U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Ms. Anita M. Mosner 

Ms. Sophy Chen 

Attorneys for Air Canada 

Holland & Knight LLP 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

October 20, 2009 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 

Washington, D.C. 20006-6801 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Conflict of Law Waiver Detennination 

Request Concerning Provisions of 

14 CFR 382.117 

Dear Ms. Mosner and Ms. Chen: 

This letter concerns Air Canada's September 9,2008, request for a conflict of law waiver under 

section 382.9 of the Department of Transportation's (Department) Air Carrier Access Act 

(ACAA) regulation, 14 CFR Part 382. The provisions of Part 382 for which relief is requested 

pertain to the acceptability of service animals accompanying passengers with disabilities in 

sections 382.117(a), 382. 117(d), and 382.117(e)(l )-(2). We are denying Air Canada's conflict of 

law waiver request from those provisions for the reasons described below. 

Section 382.9 states that a foreign air carrier may request a conflict of law waiver from the 

Department if the carrier believes that a provision of the law of a foreign nation precludes the 

carrier from complying with a provision of Part 382. Air Canada asserts a conflict between 

sections 382.117(a), 382.117(d), and 382. 117(e)(1)-(2) of Part 382 and Canadian Air Transport 

Regulation (ATR) Section 149 adopted pursuant to the Canadian Transportation Act. Section 

382.117(a) requires carriers to pennit a service animal to accompany a person with a disability in 

the cabin of the aircraft. Section 382.117(d) requires carriers to accept as evidence that an 

animal is a service animal, identification cards, other written documentation, presence of 

harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using 

the animal. Under this section, carriers must not require documentation as evidence that the 

animal is a service animal unless the verbal assurances of the accompanying passenger with a 

disability are not credible. Section 382.117( e )(1 )-(2) pennits carriers to require, as a condition 

for transporting an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, current documentation from 

a licensed mental health professional indicating that the passenger has a recognized mental or 

emotional disability and that the passenger needs the animal as an accommodation for air travel 

and/or for activity at the passenger's destination. ATR § 149(1) states that a carrier shall accept 

a service animal without charge if the animal is: (a) required by a person for assistance; and (b) 
2 

certified, in writing, as having been trained to assist a person by a professional service animal 

institution. ATR § 149(2) states that when a carrier accepts a service animal for carriage 

pursuant to subsection (1), it shall permit the animal, if properly harnessed in accordance with 

standards established by a professional service animal institution, to accompany the person 

onboard. Air Canada argues that while Part 382 requires the carrier to accept a passenger's 

credible verbal assurances concerning a service animal's training and, in the case of emotional 

support and psychiatric service animals, documentation on the letterhead of a licensed mental 

health professional concerning the passenger's disability and need for the service animal, under 

A TR § 149( 1 )(b), the carrier may not accept a service animal unless the passenger provides a 

written certification that the animal has been trained by a professional service animal institution 

to assist the passenger with a disability. The carrier further asserts that it may not rely on 

credible verbal assurances, the presence of harnesses, or any other of the indicia called out in 

section 382.117(d) without violating the requirements of ATR § 149. 

The Department finds unpersuasive the arguments set forth by Air Canada. While A TR § 149(1) 

mandates that carriers accept without charge a service animal that is certified as having been 

trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person, the plain language of the 

regulation does not prohibit carriers from transporting without charge an emotional support, 

psychiatric service, or other service animal that lacks written training certification. Neither does 

ATR § 149(1) preclude a carrier from relying on methods, such as those in section 382.1l7(d), 

for determining that an animal is needed to assist a person with a disability and is appropriately 

trained. Likewise, while ATR § 149(2) requires a carrier that has accepted an animal for 

transport pursuant to A TR § 149(1) to permit the animal to accompany the person onboard the 

aircraft if it is properly harnessed in accordance with established standards, it does not prohibit a 

carrier from permitting a service animal from accompanying a passenger onboard the aircraft 

without a harness. Therefore, we find that while A TR § 149 mandates the circumstances under 

which a carrier must accept a service animal, it does not bar Air Canada from accepting a service 

animal for transport in accordance with the provisions of sections 382.117(a), 382.1 17(d), and 

382.117( e)(1 )-(2). The carrier can comply with both sets of requirements simultaneously, as 

compliance with one does not bar compliance with the other. Having found no conflicts of law, 

the Department must deny Air Canada's request for conflict of law waivers from sections 

382.117(a), 382.117(d), and 382.1 17(e)(1)-(2). 

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact James Fisher, of my staff, or me at 

(202) 366-9342. You may also reach us by fax at (202) 366-7152. 

Sincerely, 

-i£;e~ Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings