.S. carriers that operate scheduled pa ssenger service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more than 60 seats (27). Frequency : For each respondent, one information se t for the month of December, plus one information set during some other months (1 to 12) Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents : 27 to 324 hours (Respondents [27] × Frequency [1 to 12 per year]).
F. National Environmental Policy Act The Department has analyzed the environmental im pacts of this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S. C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) 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 pr ocedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not requi re either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyz ing the appli cability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also c onsider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the pr eparation of an EA or EIS. Id . Paragraph 4.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C provides that “actions relating to cons umer protection, including regulations” are categorically excluded. The purpose of this ru lemaking is to amend the requirement for air28 carriers to report incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of ananimal during air transport. The agency does not anticipate any environmen tal impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in conn ection with this rulemaking.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department has determined that the requ irements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this notice. Issued in Washington, D.C., on the 24th day of June, 2014, under the authority delegated at 49 CFR 1.27(n).

__________________________ Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel. List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 234 Air carriers, Consumer protection, Re porting and recordkeeping requirements

14 CFR Part 235

Air carriers, Animal incidents, Consum er protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR Chapter II as follows: PART 234—AIRLINE SERVICE Q UALITY PERFORMANCE RE PORT S 1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and Sections 41708 and 41709.29 § 234.13 [Removed] 2. Section 234.13 is removed. 3. Part 235 is added to read as follows:
PART 235—REPORTS BY AIR CARRIERS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING ANIMALS
DURING AIR TRANSPORT
Sec. 235.1 Definitions. 235.2 Applicability. 235.3 Reports by air carriers on incidents involving animals during air transport Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41721. § 235.1 Definitions. For the purposes of this part: Air transport includes the entire period during which an an imal is in the custody of an air carrier, from the time that the animal is tendered to the air carrier prior to departure until the air carrier tenders the animal to the owner, guardian or repr esentative of the shipper of the animal at the animal’s final destination. It does not include animals that accompany a passenger at his or her seat in the cabin and of which th e air carrier does not take custody. Animal means any warm- or cold-blooded animal wh ich, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the Unite d States and any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a comme rcial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight, including shipments by tr ainers and breeders. § 235.2 Applicability. This part applies to the scheduled domestic a nd international passenger se rvice of any U.S. air carrier that operates such servic e with at least one ai rcraft having a designed seating capacity of30 more than 60 passenger seats. The reporting requ irements of this part apply to all scheduledservice passenger flights of such carriers, includ ing flights that are opera ted with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. § 235.3 Reports by air carriers on incide nts involving animals during air transport. (a) Each covered carrier shall, within 15 da ys after the end of the month to which the information applies, submit to the United States Department of Transportation’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division a report on any incidents i nvolving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport provided by the air carrier, including incident s on flights by that carrier that are operated with airc raft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall be made in the form and manner set forth in reporting directives issued by the Deputy General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation and sh all contain the following information: (1) Carrier and flight number; (2) Date and time of the incident; (3) Description of the anim al, including name, if known; (4) Name and contact information of the owner(s), guardian, and/or shipper of the animal; (5) Narrative descript ion of the incident; (6) Narrative description of the cause of the incident; (7) Narrative descript ion of any corrective ac tion taken in response to the incident; and (8) Name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual filing the report on behalf of the air carrier.31 (b) Within 15 days after th e end of December of each year , each covered carrier shall submit the following information (this information may be included in any report that the carrier may file for the loss, injury, or death of animals during the month of December): (1) The total number of incidents involving an animal during air tr ansport provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar year, includi ng incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall incl ude subtotals for loss, injury, and death of animals. Report “0” for any category for which there were no such incidents. If the carrier had no reportable incide nts for that calendar year, it shall report “0” in each category. Covered carriers shall use the fo llowing data table when reporting the total number of animal incidents duri ng air transport provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar
year: Total Number in the Calendar Year Deaths Injuries Loss (2) The total number of animals transported in the calendar year. If the carrier did not transport any animals for that calendar year, it shall report “0.” (3) The December report must contain the fo llowing certification signe d by the carrier’s authorized representative: “I, th e undersigned, do certify that th is report has been prepared under my direction in accordance with the regulations in 14 CFR part 235. I affirm that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this is a true, correct and complete report.”

[FR Doc. 2014-15503 Filed 07/02/2014 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 07/03/2014]