GOVERNMEM

Storage

6WDE S FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIERS

Y4

. In 8^4

B 6>1 H E A R I N G

BEFORE T H E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

AERONAUTICS

OB* TH E

tn

0"

J]

A

A

<0

□

□

O'

A

A

<

COMMITTEE ON

TERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRE SEN TATIV ES

E IG H T Y -E IG H T H C O N G R ESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

ON

H.R . 5611, H .R . 7210

BIL LS TO PR O H IB IT T H E EX CL US IO N OF DOG GU ID ES 

T H E BLI ND FROM CE RT AIN PU BLIC CA RR IE RS , TR AN SP OR T 

TE RM IN AL S, AND OTHER PL ACES OF BU SI NESS W HIC H 

OPE RATE IN IN TERSTA TE COMM ERCE

H.R . 8068

A BIL L TO AM EN D SE CT IO N 40 3(b ) OF TH E FED ERA L AV IA TION 

ACT OF 195 8 TO PER M IT T H E GR AN TING OF FR E E TR ANSP ORTA TION TO GU ID ES OR SE EI NG-E YE DOG S ACCO MP AN YIN G

TO TA LL Y BLIN D PE RS ON S

H .R . 8928

A BIL L TO AM EN D SE CT IO N 40 3(b ) OF TH E FE DERAL AV IA TION 

AC T OF 1958 TO PER M IT T H E GR AN TING OF FR E E TR ANSP ORTA TION TO GU ID ES OR GU ID E DOG S AC CO MP AN YIN G BL IN D 

PE RSO NS AND TO AT TE ND AN TS OF DIS ABL ED PE RS ON S

FEBRUARY 26, 1964

P r in te d f o r th e u s e o f th e 

C o m m it te e o n I n t e r s t a t e a n d F o re ig n C o m m erc e

32-560

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

W AS HI NG TO N : 196 4
.uv

» \ <">

COMMITTEE ON INT ER ST AT E AND FORE IGN COMMERCE

OR EN HA RR IS, Ark an sa s, Ch airm an

JO HN BE LL WIL LI AMS, M issis sip pi

KEN NET H A. RO BE RT S, Alabam a

HA RL EY O. STAG GE RS , W es t Vi rg inia

WAL TE R RO GE RS, Te xa s

SAMU EL N. FRIE D EL, M arylan d

TO RB ER T H. MAC DON ALD, M as sa ch us et ts

JO HN JAR MA N, Ok lah om a

LEO W. O’BR IE N, New York

JO HN E. MOSS, Cal ifor ni a

JO HN D. DI NG EL L, Michig an

PA UL ,<K RO GE RS , Flo rida

R O B ER l'W . H EM PH IL L, So uth Car ol in a

DAN RO ST EN KO WSK I, Illin oi s

JA MES C. H EA LE Y, New York

HORACE It. KO ItN EGAY , Nor th Car olina

W. It. HU LL , J r., Miss ou ri

GIL LIS W. LONG, Lou isiana

LIO NEL VAN DEER LI N, Cal ifor ni a

J. J. PI CKLE , Te xa s

W. E. Wil li am so n, C le rk

Ken ne th J. P ai nt er , A s s is ta n t Cle rk

JO HN B. BE NN ET T, Mi ch iga n 

’W IL tlA M L. SP RI NGER , Il lino is 

PA UL F. SC HE NC K, Ohio 

J. AR TH UR YOUNG ER, Cal ifor ni a 

MI LT ON W . GL EN N, New Je rs ey 

SA MU EL L. DE VI NE , Ohio 

AN CH ER NE LS EN , M inne so ta 

HA ST IN GS KEIT H, M as sa ch us et ts 

WILLA RD S. CU RT IN , Pen ns yl va ni a 

AB NE R W. SIBA L, Con ne ct icut 

GL EN N CU NN INGH AM , Neb rask a 

JA MES T. BR OY HI LL , N or th Car ol in a 

DONA LD G. BROTZ MAN, Co lor ado

Andrew Steven son

Kort Borciiardt

P ro fe ss io n a l S ta ff

George W. P erry

J am es M. Menge r, Jr .

Subc ommit tee on Tran spo rta tion and Aerona utics

JO HN BE LL W IL LIAM S, Miss issip pi, Ch airm an

SAMU EL N. FR IE D EL, M ar ylan d W IL LI AM L. SP RIN GER , Il lino is

TO RB ER T H. MACDON ALD, M as sa ch us et ts SA MU EL L. DE VI NE , Ohio 

JO HN JARM AN , Ok lah om a AB NE R W. SIBA L, Con ne ct icut

RO BE RT W. H EM PH IL L, So uth Car olina

n
C O N T E N T S

Text of—

H.R . 5611___________________________ 1

H.R . 7210__________________________________________________ 1

H.R . 8068__________________________________________________ 2

H.R . 8928__________________________________________________ 2

Report of—

Bureau of th e Budget on—

H.R. 5611______________________________________________ 2

H.R . 8068______________________________________________ 6

H.R. 8928______________________________________________ 7

Civil Aeronautics Board on—■

H.R. 5611______________________________________________ 3

H.R . 8068_____________________________________________ 6

H.R . 8928______________________________________________ 7

Federal Aviation Agency on H.R. 8928_________________________ 8

Hea lth, Educatio n, and Welfare Dep artm ent on H.R. 5611________ 5

Interst ate Commerce Commission on H.R. 5611__________________ 4

Justice Departme nt on H.R . 5611______________________________ 5

State Department on H.R. 5611_______________________________ 3

Sta tem ent of—

Bacon, Oliver C., executive director, Blinded Veterans Association__

Connor, Dr. Gordon B., executive secretary, American Association of 25

Workers for the Blind______________________________________ 31

Kirton, Paul, American Council of the Blind____________________ 33

Mann, James D., Natio nal Association of Motor Bus Owners______ 44

Pirnie, Hon. Alexander, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York______________________________________________ 14

Schloss, Irvin P., legislative analyst, American Foundation for the

Blind____________________________________________________ 37

Slichter, Jack M., vice president, traffic, Air Transport Association

of America_______________________________________________ 16

Trimble, Hon. J. W., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Arkansas_________________________________________________ 15

Weltner, Hon. Charles Longstreet, a Representative in Congress from 

the Sta te of Georgia_______________________________________ 15

Whitstock, Robert, field repre senta tive and administrative assistant,

Seeing Eye, In c___________________________________________ 40

Younger, Hon. J. Arthur, a Representative in Congress from the

Sta te of California_________________________________________ 8

Additional information submitted for the record by—

Air Tra nsport Association of America:

Local and join t passenger rules ta riff No. P R-4 ______________ 18

Scheduled airlines adopt standardized crite ria for transporting

the handicapped, joint announcem ent with President’s Committee on Employment of the Han dicapped _______________ 21

American Council of the Blind, l etter from Paul Kirto n___________ 37

Earle, Dr. Harry G., letter from_______________________________ 56

Inter sta te Commerce Commission, letter from Hon. Abe McGregor

Goff, Chairman, transm itting excerpts concerning transportation 

of blind persons___________________________________________ 48

National Association of Motor Bus Owners:

Letter from James D. Mann, secretary-man ager______________ 44

Local and Joint Reduced Fare Circular No. A-75____________ 46, 47

Natio nal Federation of the Blind, statement of John F. Nagle, chief,

Washington office__________________________________________ 54

Pacific Air Lines, letter from Ha rry S. Wh ite____________________ 55

Seeing Eye, Inc., letter from George Werntz, Jr., tran smitting a

summary of legislation relating to travel with dog guides________ 49

Younger, Hon. J. Arthur, letter from Oscar W. Cleal_____________ 9

in

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1964

H ouse of R ep re se nt at iv es ,

S ub co mmit te e on T ra ns po rt at ion an d A er on au tics

of t ii e C om m it te e on I nt er st at e an d F oreig n C om me rc e,

Washington, D.G.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

1333, Longworth Building, Hon. John Bell Williams (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding.

Air. W il lia m s. The committee will come to order, please.

This morning, the subcommittee is holding hearings on four bills 

tha t relate to the transportation of blind persons by public carriers 

operating in interstate or foreign commerce. H.R. 5611, which is 

sponsored by Mr. Trimble, of Arkansas, and H.R. 7210, introduced by 

Mr. Pirnie, of New York, are identical bills. Briefly, these two bills 

would require the admission of a guide dog serving as a guide to blind 

persons to public terminals or public carriers and would provide that 

such dog must be carried at no extra charge.

We have II.R. 8068, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Younger, from 

California, which would amend the Federal Aviation Act to permit 

an air carrier to carry a blind person accompanied by a guide or guide 

dog at the fare charged for one person.

We have H.R. 8928, introduced by Mr. Weltner, of Georgia, which 

would amend the act to permit an air carrier to carry a blind person 

accompanied by a guide or guide dog or to carry a disabled person 

who requires and is accompanied by an attendant at the fare charged 

for one person.

At this point, if there is no objection, the text of these bills and 

agency reports on the bills will be inserted in the record.

(Bills H.R. 5611, 7210, 8068, and 8926, and reports thereon follow:) 

[H .R . 561 1, 721 0, 88 th Cong., 1st se ss .]

A B IL L To pro hib it th e ex clus ion of (log gu id es fo r th e bl ind fro m ce rt ai n pu blic ca rr ie rs , 

tr an sp o rt te rm in al s, an d oth er plac es of bu sine ss whi ch op er at e in in te rsta te comm erce

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That (a) any dog serving as guide to a blind 

person when in the direct custody of such person, in harness, on a leash, under 

proper control, and identified as having been trained by a recognized dog guide 

school, must be permitted to remain physically with its master and admitted 

without extra charge to—

(1) public carriers engaged in the interstate or foreign commerce of the 

I nited States or operating under a charter or franchise granted by the 

Federal Government: and

(2) all transport terminals, eating establishments or other places of public accommodations which serve or operate in interstate commerce.

The use of a muzzle may be required if deemed necessary and advisable.

1
2 GUID ES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIER S

(b) Failure to comply with the provisions of this Act by any owner, lessee, 

proprietor, manager, superintenden t, agent, or employee of any of the heretofore 

enumerate d places or modes of public accommodations shall—

(1) be punishable by a fine of not less tha n $50 or more t han $500; and

(2) create a right of action in any person whose dog guide is excluded 

from a public place in violation of this Act which may be enforced in any 

State or Fed eral court of competent jurisdiction, and such person shall be 

entitled to—

(A) recovery of damages s ustained ;

(B) injunctive r el ie f; and

(C) the cost of the suit, including a reasonable atto rne y’s fee, whether or not specific money damages are established.

[H .R . 8068 , 88 th Con g., 1s t se ss.]

A BIL L To am en d section 40 3( b) of th e Fed er al Avi at io n A ct of 195 8 to pe rm it th e 

gra n ti n g of free tr ansp ort ati on to gu ides or seein g-e ye dogs ac co mpa ny ing to ta ll y blind 

pe rson s

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That section 403(b) of the Federal 

Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1373(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

thereof the following new sentence: “Nothing in this Act shall proh ibit any 

air carrier or foreign air car rier from carryin g any tota lly blind person accompanied by a guide or seeing-eye dog or other guide dog specially trained and 

educated for that purpose at the usual and ordinary fare charged to one person, 

under such reasonable regulations as may be establish ed by such air carrier or 

foreign air carrier.”

[H .R . 892 8, 88 th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BIL L To am end se cti on 40 3( b) of th e Fed er al A vi at io n Act of 195 8 to per m it th e g ra n tin g of free tr ansp ort ati on to gu ides or gu id e dogs ac co mpa ny ing blind pe rs on s an d to 

att en d an ts of disa bled pe rson s

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, Th at section 403(b) of the Federal 

Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1373(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

thereof the following new sen tence: “Nothing in this Act shall proh ibit any air 

carrie r or foreign air carrier from carrying any blind person and accompanying 

guide or guide dog specially trained for th at purpose, or from carryin g any disabled person and atte nda nt, if such person is disabled to the extent of needing 

such attend ant, at the usual and ordinary fare charged to a single passenger, 

under such reasonable regulations as may have been established by such air 

carrie r or foreign a ir c arrier.”

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget,

Washington, D.C., February 25,1961/.

Hon. Oren H arris,

Chairman, Committee on Inte rstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request for the views of the 

Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 5611, to prohibit the exclusion of dog guides for 

the blind from certain public carriers, tra nsport terminals, and other places of 

business which operate in in ter sta te commerce.

In letters to this office presentin g the ir views on the bill, the Department of 

State recommends that the bill’s a pplicability to foreign air car riers be clarified 

and the Civil Aeronautics B oard suggests th at the bill be modified so as to recognize circumstances where compliance would be impracticable or impossible. 

Copies of these letters are enclosed.

Subject to consideration of the above suggestions, the Bureau of the Budget 

would have no objection to enactment of the proposed legislation.

Sincerely yours,

P hill ip S. Hughes,

Assistan t Director for Legislative Reference.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 3

Department of State,

W as hing ton, M ay 17,1963 .

Kermit Gordon,

Director, Bureati of the Budget.

Dear Mr. Gordon : I refer to your legislative referr al memorandum of April 17, 

1963, requesting the views of the Departm ent of State on H.R. 5611, a bill to 

prohibit the exclusion of dog guides for the blind from certain public carriers, 

transp ortation term inals , and other places of business which operate in int erstate commerce, introduced by Representative James W. Trimble of Arkansas.

The Departm ent of Sta te does not foresee any foreign relations problems arising from the application of the provisions of this bill to surface shipping. However, the wording of the bill does not clearly indicate whether it is to apply to 

foreig n air carriers serving points in the United State s. The term “public carrie rs” leads to this ambiguity. Section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 

d( fines the term “air carrief” as “any citizen of the United States who undertakes * * * to engage in air transp ortation,” the term “foreign air ca rrier” as 

“any person, not a citizen of the United States, who undertakes * * * to engage 

in foreign air transp ort ation,” and the term “public airc ra ft” as “an air craft 

used exclusively in the service of any government * * * but not including any 

government-owned aircraft engaged in carrying persons or property for commercial purposes.” In light of this ambiguity, we would recommend appropriate 

clarification. It is our understanding tha t Representative Trimble did not intend 

the bill to apply to foreign a ir carriers.

The Departm ent of Sta te has no objections to this proposed bill on foreign 

policy grounds.

Sincerely yours,

Frederick G. Dutton,

Assista nt Secr etary

(For the Secretary of State ).

Civil Aeronautics Board,

W ashington, D.C., May 22,1963.

Hon. Kermit Gordon,

Director, Bureau of the Budget,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Gordon : This is in reply to your legislative re fer ral memorandum of 

April 17, 1963, requestin g the Board’s views with respect to H.R. 5611, a bill to 

proh ibit the exclusion of dog guides for the blind from certain public carr iers, 

transp ort terminals, and other places of business which operate in intersta te 

commerce.

H.R. 5611 provides that any dog serving as guide to a blind person when in 

direct custody of such person, in harness, on a leash, under proper control, and 

identified as having been tra ine d by a recognized dog guide school, must be permitted to remain physically with its mas ter and admitted without extra charge 

carriers engaged in the int ers tat e or foreign commerce of the United States, or 

operating under a charter or franchise granted by the Federal Government. 

The use of a muzzle may be requ ired if deemed necessary. Failure to comply 

with the provisions of the bill would be punishable by a fine, and would give 

the person whose dog was excluded a right of action for damages and injunctive 

relief. Air car riers would appear to be included with in the scope of the term 

“public carrie rs.”

In general, air carriers have made provision under existing tari ffs for the 

free transp ortation of seeing eye docs under circumstances similar to those provided for in the bill. A typical tar iff conta ining rules and regulations governing 

virtually all scheduled inter sta te air transp ortation of passengers contains the 

following rul e:

“Ca rrie r accepts for transp ortation without charge, a dog trained to lead the 

blind, properly harnessed, when it accompanies a passenger with impaired vision 

dependent upon such dog. The dog will be perm itted to accompany said passenger into the cabin, but will not be permitted to occupy a sea t.”

Representative tariffs of carriers engaged in foreign ai r transp ortation also 

contain the substance of the foregoing rule, except that such tariffs provide 

that transp ortation will not be furn ished where (1) entry requirements of 

coun tries to which passage is scheduled have not been complied with, and (2) 

it would be impracticable to provide such transp ortation because of operatin g 

conditions or type of a irc raft. Supplemental ai r carri er tariff rules also provide
4 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

for the free transp ortation of seeing eye dogs when in the opinion of the carrier 

it is practicable to permit such carriage.

The Board believes that the exceptions contained in the tariffs of carriers 

engaged in foreign air tran spo rtation are reasonable and a proper exercise of 

management discretion. Moreover, the Board knows of no difficulties aris ing 

out of such exceptions or the limitation in the supplemental air carrier tar iff 

rules. There would not, therefore, appear to be any necessity for the legislation 

insofar as air tra nsp ortation is concerned.

Despite this lack of app arent need, the Board does not object to H.R. 5611. 

It does believe, however, that the hill should be modified so as to give recognition to instances where the type of a irc raft used, or qua rantine or other restric ­

tions would make it impracticable if not impossible f or the ai r carrier to comply 

with the requirements thereof.

Sincerely yours,

Alan S. Boyd, Chairman.

Interstate Commerce Commission,

Office of the Chairman, 

Washington, D.C., February 25,196.'/.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Harris : Your letter of April 12, 1963, addressed to the 

Chairman of the Commission and requesting comments on a bill, H.R. 5611, introduced by Congressman Trimble, to proh ibit the exclusion of dog guides for 

the blind from certain public carr iers, transport term inals , and other places 

of business which operate in inters tate commerce, has been referred to our Committee on Legislation. Afte r consideration by that committee, I am authorized 

to submit the following comments on those provisions of the proposed measure 

which re late to su rface transportation.

H.R. 5611 would requ ire public common car riers engaged in intersta te commerce or operating under a Federal charter or franchise, a nd transp ort terminals, 

eating establishments, or other places of public accommodations serving or 

operating in int erstate commerce, to adm it without charge and permit to remain with its mas ter “any dog serving as guide to a blind person when in 

the direct custody of such person, in harness, or a leash, under proper control, and identified as having been trained by a recognized school.” The use 

of a muzzle could he required if deemed necessary and advisable. Violations 

would be punishable by a fine of not less than $50 or more than $500. In add ition, the hill would create a right of action in any person whose dog guide is 

unlawfully excluded from a public place in violation of the act, which right 

could be enforced in any State or Fed eral cou rt of competent jurisdiction.

Carrie rs regulated by the Commission are generally prohibited by law from 

furnishing free tran sportat ion but there are a number of specific exemptions. 

Much of the free transportatio n authorized may be characterized as for charitable or humane purposes but in no case is a carri er required by law to provide 

free tran sportation. See sections 1(7), 22( 1), 217(b) and 306(c) of the In ­

ter sta te Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 1(7), 22( 1), 317(b), and 90 6(c)). In particula r section 22(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a carrier may tra nsport 

a tota lly blind person accompanied by a guide or seeing eye dog or other guide

dog specially trained and educated for that purpose at the usual and ordinary 

fare charg ed to one person under such reaso nable regulations as may have been 

established by the carrier. The italicized language was added to the act in 

1937 after rejection of the compulsory approach embodied in the present bill.

Clearly, H.R. 5611 has a worthy and humane purpose. However, we question the wisdom of depa rting from the permissive approach to free transporta ­

tion embodied in the act. In addition, a serious constitutional question may 

be raised as to the power of Congress to enac t legislation compelling common 

carriers to provide free transportation.

Respectfully submitted.

Abe McGregor Goff, 

Chairman, Committee on Legislation.

Rupert L. Murphy.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 0

Depa rtm ent of H ea lt h, E duc atio n, and W elf are,

March 11,1961,.

H on . Oren H ar ris,

Chairman, Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha ir man : Thi s le tt er is in resp on se to yo ur re qu es t of A pr il 12, 

1963, fo r a re port on II .R . 5611, a hill to pro hib it th e ex clu sio n of dog gu ides fo r 

th e bli nd from cert ain pu blic ca rr ie rs , tr an sp o rt te rm in al s, an d oth er plac es of 

bu sine ss w hich o per at e in i n te rs ta te co mm erc e.

The bi ll wou ld pr ov ide th a t an y dog be ing ac tu ally used as a gu ide by a blind 

pe rs on which is pr op er ly leas he d, ha rn es se d, co ntro lle d, an d iden tif ied as being 

tr ain ed by a reco gn ized dog gu ide school m us t be per m itte d to re m ai n ph ys ically 

w ith hi s m ast er an d ad m itte d w ithout ex tr a ch ar ge to pu blic carr ie rs , tr an sp o rt 

te rm in al s, and eat in g es ta bl is hm en ts invo lved in in te rs ta te com me rce .

The bill also a uth ori ze s tines of from $50 to $500 fo r pe rson s wh o fa il to comp ly 

w ith it s pr ov isions , an d cr ea te s a ri ght of ac tion th ro ug h which an y blind 

pe rson wh ose do g gu ide is ex clud ed from an y pu blic plac e in vi ol atio n of th e 

prov isions of th e bil l may r ec eive da mag es a nd i nju nc tive relief .

As re habil it ate d blind pe rs on s ta ke an ev er more ac tive p a rt in th e eco nom ic 

an d so cial lif e of th e N ation, it is es se ntial fo r them to us e pu blic carr ie rs , 

te rm in al s, ho tels, an d re sta u ra n ts . Some of th es e blind pe rs on s mak e us e of 

ca re fu lly tr ain ed dog gu id es to ge t ab ou t efficiently an d safely. T ra in in g an d 

selection te ch ni qu es deve lope d ov er th e past 35 yea rs by su ch org an iz at io ns as 

th e Se ein g Eye, Inc., of M or ris town, N.J., ass ure no t only th a t th e dogs wi ll 

be good gu ides fo r th eir m as te rs but also whe n pro pe rly ha nd le d th ey are saf e, 

we ll d iscipl ined , an d pr es en t n o p ro bl em s to th e pu blic.

Mo re th an tw o-t hi rd s of th e Sta te s hav e en ac te d la w s wh ich guar an te e dog 

gu ides an d th eir m as te rs acce ss to ho te ls an d re st aura nts . Thi s D ep ar tm en t 

fa vors th e en ac tm en t of le gi slat io n to ass ure th a t in all si tu ati ons blind pe rson s 

an d th eir tr ain ed dog gu id es wo uld ha ve th e ri ght to us e pu blic tr ansp ort ati on 

an d oth er ac co mmod ations in in te rs ta te commerce w ith fre ed om an d sa fe ty .

We are ad vi se d by th e B ure au of th e Bud ge t th a t th er e is no ob jection to th e 

pr es en ta tion of th is re port from th e st andpoin t of th e adm in is tr ati on’s p ro gr am . 

Sinc erely ,

Ant ho ny J . Celebre zze,

Secretary.

U.S. Depa rtme nt of J us tice ,

Office of th e D epu ty Attorney Genera l,

Washington, D.C., February 25, 1961,.

Ho n. Oren H ar ris.

Chairman, Comm ittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Represen tatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha irman : Thi s is in resp on se to yo ur re ques t fo r th e view s of th e 

D ep ar tm en t of J u sti ce on II.II . 5611. a bil l to pr ohi bi t th e ex clu sio n of dog gu ides 

fo r th e blind from cert ain pu blic carr ie rs , tr an sp o rt te rm in al s, an d oth er plac es 

of b us in es s which o per at e in i n te rs ta te c om me rce .

Se cti on 22 of th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Ac t of 1887. as am en de d (50 Sta t. 475; 

49 U.S.C . 22 ), give s comm on carr ie rs au th ori ty to carr y “any to ta lly blind per ­

son ac co mpa nied by a gu id e o r seeing eye dog or oth er gu ide do g specifically 

tr ain ed an d ed uc at ed fo r th a t pu rp os e * * * a t th e usu al an d ord in ar y fa re 

ch ar ge d to one pe rson , under su ch re as on ab le re gu la tion s as may ha ve bee n 

es ta bl is hed by th e carr ie r * * *” Pu blic Law 330 of t he 77th Co ng res s (55 Sta t. 

796: 40 U.S.C. 291 ) pr ov id es fo r th e ad mission of gu ide dogs ac co mpa nied 

by bl in d m as te rs “to an y bu ildi ng or oth er pro per ty ow ned or co ntro lle d by th e 

U ni te d Sta te s, up on th e s am e te rm s an d co nd iti on s, an d su bje ct to t he sa m e re gula ti ons as ge ne ra lly go ve rn th e ad mission of th e pu blic to such pr op er ty .”

Th e bill pr ov id es t h a t a dog gu ide fo r blin d pe rson s, whe n in the dir ec t cu stod y 

of a blin d pe rs on and under pro pe r co ntro l, an d iden tif ied as a dog tr ain ed fo r 

su ch gu id an ce by a reco gn ized dog gu ide school, m ust be pe rm itte d to re m ai n 

w ith it s m ast er an d be ad m it te d w ithout extr a ch ar ge to p ub lic carr ie rs en ga ge d 

in in te rs ta te or fo re ig n co mm erc e or op er at in g under a ch art er or fr an ch is e 

gra nte d by th e Fed er al Gov ernm en t, an d to al l tr an sp o rt ter m in al s, ea ting es ta blis hm en ts, or oth er plac es of pu blic ac co mmod ation which se rv e or op er at e in 

in te rs ta te comm erc e. F ail u re by an ow ner, les see , or em ploy ee of s uc h fa ci lities

32 -5 60 — 64 ----- 2
6 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

to comply would be punishable by a fine and would create in any person whose 

dog is excluded a right of action for recovery of damages and injunctive relief. 

The D epartmen t of Jus tice ha s no objection to the enactme nt of this legislation. 

The Bureau of the Budget has advised th at there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. 

Sincerely yours,

Nich ol as deB. Katzenb ac h,

Deputy Attorney General.

E xecutiv e Off ic e of th e Pre sid ent,

B ure au of th e B udget, 

Washington, D.C., November 4,1963. Hon. Oren H arris,

Chairman, Committee on Inters tate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha irman : This is in reply to your requ est for the views of the

Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 8068, a bill to amend section 403(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to perm it the granting of free tran spo rtation to guides 

of seeing-eye dogs accompanying totally blind persons.

The Civil Aeronautics Board, in its report to your committee on this bill, objects to authorizing free tran spo rtation of persons serving as guides for the blind 

and recommends th at the bill, if enacted, be amended to provide th at any free 

tran sportation of such persons be on a space-available basis.

Subject to consideration of the amendment recommended by the Civil Aeronautics Board, this office would have no objection to enactment of the proposed 

legislation.

Sincerely yours,

P h il lip S. H ug he s,

Ass ista nt Director fo r Legislative Reference.

Civil Aero nautics Board, 

WasJiinpfOM, D.C., November 8,1963. Hon. Oren Har ris ,

Chairman, Com mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Cha ir man : This is in furth er reply to your lette r of August 19, 

1963, requesting the Boa rd’s comments with respect to H.R. 8068, a bill to amend 

section 403(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to perm it the grantin g of free 

transp ortation to guides or seeing-eye dogs accompanying totally blind persons.

H.R. 8068 provides th at nothing in the Federal Aviation Act shall prohibit 

any air carri er or foreign air carrier from carrying any tota lly blind person 

accompanied by a guide or seeing-eye dog or oth er guide dog specially trained 

for that purpose at the usual and ordinary far e charged to one person, under 

such reasonable regu lations as may be estab lished by the carrier . It appears 

that the bill is intended to cover not only dogs but also persons serving as guides 

for blind persons.

In general, air carriers have made provision under existing tariffs for the 

free transp ortation of seeing-eye dogs und er circumstances similar to those provided for in the bill. A typical tariff contain ing rules and regulations governing 

virtually all scheduled inters tate air transp ortation of passengers contains the 

following rule:

“Carrier accepts for tran spo rtation withou t charge, a dog trained to lead the 

blind, properly harnessed, when it accompanies a passenger with impaired vision 

dependent upon such dog. The dog will be permitted to accompany said passenger into the cabin, but will not be permitted to occupy a seat.”

Representative tariffs of carriers engaged in foreign air tran spo rtation also 

contain the substance of the foregoing rule. Tariff rules of supplemental air 

carriers also provide for the free transp ortation of seeing-eye dogs when in the 

opinion of the ca rri er it is practicab le to permit such c arriage.

There would not, therefore, app ear to be any necessity for the legislation insofar as the carriage of seeing-eye dogs is concerned. However, the Board does 

not object to this aspect of H.R. 8068 since c arrie rs will be able to continue existing practices in th is respect.

The Board does not, however, recommend the enactment of those provisions 

of the bill designed to perm it the carriage without charge of persons serving
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIN D ON AIR CAR RIERS 7

as guides for the blind. It is true that rail, motor, and water common carrie rs 

are permitted by the Interstate Commerce Act to car ry without charge attendan ts for blind persons. However, the seating problems of surface carriag e are 

not generally as critical as those encountered by air carr iers, especially in peak 

traffic times. Consequently, free transp ortation by air for such attend ants 

could be a source of potential net revenue loss to air carriers. In the event 

th at legislation of this nature is enacted, provision should be made, as in the 

case of ministers of religion under section 403(b), th at the free carriag e of such 

persons will be on a space av ailab le basis. The Board has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no 

objection to the submission of this report from the stan dpo int of the adm inistration ’s program.

Sincerely yours, Alan S. Boyd, Chairma n.

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget, 

Washington, D.C., December 5,1963.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request for the views of the

Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 8928, a bill to amend section 403(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to permit the granting of free tran spo rtation to guides 

or guide dogs accompanying blind persons and to att endants of disabled persons.

The Civil Aeronautics Board, in its report to your committee on this bill, 

objects to provisions authorizing free transp ortation of persons serving as guides 

for the blind persons serving as attendants for disabled persons. The Board 

recommends tha t the bill, if enacted, be amended to provide th at any free tra ns ­

portation of such persons be on a space-available basis.

Subject to consideration of the amendment recommended by the Civil Aeronautics Board, this Office would have no objection to enac tmen t of the proposed 

legislation.

Sincerely yours,

P hillip S. Hughes,

Ass ista nt Director for Legislative Reference.

Civil Aeronautics Board, 

Washington, D.C., December 3,1963.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your lette r of November 1, 1963, 

requesting the Board’s comments with respe ct to H.R. 8928, a bill to amend 

section 403(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to permit the granting of free 

transportation to guides or guide dogs accompanying blind persons and to 

atte nda nts of disabled persons. H.R. 8928 provides that nothing in the Federal Aviation Act shall prohibit any 

air c arr ier or foreign air carrier from carrying any blind person accompanied by 

a guide or guide dog specially trained for th at purpose, or from carryin g any 

disabled person and attend ant, if such person is disabled to the e xtent of needing 

such attendant, at the usual and ordinary far e charged to a single passenger, 

under such reasonable regulations as may be established by the carrier.

In general, air car riers have made provision und er existing tariffs for the free 

tran sportation of seeing-eye dogs under circu mstances similar to those provided 

for in the bill. A typical tariff containin g rules and regulations governing 

virtually all scheduled inters tate ai r transp ort ation of passengers conta ins the 

following rule:

“Car rier accepts for tran spo rtation withou t charge, a dog trained to lead the 

blind, properly harnessed, when it accompanies a passenger with impaired vision 

dependent upon such dog. The dog will be perm itted to accompany said passenger 

into the cabin, but will not be permitted to occupy a seat.”

Representative tariffs of car riers engaged in foreign ai r tran spo rtation also 

contain the substance of the foregoing rule. Tariff rules of supplemental air
8 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIN D ON AIR CAR RIERS

car riers also provide for the free tran spo rtation of seeing-eye dogs when in the 

opinion of the ca rrier it is practicable to permit such carriage.

There would not, therefore, appear to be any necessity for the legislation insofa r as the carriage of seeing-eye dogs is concerned. However, the Board does not 

object to this aspect of II.R. 8928 since c arriers wili he able to continue existing 

practices in this respect.

The Board does not, however, recommend the enactmen t of those provisions of 

the bill designed to permit the carriage without charge of persons serving as 

guides for the blind, or as attend ants for disabled persons. It is tru e that rail, 

motor, and water common carriers are permitted by the Inter sta te Commerce Act 

to c arry without charge attendants for blind persons and disabled persons. However. the seating problems of surface carriage are not generally as critical as 

those encountered by air carriers, especially in peak traffic times. Consequently, 

free tran sportation by air for such atte ndants could be a source of p otential net 

revenue loss to ai r car riers. In the event that legislation of th is natu re is enacted, 

provision should be made, as in the case of ministers of religion under section 

40.3(b), t ha t the free carriage of such persons will be on a space-available basis.

The Board has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no 

objection to the submission of this repo rt from the stand point of th e a dm inistration’s program.

Sincerely yours,

Alan J. Boyd, Chairman.

Federal Aviation Agency,

Office of the Administrator, 

Washington, D.C., December 7, 1H68.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request for the views of this 

Agency with respect to H.R. 81)28, a bill to amend section 403tb) of the Federal 

Aviation Act of 1958 to permit the granting of free transp ortation to guides or 

guide dogs accompanying blind persons and to att endants of disabled persons.

Inasmuch as granting free air transp ortation to guides, guide dogs, and attendants for those needing them has no safety implications and the impact of 

this legislation would therefore app ear to be solely economic, we defer to the 

views of the Civil Aeronautics Board on this bill.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised th at the re is no objection from the 

standpoint of the adm inistra tion’s program to the submission of this report to 

your committee.

Sincerely,

N. E. Halaby, Ad min istr ato r.

Mr. Williams. Our first witness this morning is our colleague on 

the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Mr. Younger, 

from the State of California, who is the sponsor of one of these bills.

Mr. Y ounger, we are very happy to have you before the committee 

and we shall be very happy to receive your testimony.

STATEMEN T OF HON. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER, A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM TH E STATE OF C ALIFO RNIA

Mr. Younger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am appearing on behalf of my own bill, H.R. 8068. The purpose of this legislation is to 

give to a blind person the same rates that he enjoys now in traveling 

by train or by bus or by inland waterways. It is a simple piece of 

legislation to amend the Federal Aviation Act to accomplish that 

purpose.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 9

1 would like to read from a letter, a copy of which was sent to me. 

The letter is from the Pacific A ir Lines, Inc., signed by C. A. Myhre, 

executive vice president, and is addressed to Stu art G. Tipton. Jus t 

one para graph is this says:

The Pacific Airlines is definitely in favor of this legislation. For this reason, 

we would not want to see the ATA oppose this legislation at the forthcoming 

hearing.

I can well understand why the endorsement here from the Pacific 

Air I uines, because of the accident which occurred to one of their captains, Oscar W. Cleal. At one time, a man in his plane tried to hijack 

the plane just as it was ready to leave the airp ort and Captain Cleal 

intercepted or stopped the act and the man shot the captain and as a 

result, he became blind. It was at the suggestion of Captain Cleal, 

that I introduced the legislation.

Now, I would like to have included a letter from Captain Cleal-----

Mr. Friedel. How does he spell his name ?

Mr. Younger. C-l-e-a-1.

Mr. Williams. Let it be included in the record.

(The document referred to follow s:)

Menlo Park, Calif., February 20,196}.

Congressman J. Arthur Younger,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.G .

Dear Mr. Younger : I have this date received notice of public hearing on H.R. 

S06S from W. E. Williamson, clerk of the Committee on Tra nsp ortation and Aeronautics, announcing tha t the hea ring on this hill will he held Wednesday, Feb ruary 26, 1964, a t 10 a.m. Would you please make this letter a pa rt of the record 

at the above-mentioned hearing.

For some 15 years p rior to July 31, 1961, I flew as captain for Pacific Air Lines 

of San Francisco, Calif. My flying career came to a close on th at date when an 

armetl sky-jacker atte mpted to tak e control of my aircraft at Chico, Calif. 

During the encounter, I was blinded.

During the y ear th at followed, I began studies necessary to prepare myself for 

entrance into the investment securitie s business, and it was during this period 

th at I became acquainted with the work of the American Foundation for the 

Blind. A great service perform ed by the foundation resulted from their successful campaign completed in 1927 whereby an Interst ate Commerce Commission 

amendment was added to provide a blind person traveling with a companion 

guide to travel on one ticket on over 130 railroads and on over two dozen buslines. I have included with this letter a booklet describing the privilege, as well 

as two sample travel coupon books and an ID card.

In my letter to you of August 3, 1963, I embarked on a similar campaign with 

the airlines, and, as a res ult of that letter, you were kind enough to introduce 

II.R. 8068. I am well aw are of the tariff regu lations and the acts which permit 

inte rline fare discounts and free transp ortation for airline employees and their 

families. I would like to see the airlines of the United States provide a similar 

free—nonrevenue, space available—privilege for the companion guide who accompanies a ticketed full fare blind person. To insure acceptability and implementation by the Nation’s airlines, the “space available” privileges may well be 

subject to a service charge th at covers paperwork, ticketing, and meals. This 

standard procedure currently prevails for a irline employees and th eir families, and 

the charges rang e from $2 to $10 depending on distance. The enclosed ID card, 

issued by the American Foundation for the Blind, verifying legal blindness, 

could well be used fo r the airlines as well as its c urrent use on the railroads and 

buses.

I sincerely hope th at the members of the committee will find this bill highly 

commendable, and will recommend its passage by the House.

Respectfully yours,

OSC ...R W . Cleal.
10 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

Mr. Williams. When did t his event occur ?

Mr. Younger. Tt was about 2 year s ago, as I recall.

Mr. F riedel. Right befor e we passed th e hi jac kin g bill.

Mr. Williams. I realize th at, bu t 1 did not realize th at Ca pta in 

Cleal ha d been bl inded as a result of that.

Mr. Younger. Yes; he is b lin d as a res ult of that. He was a ca ptain on the Pacific A ir Lines.

Now, included in his let ter is the typ e of book th at is issued by the 

Am erican Fo un da tio n for the Bl ind in rega rd to both rail tra vel and 

on bus travel. I would like to have those exh ibits introd uce d. I t is 

no t necessary th at they go int o the record, but fo r the files of the 

comm ittee.

Mr. William s. Let them be received f or the files.

(The mate ria l ref erred to will be fou nd in the files of the committte e.)

Mr. Younger. Tha t is a bou t a ll th at I have to say. I feel strongly 

th at the blind citiz ens ought to have the same privilege of tra ve lin g 

by air th at th ey enjo y by rai l, bus, and i nla nd waterwa y. T hat is the 

only pur pose of the legi slation. Unle ss there are some q uestion s-----

Mr. W illiams. Mr. Fr ied el, do you h ave some questions ?

Mr. F riedel. No questions.

Th e only question I did wa nt to ask is, you say a dog or a person 

to accom pany the bl ind person ?

Mr. Younger. Yes, a person or a dog.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Young er, who determ ines wh eth er a person requires the services of an atte nd an t ?

Mr. Younger. Tha t I could no t answ er. I think you will have 

witnesses here th at can give y ou th at inf orma tio n, because they have 

alr ead y experienced tra vel of th at kind and they are here to tes tify 

fo r th at purpose .

Mr. Williams. The reason I asked the question : I hav e a frien d 

here in Washin gto n who is alm ost blind. He has difficulty ge tting 

aro und by him self, but he does manag e to do so. In my opinion, he 

could qu ali fy to carry an attend an t wi th him. Ord inarily , he does 

not use an a tte nd ant. Would there be an ything in t his bill th at would 

proh ibi t my going along wi th him as an atte nd an t on trip s to Mississ ippi and ge tting our fare at ha lf price? I ask the question seriou sly, n ot facetiously.

Mr. Younger. Well, as I say, there are witnesses who will tes tify, 

bu t I think tha t th at is left to th e association. They issue thes e books 

and I imag ine they issue the books only to the people th at have the 

necessity o f e ither being accompanied by a pers on or a seeing-eye dog.

Mr. W illiams. Mr. H em phill, do you have any questions ?

Mr. H emphill. Yes, Mr. Ch airma n.

I notice in you r bill th at you pro vid ed usual and or dina ry far e 

charg ed to a single passeng er u nder such reasonable r egula tio ns as m ay 

be established by such ai r c ar rie r o r fore ign air c arrie r. 1 ga ther from 

th at th at the re will be no charg e fo r a seeing-eye dog?

Mr. Younger. Th at is the purpo se of the bill. It is sim ply to extend 

the same privile ge th at they enjoy now in tra ve lin g by trai n, bus, or 

inl and w aterway .

Mr. Williams. Will the gentlem an yield ?

Mr. H em phill. Ce rtainly.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 11

Mr. Wilijams. Air. Younger, have you studied the act to the point 

where you could advise us whether or not the law now prohibits the 

carriage of a seeing-eve dog without cost ?

Mr. Younger. Well, no, not to that extent, I could not say. But it is 

my understanding from talking with the legislative department which 

prepared this bill that tha t is true. The present act would prohibit 

such travel, unless they get special permission from the CAB, because 

there is no affirmative provision. Their rates and all-----

Mr. Williams. Presumably, tha t would have to be done in each 

case.

Mr. Younger. Now, under the bill, I would say tha t in each case, 

they would probably have to do it and the airline would have to concur.

Mr. Hemphill. Well, the thing that concerned me a little bit—I ride 

tourist all the time on airlines when I can, because it is more expensive 

to ride first class. Whenever any children are along, my recollection 

is that I have paid half fare for a child.

Mr. Younger. That is in the schedule now, under 12.

Mr. Hemphill. And I am not-----

Air. Williams. Are you sure of tha t ?

Air. Hemphill. Well, it has a certain age limitation.

Air. Younger. As I recall, it is 12 years. I may be wrong in that.

Air. H emphill. The reason I recollect so clearly, the last time I had 

my little boy up here, we had to hold a drunk who was trying to get 

to the cockpit and I was up in the front seat and I paid a half fare 

for my little boy and a drunk came running up their trying to get 

in the cockpit.

This is quite beyond the point here, but the thought occurred to me, 

would there be a penalty do you think, if, because a space would be 

taken, half fare were charged for the attendant? If the attendant 

came along, I assume full fare would be charged under your bill; is 

that right ?

Air. Friedel. No ; it would be free.

Air. Younger. This is gran ting exactly the same privilege tha t they 

enjoy already on trains, buses, and inland waterways, which grants 

a free passage to the accompanying person or to a seeing-eye dog.

Air. Hemphill. It is apparent what your purpose is, but I wanted 

it to be clear that you intend for the person or the animal to have the 

privilege of proceeding without charge ?

Mr. Younger. That is right.

Air. Friedel. Air. Younger, you use the words “totally blind.”

Air. Younger. As I understand, tha t is exactly the same wording 

that is used in the Transportation Act.

Air. Friedel. And Air. Weltner’s bill, II.R. 8928, says “carrying any 

blind person.” It does not use the word “totally.”

What I am trying to bring out is tha t one bill might take care of a 

person, the one that the chairman was speaking of, who is not totally 

blind or could hardly see but who could classify as blind. But your 

bill says “totally blind.”

Air. Younger. As I understand, in my talk with the legislative counsel, I asked them to draft this bill and follow exactly the same lines as 

followed in the bill permitting the transportation on rails.

Air. Friedel. Thank you, sir.

Air. Hemphill. Let me pursue this a little further.
12 GUIDES FOE TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

Sup pose the y have a sello ut, which they do ofte n on some of the 

lines, or at least the y claim they do. If they do not, the y will mak e 

you w ait u ntil the next plane. Yo ur bill does not pro vide it, but Mr. 

Tr im ble ’s and Mr. W eltner’s provide a very severe penalty, a line of 

not less th an $50 or more than $500.

Wo uld you object to ou r p ut tin g in the leg isla tion , “on a space av ailable basis’’ as a condition ?

Mr. Younger. I think we ought to follow exactly the same pr ov ision th at is follo wed in the Tr an sportatio n Act . We did the same 

thing , if you will recall, the same privilege was granted to minis ters 

about 2 o r 3 ye ars ago. A bill came out of ou r committee. Pri or to 

th at, m inisters had no p rivilege on a ir t rav el th at they h ad on tra ve l by 

bus or tra in o r inla nd w aterway s. So we c orrected th at sit uatio n. We 

corrected it for the min isters. I think we ou ght to correct it for 

the blind.

Mr. F riedel. If I am correct, I t hink fo r m iniste rs it is n ot m an da ­

tory .

Mr. Y ounger. Bu t we passed it e xac tly as it was on the rails.

Mr. F RIED EL . O h , I see.

Mr. Williams. Will the gentlem an yield ?

Mr. F riedel. Yes.

Mr. W ill iams. At this point? I th ink it m igh t be well to q uote f rom 

a lette r received from the Chairma n of the Civil Ae ron autics Bo ard 

repo rti ng on your bill. They s ay:

In ge ne ral, a ir ca rr ie rs ha ve ma de pr ov ision under ex is ting ta ri ff s fo r th e fr ee 

tr ansp ort ati on of see ing -ey e dog s und er ci rc um st an ce s si m il ar to thos e prov id ed 

fo r in th e bil l. A ty pi ca l ta ri ff co nt ai ni ng ru le s and re gul at io ns go ve rn in g v ir ­

tu al ly al l sche du led in te rs ta te air tr ansp ort ati on of pa ss en ge rs co nt ai ns th e fo llow ing ru le :

“C arr ie r ac ce pts fo r tr ansp ort ati on w ithout ch ar ge , a dog tr ain ed to lead th e 

blind, pr op erly ha rn es se d, wh en it ac co mpa nies a pa ss en ge r w ith im pa ired visio n 

de pe nd en t up on s uch dog. Th e dog w ill be perm itte d to acco mpa ny s ai d p as se ng er 

into the ca bin , b ut w ill n ot be p er m itte d to occupy a s eat. ”

They sa y:

R ep re se nt at iv e ta ri ff s of carr ie rs en ga ge d in fo re ig n a ir tr an sp o rt ati o n also 

co ntai n the su bs ta nc e of th e forego ing ru le . T ar if f ru le s of su pp le m en ta l a ir carrier s als o prov ide fo r th e fr ee tr an sp o rt ati o n of see ing -ey e dog s whe n in th e 

op ini on o f th e carr ie r it is pra ct ic ab le to perm it su ch ca rr ia ge .

The re would no t, th er ef or e, ap pea r to be an y ne ce ss ity fo r th e le gi sl at io n inso ­

fa r as th e ca rr ia ge of see ing -ey e dogs is co nc erne d. How ev er, th e B oa rd do es no t 

ob jec t to th is as pe ct of H.R. 8928 sin ce carr ie rs w ill be ab le to co nt in ue ex is ting 

pr ac tice s in th is r espe ct.

Now, we get over to the other aspect of this, the “carria ge of an 

attend an t.”

Th e Boa rd doe s not, ho we ve r, reco mmen d th e en ac tm en t of thos e pr ov isions of 

th e bil l desig ne d to per m it th e carr ia ge w ithout ch ar ge of pe rson s se rv in g as 

gu ides fo r th e bli nd , or as att en d an ts fo r di sa bl ed pe rson s. It is tr u e th a t ra il, 

mo tor, an d w ate r com mo n carr ie rs are p er m itte d by th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Ac t 

to c ar ry w itho ut c ha rg e att en d an ts f or blind pe rs on s an d di sa bled pe rson s. How ­

ever, th e se at in g prob lems of su rf ac e carr ia ge a re no t ge ne ra lly as cr it ic al as 

thos e en co un tered by a ir ca rr ie rs , es pe cially in pe ak traffic tim es. Co nseq ue ntly, 

fr ee tr ansp ort ati on by a ir fo r su ch att en d an ts could be a so ur ce of pote nti al ne t 

reve nu e los s to a ir car ri ers .
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIERS 13

Here is the key sentence in here, I thi nk :

In th e ev en t th a t le gi slat io n of this n atu re is en ac ted, pr ov ision sh ou ld be mad e, 

as in th e ca se of m in is te rs o f re lig io n under sec tio n 403(b ), th a t th e f re e car ri ag e 

of suc h pe rs on s will be on a s pa ce avai la ble basis.

What would be your thought about p uttin g this on a space available 

basis as far as the free carriage of guides ?

Mr. Younger. 1 think it would be up to the subcommittee to decide 

that. I would prefer tha t the bil[ be passed giving the same rights 

that they have and enjoy on the rails. I think this question of space 

available is wrong. 1 think that the question of leaving it to the rules 

and regulations is the same problem we have had with the FCC. This 

is a matter tha t ought to be in the legislation. It ought not to be 

subject to rules of the FAA or the CAB. It should be a matter of 

legislative right of the Congress. Or to say that the carriers are willing to give this privilege—I do not think we ought to leave it to the 

carriers. I think it ought to be a part of the legislation.

Mr. Williams. I would think that the committee will not have much 

difficulty with tha t partic ular part of the bill tha t deals with the free 

carriage of seeing-eye dogs. Our problem is going to be the question 

of the accompanying guides.

Mr. Devine. Would the chairman yield ?

Mr. Williams. Surely.

Mr. Devine. I apologize for not being here rig ht a t the start of the 

hearing. I hope you have not gone into this.

Mr. Younger, have you gone into the question of whether any animals, any pets, are permitted in the passenger part of the aircraft 

that are not caged ? As I understand, at least under present regulations, any animal, pet or otherwise, is caged when in the passenger 

area. Perha ps somobody knows about this.

Mr. Younger. I think that is true. However, a seeing-eye dog, in 

my opinion, is an animal tha t is very well trained.

Mr. Devine. Probably conducts himself better than a lot of persons.

Air. Younger. That is right, and you would not have to hold him, 

as Mr. Hemphill says, and he will not get drunk and try to get into 

the cockpit.

Air. Hemphill. I have had a bill for years about drinking on a irlines. It can be a dangerous thing.

Air. Devine. I am raising this merely as a question. Do you know 

whether this is a regulation by FAA edict or by statute?

Air. Younger. I could not answer that. I know th at I have seen 

cats and small dogs carried on the plane, but they have always been in 

cages. I think tha t is beside the question. I think you have here a 

specially trained animal.

Air. Devine. Perhaps someone here from the airlines could tell us 

whether that is by company rule of by FAA regulation or something 

else.

Mr. Williams. They can answer some of these questions.

32-560— 64------3
14 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

Are th ere fu rthe r questions ?

(No response.)

Mr. W illiams. Th an k you very much, Mr. Younger.

Mr. Younger. Th an k you.

Mr. W illiams. Ou r ne xt witness is the Ho norab le A lex ander F irn ie.

STATEMENT OE HON. ALEXAN DER P IR NIE , A R EP RE SE NT AT IVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF N EW YORK

Mr. Pirnie. Mr. Chairma n, I would like to sub mit my statem ent 

fo r the record. Cou ld I make one comment off the record?

Mr. W illia ms. Yes, you may. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Williams. Mr. Pirnie, the question has come up—as a m atter 

of fact, it was suggested by the Civil Aeron aut ics Bo ard th at if the 

com mittee sho uld app rov e this, they would pr ef er th at the space for 

huma n guid es, be given on a space ava ilab le basis. Would you hav e 

any objection to mo dif yin g thi s pro posal to th at extent?

Mr. Pirn e. Ce rta inl y not. I t is ju st to try to solve it practic ally and 

I would like the help of the committee, who can appre cia te some of 

the oth er problem s th at are involved in common carrie rs. I t is ju st 

to have the sub ject de alt with effectively. I wou ld be glad to have 

it am ended to meet the situ atio n.

Mr. Willia ms. Th an k you very much . We appre cia te th e int ere st 

you have shown in th is and I hop e th at som eth ing may come of the 

work th at y ou hav e pu t into it an d th at othe r Mem bers of Congress 

have pu t into it. I th in k you are to be commended fo r callin g this 

to the com mitte’s attention.

Mr. Pirnie. I a pprec iat e y ou r cou rtes y very much.

(The com plete sta tem ent of Ho n. Al ex an der Pi rn ie fol low s:)

Testim on y of Represe ntative Alexa nder P ir n ie , 32d Distr ict, New York

Mr. Chairman, thousands of visually handicapped and blind citizens thro ughout our Nation depend upon dog guides. The seeing-eye dog has given hope an d 

freedom to these individuals by permitting them to trav el with confidence with out 

a friend’s helping hand.

Regrettably, these fine, well-trained anim als are now excluded from many 

public carr iers, transp ort term inals and oth er places of business which operate 

in int erstate commerce. This situatio n is an emb arrassment and inconvenience to 

the blind and constitutes an unnecessary burden to those who are alre ady seriously handicapped. In brief, it prevents them from leading normal lives. Moreover, this restrict ion on freedom and travel lessens the ir capacity to earn a livelihood for them and the ir families. I have in mind the case of a young lady from 

my congressional dis trict who was offered and accepted a Federal job in Washington, D.C. Because of existing proh ibitions again st her seeing-eye dog, invoked 

by places of public accommodation and m any common carriers, she h as been subjected to considerable inconvenience while living in and traveling to and from our 

Nation’s Capitol.

A guide dog and a blind individual should be trea ted as a single person in 

inte rstate travel.

It is now the announced policy of the executive branch of our Government to 

offer every employment opportunity to the visually handicapped and favorable 

action on the proposed legislation would be a consistent correlary to this objective. Therefore, I am hopeful that this committee will consider favorably II.R. 

7210 and rela ted bills.

Mr. William s. Our nex t witness is o ur colleague from A rkansas , the 

Honorab le J. W. Trim ble. Mr. T rim ble , we will be gl ad to he ar you a t 

this time
GUIDES FOR TOTA LLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 15

STATEMENT OF HON. J. W. TRIMBLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Air. Trimb le. Air. Ch air man and mem bers of the subcomm ittee, 

I a pp recia te the op po rtu nity to s peak to yo u t oday in su pp ort o f H.R. 

5611. I would like to give you the backgrou nd situati on which caused 

me to intro duce the bill.

A few years ago one of my young constitu ents came to W ashing ­

ton to wo rk as a law yer for one of the Government agencies. I ha d 

kno wn th is lad —Davi s Duty—all his life . Whil e a sma ll child, he 

lost his eyesight, a nd he has been b lin d ever since. Da vis atte nd ed the 

Un iversity of Ar kansas, had a F ulb right scho lars hip to s tud y in E ngland for a year, th en r eturne d to the un ivers ity school of law to obta in 

his d egre e in law; late r he was emp loyed by the Justi ce De partm ent.

Davis uses a gu ide dog. As part of his job wi th the Ju sti ce Depa rtm en t here in Wash ing ton , he was req uir ed to visit o ther Fe de ral 

bui ldings. In one building , he was no t allowed to take his dog 

wi th him —th e dog was allowed in the bu ild ing bu t not to stay with 

him. Since Da vis is very ind epe ndent , th is upset h im since it m eant 

some other per son would hav e to guide him back to the place the 

dog was kept.

In o rder to try to prevent t hi s ha pp en ing again to any one wh o uses 

a guide dog, I introd uced H.R. 8382 on Ju ly 27, 1961. Th e title of 

the b il l: “A bill to proh ibit the exclusion of dog g uid es fo r the blind 

fro m public building s, lands, or other places of business.” As re ­

po rts began to come in fro m the various departm ents, it developed 

there was already a law on th e books to allow guide dog s to be adm itte d 

to public build ings an d public gro unds. Th is was Publi c Law 330, 

77th Congress, appro ved December 10, 1941 (40 U.S.C. 291).

Th is law covers only Government-ow ned building s and gro unds, 

however. PI.R. 5611 was intro duced by me on Ap ril 10, 1963, to exten d the coverage to p ublic ca rri ers and treminals. I hop e the committee can re po rt fav orably either my bill or a bill conta ini ng the 

same general provisions.

Air. William s. Are there any questions? If not, we appre cia te 

yo ur a pp earance and testimony , Air. Trimble.

Air. Trimble. Tha nk you, Air. Ch airma n.

Air. W illiam s. Th e next witness is t he sp onso r of anoth er bill, our 

colle ague fro m Georgia, the Ho norab le Charles Lo ngstreet Weltner. 

Air. W eltner, we a re glad to welcome you, and you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES LONGSTREET WELTNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Air. W eltner. Air. Ch air man a nd m embers of the committe, I wish 

to express my appreciat ion fo r the op po rtu nitv to ask su pp ort f or my 

bill, H.R. 8928. I hav e caref ull y reviewed the discussion s th at were 

held at the first session of these hearings. Ce rta inl y, there is merit 

to some o f the arg um en ts adv anced by those who spoke in opposition. 

How ever, it would ap pe ar t hat certain fac tor s should be stressed.

Un de r the ter ms of my bill, no ai r ca rri er is required to fu rnish 

free tran sp or tatio n to a guide, att en da nt, or seeing-eye dog. Th e b ill 

is perm issive in na tur e. I t wou ld sim ply pe nn it a ca rrier to ad op t 

tar iffs embody ing free carriag e.
16 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

Secondly, the bill wou ld not, o f i tse lf, determ ine th e question raised 

as to “space availabl e.” I t wo uld ap pe ar t hat a carrier, with passage of my bill, would be fre e to pro vid e carriage on a space-availab le 

basis. Th ere is, indeed, a g reater seating problem fo r a ir tra ns po rtation th an th at of sur fac e tra ns po rta tio n. For th at reason, it might 

very well be comp letely ap prop ria te f or the space a vailable pro vision 

to be applicab le to guides, att endants , an d seeing-eye dogs.

One fu rthe r matt er—my bill app lies not only to the blind, bu t to 

disabled persons. Th e latte r is a bro ad cate gory. Th ere is grea ter 

difficulty in prop erly defining the ter m “disabled perso n” th an the 

ter m “blind perso n.” For this reason, it migh t well be ap prop riate 

fo r the com mittee to lim it the scope of my bill to guides and seeingeye dogs for blind persons.

May I res pectfull y request yo ur fav ora ble con side ration?

Mr. Williams. Are there any questions? I f not, than k you for 

yo ur app ear ance a nd testimony, Mr. We ltne r.

Mr. Weltner. Th an k you, M r. C hai rman.

Mr. Williams. Our next witness is Mr. Ja ck Slichter, vice president of traffic of the ATA .

Mr. Sl ich ter ?

STATEMENT OP JACK M. SLICHTER, VICE PRESIDENT, TRAFFIC, A IR 

TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Mr. Slichter. Mr. Chairma n, members of the committee, m y nam e 

is J ac k Slich ter. I am vice p res ide nt of traffic o f the A ir T ra ns po rtation of America.

Ou r membership consists of su bstan tia lly all of th e certificated scheduled U .S.-flag airlines. I appre cia te the o pp ortunity to ap pe ar before 

this committee and prese nt the views of the majority of ou r ca rri ers 

on H. R. 8068, H.R. 8928, H.R . 7210, and H.R. 5611.

One of ou r carriers, Pacific Air Line s, who does not share these views, 

is pres entin g a se parate statem ent from which you have a lre ady he ard 

quo tations. These bi 11s deal w ith the su bjec ts of guides and guid e do gs 

fo r the blind , a tte nd an ts to disabled person s a nd the presence o f gui de 

dogs on trans po rta tio n m edia an d in pub lic places.

1 would like a t the outset to mak e one po int cry sta l clear. Th e air ­

lines a re extreme ly conscious o f the special needs of the blind and in ­

capacitate d a nd of th e in du stry ’s obliga tions to exert unusual efforts to 

accommodate them so t hat th ey may enjoy the benefits of a ir travel.

To this end, we have, for a period o f years, ha d special pro vision s to 

fac ilitat e t he ir trav el on the airlines , if the leg lislation u nd er discussion were de sign ed to ren der as sistance wh ere no assistanc e is pro vid ed, 

we could be tte r underst and the possible need fo r leg isla tion .

Air. Williams. May I in te rr up t at that po int ?

Air. Slich ter. Yes, sir.

Air. Williams. You tak e vi rtua lly th e same position as the Civ il 

Ae ron autics B oa rd with re spect to th at part of the Yo unger bill, which 

has to do w ith seeing-eye dog s ?
GUID ES FOR TOTA LLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 17

Mr. Slighter. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. In other words, you do not think it is necessary to 

have that kind of legislation, because you already have that, in effect, 

by regulation or policy statements or what have you ?

Air. Slichter. Exactly.

Air. Williams. Do you see any harm to be done by the enactment of 

legislation dealing with tha t one specific item ?

Mr. Slichter. I do not see any harm. Aly only point, Air. Chairman, 

is that it is unnecessary, because my testimony, I think, will bring out 

tha t th at regulation or that tariff rule referred to by the Chairman of 

the Board is even stronger than he describes it.

Air. Williams. Yes. Thank you, sir.

Air. Slichter. I was just pointing out th at if the legislation under 

discussion were designed to render assistance where no assistance is 

provided, we could naturally better understand the possible need for 

legislation.

However, as my testimony will develop, that is not the case.

H.R. 5611 and H.R. 7210 are identical. They would require that 

any dog serving as a guide to a blind person must be permitted to 

remain with its master and admitted without extra charge to public 

carriers engaged in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United 

States, or operating under a federally granted charter or franchise, 

and to all transport terminals, eating establishments or other places of 

public accommodations serving or operating in interstate commerce.

Such requirement is conditioned on the dog being in the direct 

custody of the blind person it is guiding, in harness, on a leash, under 

proper control, identified as having been trained by a recognized dog 

guide school, and, when deemed necessary and advisable, muzzled. 

Failure to comply with these requirements subjects the owner, lessee, 

proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of the establishment, refusing admission to a monetary fine and creates a right of 

action, enforcible in State or Federal courts, entitling the aggrieved 

person to recover damages or obtain injunctive relief plus costs, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

To the extent tha t II.R. 5611 and H.R. 7210 would apply to the air 

transport industry, they are, as will be shown, wholly unnecessary. 

If these bills are to be enacted into law, specific provision should be 

made excluding air carriers from their operation.

The airlines are acutely aware of their public service responsibilities and most sensitive to the needs of those members of the trav eling public who, because of physical misfortune, require a helping 

hand. Afany years ago, the airlines formalized their attitude on the 

blind by filing a tariff with the Civil Aeronautics Board under the 

terms of which air carriers tran sport free of charge any dog trained 

to lead the blind when accompanied by its master. It is respectfully 

requested that a copy of this tariff be inserted in the record at this 

point.

Air. Williams. I s that the same thing that was quoted in the letter ?

Mr. Slichter. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. All right; then let it be received.
18 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIER S

(The document referred to follows:)

ATB No. 19 

CAB No. 43

Air T raff ic Conf er en ce of A m er ic a— Local an d J oin t P ass en ge r R ule s T arif f

No. PR-4

SE CT IO N I— GE NE RA L 

Rule 8. Dogs trained to lead the blind

Car rier accepts for tran spo rtation, withou t charge, a dog trained to lead the 

blind, properly harnessed, when it accompanies a passenger with impaired vision 

dependent upon such dog. The dog will be perm itted to accompany such passenger into the cabin, but will not be perm itted to occupy a seat. In addition, 

AA and PAA require th at the dog be properly muzzled.

Mr. Sliciiter. Such dogs are permitted in the cabin of the airplane—and I might say not in a cage. There has never been the 

requirement that a seeing-eye dog in a cabin be caged, and although 

they are not assigned a seat, they are located so as never to be outside their master’s reach. Uusually, you will see these dogs lying 

at the feet of their master, in the space between seats.

As you know, such a tariff lawfully filed with the CAB becomes a 

part of the contract of carriage between the carrier and the passenger 

which is enforceable in the courts. As I said, the airlines, in the 

discharge of what they felt to be their responsibility, voluntarily 

adopted this tariff many years ago. It is in effect today and will 

remain so.

Thus, the mandates contained in H.R. 5611 and H.R. 7210 are 

not needed in commercial aviation.

H.R. 8068 would amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 by adding 

a new provision to section 403(b) thereof authorizing air carriers 

and foreign air carriers to transport without charge any dog trained 

as a seeing-eve dog accompaving any totally blind person, or, 

any guide acting as such a companion.

As indicated previously, we presently carry guide dogs free of 

charge pursuant to a legally enforceable tariff. That section of H.R. 

8068 relating to such carriage, therefore, is unnecessary.

We feel that legislation requiring the airlines to transport free of 

charge a human guide accompanying a blind person is also unnecessary, but for different reasons.

Mr. Williams. May I interrupt at that point ? In reading that 

sentence, I think you will find that IT.R. 8068 does not require the 

airlines to do this, but rather provides that nothing in the act shall 

prevent the airlines from doing it. In other words, as I understand 

the bill, it is permissive legislation so that it will be at the discretion 

of the airlines as to whether they will do this. I would presume, 

probably, that competition would require it, but the law, as it is 

proposed by 8068, does not make it mandatory.

Mr. Slighter. This is on the seeing-eye dog; yes.

Mr. Williams. No; it is on the guide proposition. It simply adds 

a new sentence to the present act which states, “Nothing in this Act 

shall prohibit any carrier or foreign air carrier from carrying any 

totally blind person or guide” and so forth. I just wanted to call 

that to your attention.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 19

Mr. Slichter. Our feeling tha t this particular legislation is unnecessary as regards the accompanying human guide is, of course, for 

different reasons.

Mr. Williams. Yes.

Mr. Slichter. The airlines are proud, and I think justifiably so, 

of the systems and procedures they have established among themselves 

for the handling of persons suffering a physical disability. And these 

procedures have been established on an interline basis. By that I 

mean not by carriers individually, but among them as a group so as 

to provide uniformity in handling and to insure that should a disabled 

person transfer from one airline to another in the course of a through 

flight, he is provided by each succeeding carrier with whatever special 

service is needed. In the case of a blind person, his dog is permitted 

to accompany him. Whether he has a dog or not, he is assisted by 

airline personnel—we could put in parentheses there, qualified attendants, as opposed to merely an attendant—from the checkin counter at 

the airport to his seat on board the aircraft.

Once on board, he is under the attentive eye of the flight attendant 

who is trained to provide him with extraordinary care. Finally, he 

is assisted by these attendants in deplaning and guided by airline 

ground personnel into the terminal building or ground transp ortation 

facility.

If I may digress for a moment, it seems to us that it is not en route 

tha t the attendant is needed. In tha t case, we provide an experienced 

attendant. The similarity between air travel and surface travel, we 

believe, is grossly exaggerated. There is a time element here. This 

is one of the basic advantages of air travel, that because of the shortness of duration of the trip, certain of these additional services are not 

needed.

I can recognize where on a train trip of several days, certain other 

requirements are bound to make that assistance necessary. In the air, 

this is not required. I think this is one of the basic advantages of air 

travel.

Actually, in the case of a blind person, if all the transportation of 

the attendant -were free, he would still have other expenses on an extended trip by surface transportation. We consider it as one of the 

advantages of air travel tha t we provide this and that expense of that 

nature is not needed.

No possibility of inconvenience is overlooked. It is customary practice for the airline with a blind person on board to appropriately alert 

each stopover station along the route of flight so that arrangements 

can be made for the care of the blind passenger. The same procedure 

is employed among different carriers should such passenger’s itinerary 

include a connecting flight on a different airline.

The airlines have perfected these handling procedures to the extent 

where it has been described as easier for a blind person to fly from 

Washington to San Francisco, making stops along the way, than it is 

for him to cross any street leading into this building. For these reasons, we feel tha t a human guide is wholly unnecessary, and, if such 

a guide does accompany a blind person, then the ordinary fare should 

be paid. We are therefore opposed to H.R. 8068.
20 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIN D ON AIR CAR RIER S

Mr. Williams. Before you leave 8068, what would be vour feeling 

about a bill tha t would provide, a permissive bill amending IT.R. 8068, 

which is a permissive bill, to provide tha t this could be done on a 

space-available basis?

Mr. Slighter. For the attendant?

Mr. Williams. Yes.

Mr. Slighter. My answer to that. Mr. Chairman, would be that 

I believe this committee, and certainly the Civil Aeronautics Board, 

has been very careful to control the issuance of any reduced and 

free transportation because of what it can lead to. I think on that 

basis, I would have to say that the permissive aspect would be enough 

to open the door for that kind of development, which I believe I am 

righ t in saying that this committee has, on previous occasions, 

rath er strongly guarded against.

Mr. Williams. Without meaning to be argumentative, a handicapped person who requires a prosthesis is not a whole person, in 

a sense, without that prosthesis. Of course, there are exceptions, 

but particularly in the case of a blind person. The dog, I would 

think, would stand instead of a prosthesis. He would be a prosthesis 

in a sense. Tf a dog is not available, then a human guide would be a 

prosthesis. So it would appear to me tha t there is a very valid 

argument for the transportation of a person who requires a prosthesis 

in permitting him to take tha t prosthesis along so it will be with 

him when he arrives.

Maybe T am going too deeply into this, but a person is permitted 

to carry crutches if necessary; a person is permitted to carry a 

wheelchair. T would think that surely on a space availability basis 

the position of the airlines would not be too much in opposition to 

the proposal here.

Mr. Slighter. Mr. Chairman, on th at score, as an employee of the 

airlines. I have traveled space available for the last 20 years and so 

has my family. This is an uncertain type of travel at best.

Mr. Williams. I realize that.

Mr. Sliciiter. I only submit tha t we feel our providing of a 

qualified guide from the time they enter our facility until they leave 

it is better than an unqualified guide for whatever relief of responsibility some people might interpret tha t to mean. I think here it is 

better that we accept the responsibility.

As I go on here, I get into this a little bit. We take special care to 

define who and with what degree of incapacitation can successfully 

fly. When we do that, then we take the responsibilitv. I think this 

procedure puts the incapacitated person in safer and more qualified 

hands.

Mr. Williams. I would not argue that at all about the treatment 

that the airlines give while in transit. The difficulty here is that 

this person is without his prosthesis afte r he leaves the terminal.

Well, quite frankly, I have had a little experience in tha t myself, 

back during the war when I had to travel on crutches and had to 

have an attendant while I was traveling. I was treated nicely while 

I was on the trains—that was in the days of the trains—but once 

I got into the station, I was utterly helpless—I mean after I left 

the custody of the carrier, you m ight say. It was then th at I needed 

my attendant, not while I was on the train. Fortunately, I came
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 21

out of tha t all right, but I have a great deal of sympathy for a 

person who finds himself in that condition.

Mr. Sliciiter. I would only submit, Mr. Chairman, tha t admittedly your problem in the terminal could be monumental. 1 

thought I emphasized tha t our custody leads him righ t to tha t means 

of transportation on the ground or, of course, if he is met by friends 

and relatives, to tha t point to where he is headed to a destination 

where, obviosuly, contacts exist.

Not at the p oint of the aircraft, but r igh t to the next step. Should 

I continue ?

Mr. Williams. Surely; proceed. I am sorry I interrupted you.

Mr. Sliciiter. Similar considerations compel us to oppose H.R. 

8928. It would do what H.R. 8068 proposes and, in addition, 

authorize free air transportation for attendants to certain disabled 

persons. Again, practical reasons for our position, rather than 

technical ones, prevail, although I am advised tha t the lawyers may 

have considerable difficulty should they be asked to tell us when 

“such person is disabled to the extent of needing such attendant.”

I have talked a good deal about our manner of providing care 

and assistance to the blind. But our efforts have not fallen short 

of consideration for all disabled travelers. Our provisions for aiding 

such persons are indeed elaborate. They have been developed over 

the years on a purely voluntary basis and out of humanitarian 

motives rather than legal requirements.

Only recently has an airline-sponsored committee consisting of 

physicians, flight operations personnel, and passenger service experts 

concluded efforts at improving our procedures. This group worked 

closely with the President’s Committee on Employment of the Han dicapped. The Chairman of the President’s Committee, the CAB, the 

Paralyzed Veterans of America and others have expressed their satisfaction and appreciation for the airlines’ procedures under which 

physically handicapped persons are assisted in air travel. I do not 

believe I need add the degree of satisfaction tha t tha t gives us. 

There is nothing more rewarding.

I ask tha t there be included in the record at this point a joint 

announcement by Gen. Melvin J. Maas, Chairman of the President’s 

Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, and Stu art G. 

Tipton, president of the Air Transport Association, that all U.S. 

scheduled airlines have adopted standardized criteria for transporting the handicapped on their routes.

I have this document here.

Mr. Williams. It may be included.

(The document referred to follows:)

Scheduled Air li ne s Adopt Standardized Crit eria for Tran spo rting th e

H andicapped

The President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped and the Air 

Transport Association announced that all U.S. scheduled airlines have adopted 

standardized criteria for transporting the handicapped on their routes.

The announcement was made by Maj. Gen. Melvin J. Maas, U.S. Marine Corps 

Reserve, retired. Chairman of the President’s Committee, and Stua rt G. Tipton, 

president of the Air Transport Association.

In a joint statement they sa id : “The establishment and implementation of 

these criteria are milestones that will benefit the handicapped and the scheduled 

airlines because they set fair, uniform, and reasonable standards for the accept32—560— 64------ 4
22 GUID ES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

ance of the handicapped as passengers. This will facilitate the use of this country ’s scheduled airlines not only by those handicapped persons who m ust trav el 

long distances in connection with their work but by handicapped persons who 

are traveling for pleasure.”

As a result of the adoption of the uniform stan dards, a handicapped person 

accepted by one airline as a passenger now has reasonable assu rance th at if 

his trip requires him to tra nsfer to a nother flight of the same or a different ai rline en route, he will be accepted on the continuing portion of the trip. In addition, the criteria spell out the services which are to be provided the handicapped 

and the types of handicapped persons who should not be accepted as passengers.

The Air Transpo rt Association Medical Committee, comprised of the medical 

directors of the U.S. scheduled airlines, also was heartened by the crite ria because this is the first time the airlines and their medical directors h ad guidelines 

on who should or should not fly and u nder w hat controls the handicapped should 

use commercial ai r transportation.

Pri or to the adoption of th e c rite ria last month each carrier had varying standard s by which handicapped persons were accepted as passengers.

The now uniform standard s are based on medical criteria developed by the 

Aerospace Medical Association’s Committee on Medical Criteria for Passenge r 

Flying, under the chairmanship of O. B. Schreuder, M.D., medical dire ctor of 

Pan American World Airways. These standard s have been implemented by the 

airlines in cooperation with the Air T ran spo rt Association, the President’s Committee, and Civil Aeronautics Board.

Mr. Slichter. In brief outline, air carrier regulations set up certain 

medical criteria which, when met, assume tha t disabled passengers will 

be accepted for transportation without attendants. These criteria 

were developed by the Committee on Medical Criteria for Passenger 

Flying of the Aerospace Medical Association. It serves as a guide 

so th at a medical doctor may readily advise his patient whether or 

not to travel as a passenger on a regularly scheduled commercial 

flight.

For their part, the airlines have established certain standards of 

acceptability in order to insure the comfort and safety of the disabled 

traveler and all other passengers on the airplane. These relate to 

such problems, for example, as diseases which create conditions within 

the confined space of an airplane cabin wholly incompatible with the 

comfort of others. Obviously, if it is impossible for any other passenger to travel on a particular flight because of the condition of a 

diseased person, the airlines cannot transport such person. Attempt 

has been made to define these cases, so th at others who do not fall 

in them are properly accommodated.

Thus it can be seen that the carriage of disabled persons is not something new to the airlines which the Congress ought to delimit by Federal legislation. The transportation by air of such unfortunates is, 

in fact, so common that many a ir carriers have purchased equipment 

specially designed to assist such persons. I would like to digress 

on that for a minute. I have had the privilege of serving on committees where they not only purchased equipment but assisted in the 

design of such equipment, such as the stair chair designed to transport 

a person from the ground level up the steps of an airplane, with no 

stepping sensation whatever, plus being narrow enough to go along 

the aisle of the aircraft.

No additional charge is imposed fo r the use of special equipment or 

the rendition of special services. In the light of these elaborate provisions, we feel th at any person whose handicap is of such nature that 

the airlines will accept him for transportation in the first instance can 

be so transported without an attendant. Our reason, I have already 

mentioned, of course, is that we feel we have an experienced attendant.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 23

If , however, because of oth er con sideration s, such as com pan ionship 

or needs af te r arriv al at po int of destination, the disa bled person 

desires to trave l by air w ith an a tte nd an t, such com panion sh ould the n 

pay the usu al and ordina ry fa re fo r such tra ns po rta tio n.

As I said at th e outset, the a irline s have n ot been inse nsitive to their 

public service respon sibilities. Th ey have reacted in a most useful 

ma nner, as d em onstrate d b y the app roval of do ctors, disabled persons, 

and the Pr esiden t's Com mittee on the Em plo ym ent of the Han di ­

capped. Th ey have tak en acti on, I might add, on a pu rel y volunta ry basis. Hence the y feel th at there is no need fo r a Fe de ral 

law, enforc ible by criminal pen alties, ap pe ar to force the m to do 

th at which they alr eady do an d re qu iri ng them to fu rther do th at 

which, due to th eir esta blis hed p ractices, is un nece ssary.

Tha nk you very much.

Mr. W illiams. Mr. Slich ter , th an k you v ery much. In the settin g 

of these hearings and in the conside ration of these bills, I hope th at 

no infere nce will be draw n th at there is an im plied crit icism of the 

ma nner in which the air lin es have ha nd led th is problem. Qu ite 

fra nk ly, I th in k the airlin es hav e done a magnific ent job in cop ing 

with th is problem . I hav e seen blind persons an d ha nd ica pped pe rsons tak en on board ai rc ra ft an d taken off of ai rc ra ft an d handled 

expertly an d with the greates t care. Thi s is by no mea ns inte nded 

as criticism .

But I reco gniz e also th at there are practic al pro blems th at ha nd icap ped people face an d pa rti cu la rly blind peop le, blind people bein g 

in a sort of special catego ry as fa r as I am c oncerne d and I feel t hat 

you feel the same way.

When eve r a blind person mu st tra ve l, if he does no t hav e a seeingeye dog, he must hav e somebody to g o wi th h im to guide him . Tha t 

hand ica ps him in th at he feels it is his res ponsibility to foot the expenses o f t hat guide. So th at a ha nd ica pp ed pers on who requires the 

services of an at te nd an t is even fu rther ha nd ica pp ed bv the req uir ement th at h e mu st foot the expenses. I feel th at the airlin es in thi s 

instance might well give serious conside ration to pe rm itt ing guides, 

human guides, to receive tra ns po rta tio n eit he r fre e o r a t a re duc ed fare.

Now, the sub ject of reduce d fare s ha s no t entered the discu ssion here. 

W ha t would be the p ositio n of t he A TA wi th resp ect to th at ?

Air. Slichter. We ll, I believe, Air. Ch air man, th is is no t rea lly a 

que stio n with us of the loss of reve nue. I t really is not.

Air. W illiams. I r eal ize th at.

Air. Slichter. I t is a ques tion of the prin ciple of w hethe r t he blind 

person is pr op erly and expertly tak en care of. Our p oint is t hat we 

believe t h at w hile in ou r custo dy, we thi nk he is in e xp ert hands, with 

or witho ut a dog. Beca use wi th a seein g-eve dog, th e dog will pr event the blind person from hu rtin g him sel f, bu t he does not lend him 

to the correct airp lane or wh at hav e you. So we pro vid e and must 

provide the att en da nt from the min ute he hi ts our prem ises thro ug ho ut, 

un til he is back on th e pr op er tran sp or ta tio n th at he needs on the 

ground at th e ot he r end.

So in ans wer to yo ur question, I wo uld be force d to say t hat we have 

no t even considered this as a matter of revenue at all.

Air. Williams. I f there were a requ ireme nt in th is legislation by law 

th at airlin es c ar ry guides or seeing-eye dogs, I wou ld agree wi th the
24 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

prem ise. But since this is peim issive legisla tion, what possible objectio n could there be to pe rm itting an ai r ca rri er t o do this? Th ey do 

no t have to i f they do no t wa nt to.

I wou ld pres ume the com petition would tak e care of th at.

Air. Sliciite r. Competition would, Air. Chairma n, and the n, of 

course, really, the same arg um ent app lies lea din g to th e position th at 

this committee has taken before. You open t hat doo r which you have 

caref ully guard ed, a nd which, incidentally , has p rotected th e in du str y, 

ag ain not from the revenue standpoint , bu t fro m sheer abuse. Ou r 

po int is th at even the permissive as pect is ju st the beg inning. No t th at 

any fu ture legisla tion would make it any worse. Th e actions based 

on ju st that perm ission in itself w ould s ta rt th e problem , I believe.

Air. Williams. Air. F riedel ?

Air. F riedel. You p rac tically asked th e same question I w ant to ask 

abo ut ha lf fare fo r a guide. I can u nd ers tan d th at in some cases they 

need a gui de with them, because a seeing-eye dog would no t be able 

to take them to the ir de stinat ion a fter they have reached the te rm ina l. 

They mi gh t be in a strange city. I think some con sideration sho uld 

be given when they have a guide with them. Th e huma n ou gh t t o be 

given some con sideration on the red uced fare .

Air. W illiams. Air. Devine?

Air. D evine. I think Air. S lic hter mad e it quit e clear th at th e flig ht 

carriers a re not concerned with t he economic f actors here w hatso eve r; 

it is jus t the p recede nt th at m igh t be set and t he abuses th at c ould resu lt therefrom .

Air. Sliciit er. We would not tak e th at position unle ss we felt th at 

completely adequa te pro tection and guida nce were pro vided.

Air. Devine. W ith ou t law ?

Air. Sliciiter. Yes. I f th at were no t the case, the n, of course, it 

would give a whole new sla nt on the l egislation entirely.

Air. Willia ms. I suppose you tak e the case th at once th is is done, 

the n the parap leg ics will come in, the n af te r the parap leg ics , then it 

might get down to the po int where the ill person c arry ing a nurse, or 

maids for ch ildren mi gh t come in.

Air. S lighter. I can sub mit a long lis t and you g et into the Arme d 

Forces a nd proceed in man y different directio ns. In th e case of par aplegics, I h ave h ad a gr ea t deal of experienc e. Th e work betw een the 

carriers and the parap leg ics—this was mo stly fro m Lo ng Bea ch to 

Rochester—has resulted in their being some of t he be st pas sengers we 

have, comp letely pro vid ed for, the ma chine ry wo rki ng be autifully, 

just beautifully.

Mr. W illiams. I am still in clined in my own m ind , though, to p ut a 

bli nd person in a different catego ry fro m a parap leg ic. But I can 

cer tainly understand you r fears.

Any fu rthe r questio ns ?

(No response.)

Air. Williams. Th an k you very much.

Ou r nex t witness is Mr. Olive r Bacon, executive dir ector , Bl inde d 

Veterans Association.

Air. Bacon?
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIERS 25

STATEMENT OF OLIVER C. BACON, EXECUTIVE DIREC TOR, 

BLINDE D VETERANS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Williams. I believe we have a copy of a statement, Mr. Bacon, 

tha t has been submitted and we will let that be included in the record 

at this point, if that be your desire.

Mr. Bacon. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to follows:)

Statement of Oliver C. Bacon, Executive Director, Blinded Veterans

Association

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, th e Blinded V eterans Association 

is pleased to have the opportunity to tes tify on H.R. 8068, a bill designed to amend 

section 403(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to permit the gr anting of free 

transp ortation to guides or seeing-eye dogs accompanying tota lly blind persons.

At the Blinded Veterans Association’s 18th Annual Convention, assembled in 

the city of Columbus, Ohio, on August 6 to 10, 1963, the following resolution was 

unanimously adopted stating th at our organiz ation do whate ver possible to negotia te for free transp ortation to guides and seeing-eye dogs accompanying blinded 

persons on a ir carriers.

“Whereas, more tha n 10 years ago the Blinded Vete rans Association inaugurated talks with the Air Transpo rt Association in the hope of getting a two-forone concession for plane travel in the United States similar to th at enjoyed by 

blind persons on bus and tra in trav el ; and

“Whe reas this proi>osition was never followed up in the proper man ner with 

the result th at it has remained dormant these many years in spite of the fact 

th at several of the la rge r air lines were kindly disposed toward such an ar rangement : Now, therefore, be it

“Resolved, Th at the Blinded Vete rans Association take steps to reopen negotiations with the Air Transpo rt Association with a view of obtaining travel concessions on airlines for all blind persons similar to the privileges enjoyed on buses 

which is a stra igh t two-for-one conc ession; and be it fu rth er

“Resolved, That such trav el arrang ements be made with th e cooperation of the 

American Foundation for the Blind as administered by them along the same 

lines t ha t they now handle all other trav el books.”

The element of time is as imp ortant to the blind in the professions and business as it is to the sighted person, and many times the double expense involved 

in having a guide accompany him causes the blind to seek cheaper but much 

slower methods of tran spo rtation. The granting of free transp ortation to guides 

and seeing-eye dogs accompanying blind people on air car riers would increase th e 

mobility and the activities of th e blind in general.

Mr. Bacon. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am 

Oliver Bacon, the executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association. As you will read in my statement, the Blinded Veterans 

Association, at their 18th annual convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 

August of 1963, unanimously passed the resolution tha t is included 

in the statement. I cannot quote the resolution verbatim, but in 

essence, it is stated tha t some 10 years ago we started the negotiations 

with the Air Transport Association to try to provide for this 2- 

for-1 fare concession which we now enjoy on our railroads, buses, and 

inland waterways. The followup and the negotiations for this were 

not completed. So for these 10 years, it had lain dormant. At the 

convention, the convention assembled requested tha t we do all in our 

power to bring these negotiations to a satisfactory and a successful 

completion.
26 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

So the Blinded Veterans Association and their hoard of directors 

have instructed me to testify in favor of 8068, this bill to provide 

the human guide and the seeing-eye dog on the air carrier, and foreign air carrier lines.

The statement, as I have written it, goes further to state tha t the 

problem of this economic factor in providing the fare for your guide, 

where we require and where we wish a human guide to go with us, 

the economic factor of footing the bill, so to speak, has caused many, 

of the blind to seek the cheaper but of course the much slower transportation. In a case where you wish to fly, we will say, from Los 

Angeles to Chicago, the double transportation costs would be so 

much that it would force them to go to the railroad, which would 

take, at its best, 39 hours, which is a considerably long time.

The period of time for the blind is just as important as it is to 

the sighted person and to the blind who are in business or in professions, the airlines are the only way to travel. The provision of 

the human guide is quite important insofar as your comfort in the 

cabin is concerned, as well as going through the terminal and eventually to your transportation outside the terminal and on into the city.

Now, that is about all I have to say. If there are any questions, I 

shall be most happy to answer them.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Bacon, you have heard the testimony of the 

representative of the Air Transport Association expressing their 

opposition to the enactment of legislation along these lines. You 

have heard his explanation of the manner in which the airlines 

handle these cases when a blind person appears in the terminal as a 

passenger of one of the airlines.

Mr. Bacon. That is right.

Mr. Williams. Your problem, as I understand it, is not so much 

while you are in custody of the air carrier but at the beginning and 

end of vour flight, is that not correct ?

Mr. Bacon. Quite true, yes, sir. The problem also, we have found, 

and I have personally found this, the problem will arise when we 

are riding, especially myself, whenever I take an airline and I go 

the tourist or coach class. We find, of course, that if your plane is 

quite full, you have perhaps only two or three girls to handle this 

entire cabin load of people. Many times, when we have a specific 

problem that we have to take care of, we cannot get the attention 

of the stewardess to help. Many times we are rather reluctant to do 

it because of the fact that we know she has quite a few other people 

to take care of and we would rather not bother her.

In the problem of eating aboard the plane, it has provided many 

hard experiences insofar as finding your food and doing all of the 

processes that go into feeding yourself aboard the plane, the determination of where the food is on the plate and how everything is located 

on it.

Actually, the problem lies—personally, the problem with the blind 

is we have had extremely fine service from the airlines, from the 

personnel, the passenger service representatives, in disembarking 

from the plane and from the terminal into the airplane. But in 

the case of where you go from your baggage pickup, from t hat point 

on, many times it becomes extremely difficult. The airline terminal 

personnel or the airline passenger men will leave us at the baggage,
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 27

the spot where you pick up your baggage, and from there on it is 

up to you to pick up your air cap, your baggagemen, to help you 

get your baggage to the limousine or to the cab or wherever it is. 

This is really where we do have the most problems.

Mr. Williams. What would be your feeling about putting this on 

a space-available basis for the guide?

Mr. B acon. Yes, this the Blinded Veterans Association would certainly not be opposed to, because we can see tha t whereas in their 

peak situations with the airlines, this could create a hardship in the 

one extra seat being taken up; however, I am not too sure tha t there 

would be too many, actually too many blind persons on one specific 

flight, we will say, or even a daily series of flights, whereas to create 

a g reat deal of revenue loss even if it were not on a space-available 

basis. However, the railroads have this in effect. However, if they 

are in the periods, in the vacation period, we will say, from Memorial 

Hay to Labor Hay, why, then you have to take a lesser tra in or you 

may travel on a space-available basis.

Mr. Williams. How many blind people do we have in the country, do you know ?

Mr. Bacon. I really do not know. I think perhaps some of the 

other gentlemen, some of the other witnesses could tell you better.

Mr. Williams. Ho you know what percentage of the blind would 

have seeing-eye dogs?

Mr. Bacon. No.

Mr. Williams. Would it be a small percentage? Or would it be 

substantial ?

Air. Bacon. I would presume it would be a small percentage, as 

compared with the overall percentage of the blind in the country; 

yes.

Mr. Williams. Air. Friedel ?

Air. F riedel. Are seeing-eye dogs expensive?

Air. Bacon. Alost usually they are provided for free, with no 

cost to the blind person. Alost usually some of your service organizations, your Lions Clubs, in the case of the veteran, of course, the 

Veterans’ Administration pays for the cost.

Alany of the seeing-eye and the guide dog schools have provisions 

in a trus t fund for these people who have not the economic background to pay for them. They are provided a dog without charge.

Air. Friedel. Ho you think your association would look favorably 

on a reduced rate for your human guide?

Air. Bacon. Well, I do not know.

Air. Williams. It would be better than what you have, would it not?

Air. Bacon. Well, yes; it would be. Actually, this is the thing. 

We have found tha t the double fare, of course, is our biggest block. 

And I am sure it is to all blind people when they travel. The benefits, 

of course, in a 4-hour flight or 4^ -hou r flight, we will say, from 

Washington to San Francisco, should outweigh, I suppose, the economic, but many times if you do not have the finances, it cannot outweigh it.

Air. Friedel. That is all, Air. Chairman.

Air. Williams. Air. Hevine?

Air. Hevine. I have no questions, Air. Chairman.

Air. Williams. Air. Hemphill ?
28 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

Mr. H em ph ill. I had to leave here. I ha d an appoint me nt and 

I m issed Mr. Sl ichter’s testimony, bu t I assume you heard it, d id you 

not?

Mr. Bacon. Yes, sir.

Mr. H em ph ill. I believe he t ake s the position for A TA th at u nd er 

prese nt con ditions a nd ta rif f rule s o f t he Civil A ero nau tics B oard, th e 

people who hav e the misfo rtu ne to be blind are given ex tra ordina ry 

care whenever they board the a ircr af t. Do you feel th at t hey are o r 

not?

Mr. Bacon. You mean given the extraordina ry care ?

Mr. H em ph ill . Yes, sir.

Air. Bacon. On every occasion when I, myself, hav e gone, I hav e 

been given excellen t care. Now the only one th in g th at you could 

perhap s say insofar as a q ualified person in ha nd lin g the blind , t here 

is a correc t way in gu iding the blind and there is an inc orr ect way. 

Unless a person has had some typ e o f train ing, most usually they will 

alw ays guide the bli nd person the wrong way. Th is does lea d to a 

series of com plic atio ns un til you can get it wor ked out. I t is no t 

insurm ountable, bu t in many cases it is.

Air. H em phill. Do you find t hat th e g roup t hat you r epresent finds 

th at these young ladi es who are stew arde sses on the airlin es and the 

airlines pers onnel in general have the know-how th at you wou ld 

hope for?

Mr. Bacon. Yes; some of them h ave th e know -how . U nf or tu na te ­

ly, some of them hav e even more know-ho w than you rea lly require. 

Alany of them, ra th er th an ju st assist you, moth er you and it sometime s leads to ra th er ------

Air. H em phill. You mi gh t object to th at , bu t I would not.

Air. Bacon. Well, it sometimes leads to some ra th er em barra ssing 

situ atio ns, bu t, however, in the mai n, i t is excellent service, no questio n.

Air. H em ph ill . They tak e the position which yo u he ard expressed 

here, t hat t here is no need f or a Fe de ral law insofar as the seeing-eye 

dogs are concerned, do you feel t he re defin itely is a need for a law ?

Mr. Bacon. As to the seeing-eye dog, I am no t too fa m ili ar wi th 

them. Many of our—in fac t, probably the major ity —we hav e very 

few in our membership for the Blind ed Ve terans Associatio n who 

have the seeing-eye dog. Of those w’ho do have th e seeing-eye dog, 

no t too many of th em are trav eli ng. So I am rea lly n ot too s ure concer nin g ou r organiz ation and th e seeing-eye dog. Now I have had ------

Air. W illiam s. W ha t is the membership o f y ou r o rganiza tio n ?

Mr. Bacon. Th e pa id membership is 1,167. We have, however, a 

po ten tia l i n the Blind ed V ete ran s A ssociation of a pp rox im ate ly 4,000. 

Th is would be those who are war-con nected, service-connected blind. 

Th e non-service-conn ected blind, those in the service and th ei r blindness no t as a direct res ult of th ei r service, wou ld be a few tho usand 

more.

But t he re hav e been only—I hav e had only one or two com pla ints 

in the 15 or 16 years th at I have worked both wi th th e natio nal 

organiz ati on and th e reg ion al gro ups, reg ion al org aniza tions, of any 

inequitie s wi th the air lines insofar as the seeing-eye dog.

Th e eit he r twice or three times t hat I have ha d the comp laints have 

been th at t he air lin es h as charg ed excess bag gag e fo r the dog to ride.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 29

In othe r words, they ha d the suitcase wi th 40 pounds lim ita tio n and 

the dog weighed, we will say, 60 pounds. We ll, this was excess ba ggag e and the y ha d to pay the excess baggage fee fo r the dog to rid e 

wi th them in the cabin. But th is has been, 1 would say, I am sure o ut 

of the numb er of men or people who hav e tra veled with seeing-eye 

dogs, t his wou ld be alm ost n one a t all so fa r as inequities. But it has 

hap pen ed, of course.

Mr. H em ph ill. I hav e one fu rthe r question. I am sorry, Mr. 

Ch airma n, I have been in an d out.

Th e question occurs in my mind, if we ad op t the pu rpose of you r 

resolu tion which says in th e hop e of giving a 2- fo r-l concession is 

where we draw the line, if we do draw it.

Mr. B acon. I do no t underst and.

Mr. H em ph ill. We ll, who determ ine s wh eth er or no t a person is 

so dis abled o r so unf or tu na te as to have to have a guide or an assis tan t ?

Mr. Bacon. We ll, most usually —in the case of the Blind ed Ve tera ns Association, of course, the F ed eral G overn me nt’s lega l definition 

of blin dness, the 20/200 in th e be tte r eye-corrected an d the field of 

vision to be so limited as no t to subte nd 20 degre es. Th is con stitutes 

the leg al blindness.

Now, however , between w ha t is comm only known as t he legal blin dness categ ory and 5 percen t, ma ny of thes e people do no t req uir e an 

attend an t. However, if you are u nd er 5-percent vision or 5/200 vision, 

you are pr et ty well in need of the aid and attend anc e. Ag ain , the 

Ve terans’ Ad minist ratio n itself ha s th is pa rti cu la r law in effect. So 

th at if you are un de r this 5 perce nt or 5/200, then you are elig ible 

fo r aid and attend ance.

Th is is where, of course, it is necessary .

Mr. W illiams. Mr. Young er, in his testim ony, le ft with the committee fo r the com mittee’s files a cer tificate fo r blind pas sen ger s with 

th ei r attend an ts fo r use on railr oa d line s an d also one fo r use on 

mo tor lines. Are you fa miliar with thi s ?

Mr. B acon. Yes.

Mr. Williams. App aren tly th is is the Am erican Fo un da tio n fo r 

the Blind , Inc., in New York, th at ap pa rently issues thes e and pr esum ably the y are recognized by the rails and by the moto r carriers .

Mr. Bacon. Yes.

Mr. Williams. I wou ld th in k th at pe rhap s the Civil Ae ron autics 

Bo ard could issue reg ula tio ns th at wou ld clarify th at sit ua tio n or 

there migh t be som ething th at wou ld be sub ject to reg ulation by the 

indiv idu al c arrie r.

Do y ou know how th at is han dle d now w ith re spect to railr oa ds and 

the mo tor buses ? How that de ter mi natio n is made ?

Mr. Bacon. Well, if you have a tra ve l boo klet fro m th e Am eric an 

F oundation------

Mr. W illiams. That is wh at I have in f ro nt of m e; yes.

Mr. B acon. Th e bl ind pe rson will w rite to the American F ou nd ation 

fo r the Blind . We will say in my case I will wr ite t o the foundatio n 

ask ing for th e t rave l book on rai lways and buses. Th ey send me back 

ask ing fo r a sta tem ent of blin dness fro m an ophth alm olo gis t. Tha t 

sta tem ent is sen t to the m and the y det erm ine wh eth er I come un der 

the legal definition of blindnes s fo r th is pa rtic ul ar booklet.
30 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS

Mr. Williams. Will you pardon an interruption for the moment?

Mr. Bacon. Yes.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Slicliter, may I ask you if tha t will constitute 

any problem for you w ith the airlines ?

Mr. Slighter. I am not familiar with what you are holding there.

Mr. Williams. If you would like to see it, I will be happy to show 

it to you. Do you think this would be a determination of who-----

Mr. Fkiedel. Here is a card with a photo on it.

Mr. Williams. Tha t is not issued by an official concern.

Mr. Fkiedel. It is the same as this. Look at this.

Mr. Williams. Would you anticipate that there would be any difficulty in the administration of this with respect to determining who 

would be qualified to carry a guide and who would not be qualified?

Mr. Slichter. Aly only answer can be, Mr. Chairman, that if there 

is a specific identification that specifies tha t this person is considered 

as qualifying, I th ink we could handle it. However, I think the problem is broader than tha t, because then you get in these bills where they 

deal with other than the blind. Then you have to define each and 

every disability. Then I believe it would not only be difficult for us 

to handle but difficult fo r whoever is issuing the qualification.

Mr. Williams. The bill introduced by Mr. Younger and the companion bill introduced by Mr. Pirnie—I believe it applies to just the 

totally blind.

Air. Williams. Some of the other bills go f urther than the blind. 

They go to take care of handicapped persons. We are concerned a t 

the moment with a bill that has to do with the blind.

Mr. Slichter. I can only say at the moment, th at if some national 

organization specifies—and they carry with them qualifications of this 

type, I cannot say that this would present us any problem. I do not 

believe, of course, tha t it takes away from any of the arguments I 

presented, but in this specific situation, it is clear cut. There it is. 

It says a person is or is not qualified. I cannot argue with that.

Mr. Williams. In other words, you would not anticipate any real 

difficulty with respect to the blind?

Mr. Slichter. No.

Air. Williams. Thank you, sir.

Any furth er questions ?

Air. H emphill. No.

Air. Williams. Thank you very much, sir.

Alost of the witnesses who are here have heard the previous testimony. If there are points tha t have not been covered in the testimony, we certainly would like to receive information on those points. 

If you have written testimony in a prepared text, the committee will 

be very happy to receive that text for inclusion in the record and then 

permit you to make a statment on any point which has not been 

covered already by the testimony in order to avoid duplication of 

testimony at the hearings. It is 10 minutes to 12 now and we would 

like very much, if we could, to conclude this hearing this morning.

Dr. Gordon Connor, executive secretary, American Association of 

AVorkers for the BI ind.

Can you cover points which have not been covered by the other 

testimony ?
GUID ES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 31

S T A T E M E N T OF DR. GORDON B. CONNOR, EX ECUTIVE SECRETARY , 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WORKE RS FOR TH E BLIND

Dr. Connor. I think I can.

My name is Gordon Connor, executive secretary of the American 

Association of Workers for the Blind. I think that in summary, the 

American Association of Workers for the Blind favors all four bills 

under consideration by the committee.

I would like to fortify the remarks of the chairman about the economic need as opposed to the attendants on flights en route. The 

basic—I think the analogy tha t you made about the extension of 

prosthesis from the terminal is most pertinent. This would tie in 

with the philosophical base which would simply seek to make air 

travel for the blind person equitable with t ha t of the sighted person. 

I think that is about it.

(The complete statement of Dr. Gordon B. Connor follows:)

Statement of Dr. Gordon B. Connor

Gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is Dr. Gordon B. Connor and I am 

the executive secretary of the American Association of Workers for the Blind 

of 1511 K Street NW., Washington, D.C. It is a privilege to have this opportun ity to appear before you and to presen t the views of our association on 

several m att ers being considered by you today.

The first of these proposals, H.R. 8068, by Mr. Younger, of California, would 

make it possible for the airl ines of the United States to permit a blind person 

to travel with a guide at one f are —an arrang ement similar to th at now in effect 

for the railroads in the United Sta tes and for other common c arriers. In this 

modern age of r apid movement and w ith th e increasin g cost of such trave l, work 

for the blind in the United Sta tes has become more and more aware of the 

lim itations which blind persons ar e confronted with in using this rapid and 

efficient mode of transp ortation. Most blind persons must have a companion 

with them when they travel distan ces, in unfam ilia r places particu larly, and 

the 2-for-l arra ngemen ts now available on the railroad has been a true boon over 

the years.

It is our hope th at the right to extend this privilege can be given to the air 

travel facilities of the United States. Members of our association, who are 

employed by voluntary agencies for the blind and who are themselves blind, are 

asked to and are expected to travel extensively in the development of the ir 

work. However, because the income of such voluntary agencies is limited, such 

travel m ust be m aintained at a minimum, and we believe t ha t w ith the privilege 

extended under this proposal it might be possible for such blind persons to 

travel more extensively and to contribute more substantially to work for the 

blind in the United States.

May we urge your favorable consideration of this bill and hope th at it may 

be passed into law. We know th at the Civil A eronautics Board and the Bureau 

of the Budget have approved this measure, and we shall be gra teful to you if 

you can help to pa ss it into law.

Another proposal, H.R. 8928, by Mr. W eltner, of Georgia, we believe is equally 

valid and valuable. However, because we are unfamilia r with the problems 

th at may arise in air travel in term s of definition of such disability or the 

natur e of the travel problem itse lf for such disabled persons, we can only add 

here th at we believe th at all persons who need such help as our blind friends 

need should have this privilege.

We are also very much interested in H.R. 5611, by Mr. Trimble, of Arkansas, 

and H.R. 7210, by Mr. Pirnie, of New York, which would make it a Fed eral 

offense for anyone to bar a blind person using a dog guide in harness from 

obtaining access to any Fed eral property to which the person would have access 

without the dog. The bill would also cover adm ittance to public carrie rs in 

int ers tat e commerce and at eating places at termin als used by intersta te carriers. As you know, a blind person using a dog guide for trav el has become a 

very common s ight in the United States and yet, despite the recognition of the 

need for eith er a dog guide or a companion in travel for most blind persons,
32 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIERS

there are many public facilities concerned with inter sta te commerce which still 

show reluc tance about adm itting a blind person with a dog guide because of 

regulations concerned with dogs and other pets on the premises. It is difficult 

to explain in detail, and sometimes useless, that these animals are not pets 

but are, in fact, a very essential working companion for the blind persons who 

use them ; that they are completely under control at every moment and cannot 

be classed in the same category as pets.

While it is regrettable that such legislation as Mr. Trimb le’s proposal should 

be necessary, we believe th at it may have a saluta ry effect and we urge your 

thou ghtful consideration and your approval of this measure.

May I say again how grateful we are to be able to present our views to you 

and to have this opportunity to tell you again that the work of your committee 

over the years has been most generous and thou ghtful to blind persons in the 

United States—and for them we extend to you h eartfelt thanks.

Mr. Williams. Well, I refuse to admit to being handicapped, but 

I suppose I could be put in that category. While I have no trouble 

getting around, I could certainly have a great deal of sympathy for 

others who do have difficulty getting around. Buttoning the sleeve 

of my shirt on my righ t hand requires aid and attendance. Tha t is 

about all tha t I require. So, consequently, I wear short-sleeved 

shirts.

But I can certainly sympathize with those who do require a prosthesis, whether it be an artificial leg or an artificial limb of some kind 

to be a whole person, or whether it requires a human guide.

Dr. Connor. I think th at if you took two people in the same social 

stratum, one blind and one sighted, I think with some thinking out, 

it is going to be much more expensive for the blind person simply to 

go about his daily life.

Mr. Williams. The blind person is handicapped again in that this 

imposes an additional handicap upon him.

Dr. Connor. It is a kind of economic sanction against the blind, 

and what we propose to do is eliminate that.

Mr. Williams. Your proposal is generally in favor of relaxing the 

present situation.

Dr. Connor. Yes; and extending it to the airlines.

Mr. Williams. Any questions ?

Mr. Friedel. No questions.

Mr. Devine. I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. The airlines have testified that the economic factor does not enter into their 

considerations on this. I believe you and your people representing the 

blind persons say the economic factor is a very, very definite problem. 

Now, assume tha t the airlines or the FAA would sanction half fare 

for blind persons and half fare for guides. Would you anticipate, 

putting them on tha t basis, tha t everyone who has a need for it would 

use a guide or would they take advantage of the half fare and go by 

themselves ?

Dr. Connor. First of all, I would agree with the chairman tha t 

this would be better than what we have at the present time.

Second, I think you said half fare for the blind person and half 

fare for the guide.

Mr. Devine. Yes.

Dr. Connor. My personal position here would be tha t this would 

not be the equitable solution tha t we look for, because some blind 

persons are mobile and some blind persons are not. Thus, to charge 

half fare for the blind person as the passenger and half fare for the 

guide would not be an equitable solution.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 33

Mr. Friedel. Why not? It is still one full fare that you are getting.

Mr. Williams. I would think that the blind person himself would 

not want to be given special treatm ent by being carried at half 

fare. As to the necessity for assistance, I think perhaps he would 

not feel too badly about accepting that, but I do not think tha t the 

blind person wants to be put in the position of asking for special 

treatm ent of that typer—except for his attendant. Except for the 

thing that makes him a whole person.

Mr. Devine. The thing I was trying to bring out is when he 

felt the need for a guide, that his fare would be half and the guide’s 

would be half, which would put him on the same bn sis ta s a. si ghte d 

person.

Mr. Williams. I see what you mean.

Any furth er questions ?

Mr. Friedel. Tha t is all.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.

Mr. Paul Kirton, American Council of the Blind)

STATEMENT OF PAUL KIRTON, AMERICAN COUNC

Mr. Kirton. My name is Paul Kirton. I am a lawyer at the Solicitor’s Office in the Department of the Interior. I am licensed to 

practice law in the States of Texas and Wisconsin, in the Federal 

courts, in the Fifth Circuit Court, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In addition to this, I am a member of the board of directors of 

the American Council of the Blind.

We are a new organization of the blind, formed about 2 years 

ago and growing rapidly. I cannot tell you our exact membership. 

My responsibility in this organization is not in this area. The last 

count we had was about 5,000 and we have had some substantial 

groups join since tha t time, but I do not know what our specific 

membership is.

I would like to have my statement included in the record.

Mr. Williams. We will be very happy to receive your statement, 

sir.

(The complete prepared statement of Paul Kirton follows:)

State m ent of P aul K irto n

Tlie American Council of the Blind is a young hut rapidly growing organization, composed primarily of blind persons, with membership now numbering 

several thousand. We are incorporated under the laws of the District of 

Columbia and have as a prim ary purpose the improvement of cultu re, social 

and economic opportunities for all handicapped persons, the improvement of 

the public image of blindness, and the education of the blind in the ir obligations to the public. Our officers and directors serve on a volunteer basis and 

are elected from the membership as a whole. Most of the members are independent, self-supporting citizens who wish to donate a portion of the ir time and 

effort to make it easier for blind and other handicapped persons to achieve this 

same position of self-support and independence.

My name is Paul Kirton. I am an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor in 

the Departm ent of the Interior, and a member of the board of directors of 

the American Council of the Blind. Our organization apprecia tes the opportun ity to app ear before you and express its approval of the basic ideas incorporated in the four pieces of legislation which you are now considering: H.R. 

5611, II.R. 7210, H.R. 8068, and H.R. 8928. We are particularly inte rested in 

the passage of H.R. 8928 as it was subm itted by Congressman Weltner, of 

Georgia. Congressman Weltner’s bill is, in many respects, similar to H.R.

d
34 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

8068 introduced by Congressman Younger of California. The principal difference between the two bills is that Congressman Weltner’s bill would provide 

permission to air carrie rs to gra nt the same privileges to other handicapped 

persons who need an attendant while traveling, as well as to blind persons and 

the ir guides or dogs.

The language of H.R. 8928 is similar to section 22 of the Inter sta te Commerce 

Act (70 Stat. 702; 49 U.S.C. 22), which is the initial legislation perm ittin g 

buses and trains to charg e reduced tariffs to handicapped persons. In 1927, 

permission was first granted land car riers to allow blind persons and the ir 

guides to trav el on one fare. In 1037, this provision was amended to allow a 

seeing-eye dog or other guide dog to accompany a blind person. In 1956, this 

permission was expanded to include other handicapped persons. At one time 

land carriers followed the practice of filing their reduced tariff schedules 

with the Interst ate Commerce Commission Tariff Division. However, today 

only the NBTA and four railroads (the Atlantic Coast Line, Chesapeake & 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Long Island) file such tar iffs; the remainder of 

land car riers simply include instructions to the ir ticket agents that a reduced 

tariff is permissible. The American Foundation for the Blind, 15 West 16th 

Street, New York. N.Y., has acted as a clearinghouse for all land carriers, 

by establishing which persons are eligible to receive the reduced tariff concessions as blind persons. There has been no such clearinghouse for other han dicapped persons; tick et agen ts have used their discretion in individual cases. 

All land car riers have volu ntarily participate d in the reduced tariff programs. 

In each region of the United States, the local carrie rs have established among 

themselves how much reduction they wish to grant. It is contem plated th at the 

airlines will similarly be informed of the permission to reduce tariff rates . 

Then, if they so desire, they will set up the standard s under which such reductions will be granted, if any. No pressure will be brought on any ai r carri er 

to participate in the program.

At this point it should be clearly stated th at the permission to air carrie rs 

to gra nt such privileges should not be amended or hedged about as recommended by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Each air c arrie r is in the best position 

to know on what basis, if any, it can afford to gr an t any reduced tariff trav el 

concession. The proposed legislation alre ady provides for “reaso nable regulations” which are to be “established by such ai r ca rrier or foreign air carrier. ” 

The effect of the proposed amendment would be to take the ma tter out of the 

discretion of the individual air carriers.

It should be made clear that not all blind or seriously disabled persons who 

travel need constant assistance, but many of them do. The cost of tra nspo rta ­

tion for themselves and the guide or att en da nt makes it extrem ely difficult 

for such persons to make quick cross-country trips in times of family emergency, 

majo r medical difficulty or business. By use of a guide dog many blind persons 

have become independent, self-supporting, tax-paying citizens who would otherwise have been dependent recipients of public assistance and private charity. 

Those air carrie rs who wish, in their own way, to aid and encourage these 

people to maintain the ir newly acquired independence, should not be prevented 

from doing so by restricti ve stat ute s or regulation s.

We have mentioned the m ajor differences between Mr. Younger’s bill and Mr. 

Weltner’s bill. The American Council of the Blind firmly believes that the reduced tariff air trav el concession is as j ustly deserved and badly needed by ornei 

physically handicapped persons as it is by some blind persons. We therefore 

request the committee to give serious consideration to including the severely 

disabled in the gra nt of permission for reduced tariffs to the air carriers.

Other minor differences between the two bills should also be noted. One ox 

the differences is th at the word “totally” before “blind” was omitted because 

many blind persons who need a dog guide or a guide have some vision, but not 

enough to be any use to them when traveling . Technically speaking, the ability 

to distinguish light or to ascerta in the presence of very large objects might be 

construed to disqualify such persons from th purview of the proposed privilege, 

yet such limited vision can prove a serious liability rather than an asset to the 

untrained blind person, attempting to trav el alone. Most blind persons are untrained because 90 percent do not incur such limitations in the ir vision until 

adulthood, and 50 percent of the Nation’s blind population did not lose the ir 

vision until after age 65. It is easy to und erstand why an elderly person with 

a recent loss of a substan tial portion of his vision should be accompanied by 

a guide. The words “seeing eye dog or other” w ere deleted by Congress W eltner 

because “seeing eye dog” is the name of a particular bran d of dog guide, and
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S 35

th e Se ein g Ey e Fou nd at io n, of Mor ris town, N.J. , has specifically re qu es te d th a t 

it s na me be de leted from a ll do g gu ide legislation.

We wo uld a lso like to sp ea k to da y in beh al f of H .R. 5611 an d H.R. 7210. Ma ny 

blin d pe rson s, wh o us e gu ide dogs, co ns id er th e pa ss ag e of th is legi slat io n 

ab so lu tely es se nt ia l if th ey are to be pe rm itte d to liv e an d wor k like no rm al, 

ord in ar y cit izen s. As st ate d ear iler , m an y blin d peop le ha ve att ain ed th eir in ­

de pe nd en ce an d th eir ab ility to bec ome se lf-s up po rti ng by us in g a tr ain ed dog as 

a guide , so th a t th ey may come an d go in an ord in ar y m an ner in th e cu stom ar y 

co ur se of th eir bu sine ss. Th e dog has en ab led man y of th es e peopl e, blin de d as 

ad ul ts , to re su m e th e ord in ary fu nc tio n which they pe rfor m ed pri or to th eir 

si gh t los s an d to re su m e th eir ot he r fu nc tion s in a fa m ily an d co mmun ity lif e. 

Thi s re st ora ti on to n or m alcy has b een su bst an tial ly in te rf ere d w ith by m an y carri ers , ho tel, an d re sta u ra n t op er at or s, an d te rm in al m an ag er s ac ro ss th e co un try. 

Th ese pe rson s ha ve do ne so by re fu si ng p ermission to blind pe rson s ac co mpa nied 

by dog s to en te r an d to us e th eir ac co mmod ati on s. The se dog s are usu al ly we ll 

tr ain ed an d well ke pt. F or pro pe r pe rfor m an ce of th e ir jo in t fu nc tion , th e dog 

an d th e m as te r sh ou ld no t be se pa ra te d. We be lie ve th es e bil ls, H.R. 5611 an d 

H.R. 7210, pr ov id e adeq uat e pr ot ec tion fo r th e bu sine ss es ta bl is hm en t, th e c arri er , an d th e pu blic from th e ex ce ptiona l circ um stan ce s. We a re no t oppo sed to 

re as on ab le sa fe gu ar ds , an d if an y hazard has bee n overlooked, we feel su re th a t 

pr ov ision ac n be m ad e to p ro te ct eve ryon e concern ed. How ev er, it i s f elt t h a t passa ge o f legi slatio n of th is ge ne ra l chara cte r is es se nt ia l if pe rs on s wh o are m ak ­

ing a re al effo rt to he lp them selves are no t to be th w ar te d. Thi s is anoth er ex ­

am pl e of how th e U.S . Gov ernm en t, w ithou t th e ex pe nd itur e of an y money , ca n 

ta k e step s to ab olish po ve rty an d oblite ra te unju st di sc rim in at io n ag ain st a 

sm al l m in or ity wh o ha ve been de pr iv ed o f th eir o rd in ar y righ ts.

Mr. Kirton. I w ould like to speak to othe r points. Ou r gro up, o ur 

legal staff, w orked w ith Con gressm an W eltner pr im arily in developing 

H. R. 8928, b ut T wou ld lik e to say a n um ber o f confu sions have arisen 

th is mo rning, and I wou ld like to point out a few basic fac ts befo re 

we go on to t hat poin t.

Th ere are a pp roximate ly 35 0, 00 0 pers ons in the U nited Sta tes, as I 

un de rst an d it, th at are blind. Of these, 90 per cent went blind af te r 

the y were grown. Ov er hal f were blind af te r the y were 65 yea rs of 

age. So th e overw helming m ajo rit y of thes e peop le are n ot going to 

be trav eling much. Th ere are 20 ,0 00 of us who are employed and the re 

are 10 0,00 0 who a re on public assistance. Those pe ople definitely have 

finan cial p roblems.

Tho se of us who are you ng, who are mobile, tr avel a grea t deal alone. 

I have lost coun t of my ai r tra vel myself af te r T passed the qu arter 

million -mile ma rk. T hav e alw ays traveled alone or in the com pany 

of ano the r to tally blind perso n.

Now, du ring th at tra ve l, T would like to say th at in the large 

ter mi nals, w ith most airlines, I ha ve had excellent assistance from the 

ticket cou nter to the pla ne and from the p lan e to the luggag e room.

An y o ther needs T have , I hire assistance in the te rm ina ls. It is no t 

pro vided. I w ould n ot ask fo r it to be pro vided. T can afford it and 

I am willing to pa y fo r it. Th e same th in g goes fo r ge tting to the 

ticket co unter, fo r any help I need in gettin g lu ggage at the oth er end. I 

am w illing to pay.

T am pr im arily concerned abou t those who cannot travel alone and 

cannot afford all the extra expenses of the guide du ring t he trip and 

the guide af te r the trip . From the very sta tistics T have given you, 

it is qu ite obvious t ha t m ost of thes e peo ple would only trave l du rin g a 

fam ily emergency when they must travel and travel rap idly, or for 

some sim ila r p urpose th at w ill occur pr im arily on rare occasions.

The se peop le do hav e some rea l serious problems. When we were 

wo rking on this mate ria l, the very point which the cha irm an made
36 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

early in the proceedings was brought up. The Interstate Commerce 

Act and its provisos for train, bus, and water carriers, has the term, 

“totally blind.” There are some persons who do not have enough 

vision to qualify as totally blind, but they have no business, with their 

newly acquired medical problem until they have received rehabilitation, try ing to get around an airport by themselves, or if they are at 

the other end of the line, having to travel in these emergency situations. 

Now, for tha t reason, I think striking tha t word and letting them 

qualify as officially blind to need assistance certified by an opthalmalogist and verified by the American Foundation is adequate.

The American Council of the Blind is also quite seriously concerned 

about some of these other physically handicapped people. Again, 

the economic and physical situation is such that most of these persons 

are not going to need to travel often and when they do, they need 

most of their assistance at other times than those provided by the airline. The airline does a fairly reasonable job in helping them. But 

they, too, should be permitted to get medical certification and the 

American Council of the Blind gives you its pledge that if the existing organizations cannot assist airlines in processing these, we will 

use our personnel and funds to try to make such arrangements for 

them through ourselves or another group so tha t the burden can be 

taken off the airlines.

But basically, we want to reemphasize th at this is permissive legislation. The permission should be as broad as possible. Without inserting “space available,” the airlines and the CAB can make it on a 

space available basis under the reasonable regulations section.

We wrote to the Civil Aeronautics Board as an organization on the 

request and advice of the officials of some of the airlines down in 

Georgia and asked the question about human guides. The Civil Aeronautics Board, in reply to our president, Mr. Ned Freeman, informed 

us that it was presently unlawful for the airlines to permit reduced 

fare for a guide or attendants for a physically disabled person. We 

would like to permit them to do it, but we give you this pledge also: 

We will never exert pressure or coercion of any sort to make any air ­

line make such voluntary concession. If they do not wish to do it 

now, as Mr. Slichter indicates, this is the ir decision and it should be 

undisturbed. But if they have the permission and they reconsider the 

situation and they can he assured of the nonabuse and the arrangements for their convenience that can be made in this matter, they 

should have the authority so they might change their minds. This 

is primarily what we are asking, t hat they have the permission with 

which to work, because we have been informed and the Board was 

adamant in its position that they had no current authority. If some 

airlines wish to do it and others do not, this is agreeable with us, too. 

It will still help those in those regions.

Now, this is the primary bulk of my remarks, and in the interest 

of your time I will discard most of the other collateral material, except to say that the guide dog, or dog guides, as the experts in this field 

have reminded me to call it, legislation provided for by Mr. Trimble 

and Mr. P irnie relate to other things than airlines. Their guide dog 

situation has only been hampered as it relates to the airlines. I 

would like to say that a few States have public accommodation provisions for these people, but the main problem is tha t as a person leaves 

his town and travels, persons accompanied by dog guides find it almost
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIERS 37

impossible, in some areas, to obtain food, to obtain hotel lodgings, or 

even to be admitted to places of general accommodations along their 

route. Yes; they are allowed to enter the carrier and to travel, but 

these people need to use restrooms, they need to eat, and they need to 

sleep as they travel. There has been no provision for these things.

Mr. Williams. Does that conclude your testimony ?

Mr. Kirton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Friedel?

Mr. F riedel. No questions. I think he made a very fine statement.

Mr. Devine. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams. I congratulate you on a very fine statement, Mr. 

Kirton. Thank you very much.

(The following letter was later received from Mr. Kirton:)

Department of the I nterior, 

Washington, D.C., March If, 196-iCongressman J ohn Bell Willia ms,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Tran sportation and Aeronautics, Longworth House

Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Williams : During my oral testimony before your subcommittee, I failed to point out th at th e 1955 amendment to the Intersta te Commerce 

Act contained a provision permitting buses, trains, and water car riers to allow 

a disabled person to be accompanied by a n att endant without additional charge. 

The language of the 1955 amendment to the Interst ate Commerce Act was incorporated by Congressman W eltner in H.R. 8928.

It would be appreciated if mention of these facts were added to the record in 

addition to my other testimony. It would also be appreciated if we were provided with an opportunity to obtain 50 copies of the complete hearings before 

your committee.

Prior to 1959, Ozark Air Lines would not perm it a blind person to trav el 

with them unless such blind person was accompanied by a guide or a person. 

The N ational Federation of the Blind filed a complaint w ith the Civil Aeronautics 

Board, and this regulation was canceled. At some point in the committee repo rt 

it should be made clear th at permission granting autho rity for a person or a 

guide dog to accompany a blind person is not intended to prevent blind persons trav elin g alone. With such intent noted in the committee report, there 

will be sufficient legislative history to thwart the promulgation of such a regulation.

If the American Council of the Blind can be of assistance to your committee 

in any ma tte r where we have knowledge or experience, please feel free to call 

on us.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Kirton.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Schloss ?

STA TEM ENT 0E IR VIN P. SCHLOSS, LEGIS LATIV E ANALYST, 

AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR TH E BLIND

Mr. Sciiloss. Mr. Chairman, I too have submitted a written statement, and, in the interest of time, I will be glad to summarize it very 

briefly and perhaps answer some of the questions.

Air. Williams. We will receive it.

(The complete prepared statement of Irvin P. Schloss follows:)

Statement of Irvin P. Schlo ss, Legislative Analyst, American F oundation

for th e Biand

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this o pportunity 

to present the views of the American Foundatio n for the Blind on H.R. 5611, 

H.R. 7210. II.R. 8068, and H.R. 8928.

The American F ound ation for the Blind is the national volun tary researc h and 

consultant agency in the field of services for blind persons. As such, the
38 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

fo un da tion has ha d co ns id er ab le ex pe rien ce in he lpin g to develop pr og ra m s 

de sign ed to m ee t th e sp ec ia l n eeds o f b lin d pe rso ns.

La ck of ad eq ua te m ob ili ty is one of th e m aj or ha nd ic ap pi ng eff ects of blin dness. Some blind people le arn to ge t ar ound eff iciently by them selves w ith th e 

aid of a can e. O th er s pre fe r to us e a tr ain ed dog guide . B u t by fa r th e la rg est 

nu m be r of blind people in th e U nited S ta te s ca nn ot us e a dog or a ca ne sa fe ly 

an d eff ectiv ely an d m us t de pe nd ex clus ively on as si st an ce fr om a sigh ted pe rso n, 

espe cially in a st ra nge are a. Sinc e ap pr ox im at el y h alf of th e 400,000 blind persons in th e United S ta te s a re ov er 65, it is ex trem el y un lik ely th a t th is elde rly 

gr ou p wi ll be in a po sition to le arn to us e ei th er a dog gu ide or a ca ne fo r sa fe 

inde pe nd en t trav el.

All of the bills you a re co ns id er in g to da y are logica l ex tens ions of Fed er al or 

S ta te law s co nc erning blin d pe rs on s wh o us e dog gu ides o r sigh ted hu m an gu ides 

to a ss is t the m in g et ting a ro un d.

II.R. 5611 an d II.R . 7210 are id en tica l bi lls which wou ld by Fed er al sta tu te 

mak e it. ill eg al to ex clud e a bl in d pe rson us in g a do g gu id e from pu blic ca rr ie rs , 

tr ansp ort te rm in al s, eat in g p lace s, an d ot he r plac es of bu sine ss which op er at e in 

in te rs ta te co mm erce. As you k no w, p ub lic c arr ie rs , re sta u ra n ts , an d ot her p lac es 

to wh ich th e pu blic a re ad m it te d fr eq ue nt ly ex clud e dogs an d oth er pets. How ­

ever, a tr ai ned dog gu ide is a w or ki ng dog on wh om his m ast er de pe nd s to gu ide 

him safely an d efficiently ar ound ob stac les an d oth er haz ar ds . He is no t a pe t 

wh en in ha rn es s an d wor king . Co nseq ue ntly, if a dog gu id e is bar re d from an y 

pu blic place be ca use he i s a dog, th en th e blin d pe rson h e is gu id in g is also barr ed 

from th at place.

Ma ny S ta te an d lo ca l go ve rn m en ts too k cogn iza nc e of th is prob lem and ha ve 

en ac ted laws an d or din an ce s de sig ne d to ex em pt tr ain ed dog gu ides fo r blind 

pe rson s from oth er laws and or di na nc es which specifically ex clu de do gs an d 

ot he r an im al s fro m plac es of pu blic ac co mmod ati on . T he Co ng res s took si m ilar 

ac tion when it en ac te d Pub lic La w 330, 77 th Co ng res s, ap pr ov ed Dec em be r 10, 

1941. Thi s law st ate s th a t sp ec ially tr ain ed dog gu ides accompa nied by th ei r 

blind m as te rs sh al l be a dm it te d to bu ilding s an d pro per ty o wn ed or co ntro lle d by 

th e Fed er al Gov ernm en t on th e sa m e ba si s as th e pu bl ic is ad m itte d to such 

bu ild ings or p ro pe rty.

Ena ct m en t of H.R. 5611 and H.R. 7210 wou ld pr ov id e a un ifor m Fed er al law 

which wo uld ap ply th ro ughout th e co un try to ass ure th e ad mission of b lind per ­

sons w ith dog gu ides to pu blic carr ie rs , tr an sp o rt te rm in al s, re st aura nts , an d 

ot he r plac es of pu bic ac co mmod ation op er at in g in in te rs ta te com merce.

W ith such a law , blin d pe rs on s wou ld be sp ar ed th e em ba rr as sm en t, inc on ­

venience, an d fr u st ra ti o n of be ing b arr ed from pl ac es to which th ey wo uld 

no rm ally ex pe ct to be ad m itte d. We wou ld, th er ef or e, rec om me nd th a t th e su bco mmittee rep ort th es e bi lls fa vo ra bl y.

II.R. 8068 an d H.R. 8928 de al w ith an o th er as pe ct of a blind pe rs on ’s mob ili ty 

pr ob lem; na mely, th e addit io nal co st to th e blin d pe rs on whe n trav el in g on a 

dome sti c an d fo re ig n a ir ca rr ie r if he m ust ha ve a gu ide to ass is t him. I t is 

im por ta nt t o em ph as ize th a t th is le gi sl at io n is pe rm issive , no t m an da to ry . The se 

bills wo uld am en d th e F edera l A vi at io n Act to auth ori ze do mestic an d fo re ig n 

a ir carr ie rs to tr an sp o rt a blin d pe rson ac co m pa nied by a hu m an gu id e or dog 

gu ide f or a sin gle fa re .

Th e ai rl in es them se lves will ha ve th e au th o ri ty to decid e w het her th ey wish 

to mak e th is concessio n to blin d pe rs on s who do not tr av el w ithout a gu ide— 

an d in th e ca se of H.R. 8928, fo r pe rs on s who a re so seve rely di sa bl ed as to 

re qu ire an at te ndant.

H er e ag ain, th es e bi lls m er ely pr ov id e fo r ex te ns io ns of si m il ar au th ori zati on 

al re ad y in effect fo r ra il ro ads an d b us es to a ir c arr ie rs . As lon g ago as 1927, th e 

Co ngres s en ac te d Pub lic La w 655, 69 th Co ng res s, ap pr ov ed F eb ru ar y 26, 1927, 

am en ding th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Act to m ak e it po ssible fo r ra il ro ad an d bu s 

co mp an ies to tr an sp o rt blin d pe rs on s ac co m pa nied by a gu ide fo r one fa re . Th e 

wor ding of th is am en dm en t is vir tu all y id en tica l to th a t prop osed by H.R. 8068 

an d H.R. 8928. Te n yea rs la te r, th e Con gress en ac te d Pu bl ic Law 184. 75th 

Co ngres s, ap pr ov ed Ju ly 5, 1937, which am en de d th e pr ev ious am en dm en t to th e 

In te rs ta te Com me rce A ct t o in cl ud e d og guide s.

V irtu al ly ev ery ra il ro ad an d bu s co mpa ny oper at in g in in te rs ta te co mm erc e in 

th e United Sta te s an d in C an ad a has gra nte d th is one fa re concess ion to a blin d 

pe rson trav el in g w ith a guide . The American Fou ndat io n fo r th e Blind, the 

or ga ni za tio n I re pr es en t, has as si st ed th e ra il ro ads an d bu s co mpa nies to im plemen t th is c oncession by is su in g sp ec ial coupon b oo ks to eligib le blind pe rs on s wh o 

re qu es t them . The se coupon boo ks an d id en tifica tion ca rd s are is su ed by th e
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIERS 39

foundation without any charge to the blind person, and he and his guide present 

them to the ticke t agent when purc hasing a railroad or bus ticket. I have submitted several samples of coupon books and identification cards. The foundatio n 

will be glad to cooperate with the airlines in the same way if H.R. 8068 or H.R. 

8928 becomes law and the a irlin es agree to grant the one fare concession.

In closing, we would recommend to the subcommittee that the bills being considered today be favorably reported. They a re bills which are a logical extension 

of existing Federal laws, and the ir enac tment would help many blind people to 

deal with one of the ir unique problems.

Mr. Schloss. Th e Am erican Fo un da tio n fo r the Blind is the na ­

tio nal vo lunta ry agen cy in the field of services to blind persons. We 

have staff mem bers who are spe cialists in vario us areas and who are 

called upon by St ate and local agencies serv ing blind persons fo r c onsulta tiv e services.

In essence, as fa r as the specific bills are concerned, we believe th at 

the y a re lo gica l extensions of exis ting F ed eral legislation. We believe, 

too, th at th ey w ould be he lpful in ass isting blind pers ons who do have 

mo bility prob lems. A numb er of b lin d peo ple tra ve l with the aid of 

a cane. A smaller numb er pr ef er to use dog g uides. Bu t by fa r the 

largest num ber of bl ind persons ca nnot use a cane effectively a nd safely , 

nor can they use dog guides.

As the previo us witn ess ind ica ted , appro xim ate ly ha lf of the est imated 400,000 bli nd persons in th e c ou ntr y are over 65; and i t is doubtful th at very many of these in the eld erly grou p will have an op po rtu nity to g et adequ ate tra in in g fo r s afe and effective trav el w ith a cane 

or will be in good eno ugh physica l con dition to use a dog guide.

I, too, have sub mitted some sa mples of th e r ail and b us coupon books 

which the o rganiza tio n I rep resent issues, and as w ell as some ide ntification cards which have fictitiou s nam es on them.

Mr. William s. Ma y I ask you a question about th at ?

Mr. Schloss. Yes, sir.

Mr. W illia ms. Of course, the Am erican Foun datio n for the Blind 

is not an o rganiza tio n as su ch ; it is a fou ndation, is it no t ?

Mr. Schloss. It is an op erating agency, an op erating fou ndation.

Mr. Williams. It does not h ave a pa ying membership as such ?

Mr. Schloss. No. It is inc orporat ed un de r the membership corpo rat ion law of the St ate of New Yo rk technically, bu t it is no t a 

membersh ip association.

Mr. William s. We ll, a bli nd person in one of the S tates—Geo rgia, 

we will say—should req uire an ide ntification card. Could he obtain 

th at b y subm itting a sta tem ent of a n ophth alm olo gis t to the Fo un da ­

tion f or the Bli nd, or how would he go about g ettin g a card ?

Mr. Schloss. Th e pro ced ure w ould be f or him to wr ite to th e foun ­

dation req uesting a n ap pli catio n blank. Th e appli catio n form would 

require a certification by an op hth alm olo gis t or optom etrist th at the 

person has visua l acuit y of less t ha n 20/200. It is the same definition 

th at is used a dm inistrativ ely for de ter mining a id to the b lind we lfare 

payments. Th e person is als o requir ed to submit a pic tur e which goes 

on the ide ntifica tion card—two pic tur es, in fac t, one of which is kept 

in the files. Th e pictu re itself m ust h ave the same certification by an 

ophth alm olo gis t or optom etrist. Th e fou ndation will also accept a 

certification th at the ind ivi du al is elig ible from a local vo lunta ry 

agen cy fo r the blind in the com mu nity which knows the in di vi du al ; 

fo r exam ple, the Columbia Lightho use fo r the Blind here in the Di str ic t of Columb ia.
40 GUID ES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

Th e fou nd ati on has been coopera ting wi th the railroa ds and bus 

carriers since 1927, when the firs t amend ment to the In tersta te Com ­

merce A ct in this area, Publi c Law G55, was enacted a nd we hav e been 

issu ing these books an d id entificatio n cards since then.

Mr. Williams. I s th e 20/200—I guess yo u would call it st an da rd or 

sig ht qua lification—the same sta nd ard th at is used to determ ine 

wheth er a person is blind for in ter nal revenue pur poses ?

Mr. S chloss. Yes; it is.

These books are issued free of charge, as I ind icated in my writ ten 

statem ent, and the fou ndation would certainl y be glad to coopera te 

with the air lines if the Congress enacted H.R. 80G8 or H.R . 8928 an d 

the airlines chose to implement the au thor ity to gra nt a concession to 

blind persons tra ve lin g with a sig hte d guide.

As oth er witnesses have ind icated , it is perm issive legisla tion .

Th ere was anoth er point. The way thes e books are actua lly used, 

the b lin d person and his guide pre sen t them at the tim e the y are purcha sing tickets from the tick et agent.

Mr. Willia ms. Th is would sim ply req uire the issuance of anoth er 

booklet?

Mr. Schloss. It would require the issuance of an oth er book and 

pu tting anoth er num ber fro m th at book on the identificatio n card 

itself.

I mi gh t add, of the estimated 400,000 b lin d pers ons in the Un ite d 

States, the fou ndation issues 24,000 railr oa d coup on books each year 

and 24,000 bus coupon books. Tha t is appro xim ate ly 6 perc ent of the 

eligible populat ion actua lly ap plying for and rec eiving the books. 

W hethe r a sub stantial number of them use it, we do no t know.

Mr. Williams. Well, we can assum e, the n, th at we are d ealin g with 

24,000 persons—a m axim um of 24,000 persons?

Mr. Schloss. I would say th at th at would be a saf e estim ate.

Mr. Williams. Was there an ything else you wante d to a dd, sir?

Mr. Sciiloss. No ; I believe t hat would sum marize the p oints I was 

intere sted in making.

Mr. W illiams. Mr. Devine?

Mr. D evine. I have no questions, Mr. Ch airma n.

Mr. Williams. Th an k you very much, Mr. Schloss.

Mr. Robert Wh itstock , field rep res entative and ad minist rativ e assis tan t, th e Seeing Eye .

Mr. Whitstock, do you have a p repa red statement?

STATEMENT OF FOBERT WHITSTOCK, FIELD REPR ESEN TATIVE

AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, THE SEEING EYE, INC.

Mr. Whitstock. Yes, s ir ; and it has been submitted.

Mr. Williams. We are h ap py to receive it f or the record , sir.

(T he com plete p repa red sta tem ent of Ro bert W hit sto ck fo llows:) 

Statement by th e Seeing E ye, I nc., Morristown, N.J.

This is an official statement of the Seeing Eye, Inc., a nonprofit philanthropy 

incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1932, initially incorporated in the 

State of Tennessee, January 29, 1929. Its services are rendered on a national 

basis and are available also to Canadians. Consulting services are rendered on 

a worldwide basis, when requested.

It was the Seeing Eye, Inc., which introduced into this country—35 years ago— 

the first systematic program for educating dogs to guide blind persons and for
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 41

te ac hi ng qu ali fie d blin d pe rson s how to use, co ntro l, an d care fo r su ch dogs 

prop er ly. The Se ein g Eye, Inc., th er ef or e, has a sp ec ial in te re st in H.R. 5611 

now unde r co ns id er at io n.

Since th e first see ing -ey e dogs w en t in to se rv ice in th e U ni ted Sta te s, oth er 

or ga niz at io ns ha ve en te re d th e dog gu ide field , no ta bl y Lea de r Do gs fo r th e 

Bl ind, Inc., Roc he ster , Mich, (i n 1939 ) ; an d Gu ide Do gs fo r th e Bl ind, Inc ., Sa n 

R af ae l, Calif, (in 1942). Tog et he r w ith th e Se ein g Eye, th e th re e org an iz at io ns 

ha ve fo r a nu m be r of yea rs prod uc ed mo re th an 75 pe rc en t of th e dog gu ides 

us ed by blin d American s an d co uld co nc eiva bly pr od uc e mo re. T heir pr od uc ts 

are iden tif ied in te rm s of th eir resp ec tive co rp ora te ti tl es as Se eing Ey e dogs, 

Lea de r dog s, an d Guide dog s. Thi s st ate m ent of th e Se ein g Ey e, Inc., is in 

essenc e en do rs ed by th e oth er tw o or ga ni za tion s, an d it is pr es en te d, th er ef or e, 

in be ha lf of all th re e w ith fu ll au th or iz at io n. Th e st ate m ent is al so mad e in 

beh al f of th e 3,000 or mor e blind pe rs on s us in g dog gu ides ob ta in ed from th e 

sa m e 3 no np ro fit p hi la nth ro pic o rg an iz at io ns .

Dog gu ides are ca re fu lly selecte d fr om th e so-ca lled wor ki ng bre ed s: e.g., 

br ee ds th a t ha ve pr od uc ed sh ee ph er di ng d o g s; do gs th at ha ve se rv ed th e Ar med 

Fo rces, etc . The y a re se lecte d fo r size, st am in a, he alth , in telli ge nc e, an d tempe ra m en t. T heir ca pa ci ty to se rv e as gu ides fo r blin d pe rs on s is develop ed 

th ro ug h scientifi c tr ain in g metho ds. M at ure blin d pe rs on s (a nd some m at ure 

ad oles ce nts) wh o qual if y (on th e ba sis of hea lth, de gr ee of blin dn es s, te m pe ra ­

ment, pu rpos e, an d oth er fa cto rs ) are also th or ou gh ly in st ru ct ed duri ng a 28- 

da y in-res id eu ce co ur se on th e ca re , co nt ro l, an d us e of th e dog s. Th ey lear n, 

fo r ex am ple, how to ke ep th eir dogs c le a n ; th e im po rtan ce of re gula r vet er in ar y 

ch eckups; how to ke ep th e dogs we ll be ha ve d an d inc on sp icu ou s whe n a t re st 

in re sta u ra n ts , ho tels, college cla ssroom s, ch ur ch es , an d ot her pu blic pla ces. 

For man y year s dog gu ides ha ve been lega lly entitled an d we lco me to trav el 

w ith th eir blin d ow ne rs in pa ss en ge r se ctions of b uses, tr ain s, air cra ft , an d ot he r 

ve hicles oper at in g loc ally, st at ew id e, or in in te rs ta te an d fo re ign tr ansp ort ati on.

In th e pi on ee ring da ys of th e Se ein g Ey e, ho wev er, blind pe rs on s en co un tered 

fr u str a ti n g op po sitio n to hav in g th ei r dogs w ith them in plac es of pu blic ac ­

co mmod ati on , and to som e exte nt th is w as und er st an dab le 25 or mor e yea rs ago . 

To th e un in fo rm ed pu blic th e dog, aft e r all , was ju st a du mb an im al or, a t 

be st, a loo sel y co nt ro lled pe t. It s pr es en ce in a re sta u ra n t or hos pi ta l vi si ting 

are a w as co ns id er ed by some a viol atio n of hea lth bo ar d re gu la tion s. It was 

off ensiv e or a la rm in g to o th er s fo r a vari ety o f reas on s. As th e nu m be r of see ing - 

ey e dog ow ne rs in cr ea se d, ho wev er, an d eff ectiv ely de m on st ra te d th e co ntro lle d 

be ha vi or of th eir gu ides , ob jections be gan to dis ap pe ar am on g th e en lig hten ed . 

B ut ed uc at io n by dem ons trat io n w as of ten a slow proc ess, an d in flue nt ial fr ie nds 

of dog gu ide us er s be ga n to ur ge elim in atio n of re st ri cti ve co mpa ny po lic ies or 

to in it ia te le gi sl at io n in th eir be ha lf in a nu m be r of Sta te s. As earl y as 1937, 

th e S ta te of In dia na pa ss ed laws to pe rm it dog gu ides to ac co mpa ny th eir bli nd 

ow ne rs in pu blic co nv ey an ce s an d ac co mmod ati on s. In mo re th an tw o- th irds 

of the Sta te s to da y th ere are laws th a t re sp ec t th e ab ility of d og gu ides an d th ei r 

ow ne rs to op er at e eff iciently a nd w itho ut in te rfer en ce in an y way w ith th e ge ne ra l 

pu blic in te re st .

In sp ite of exis ting le gi sl at io n in man y State s, th e pr in ci pal dog gu ide org an iza tion s pe riod ic al ly re ce iv e re port s th a t in di ca te th e la w s are no t widely en ou gh 

kn ow n or are ob serv ed in th e bre ach: th a t ed uc at io n w ithout legi slatio n is no t 

al w ay s en ou gh . Blind pe rs on s acco mpa nied by dog gu ides co nt in ue to be de nied 

ad mission to re sta u ra n ts , ho tels, an d oth er plac es of pu blic ac co mmod ati on , 

some of wh ich do an d som e of which do no t op er at e in in te rs ta te comm erc e.

The incide nc e of leg al bl in dn es s in th e U ni ted Sta te s has fo r m an y years been 

est im at ed a t 1 in 500 of th e to ta l po pu latio n. Based on th is ra tio, th e lega lly 

blin d po pu latio n in our co untr y to da y is 380,000, co nst itut in g a tr uly m in or ity 

grou p. Of th is nu mbe r, it has bee n es tim at ed th a t fe w er th an 1 pe rc en t, or 

3,800 blind pe rson s, us e dog gu id es to ai d them in get ting from plac e to plac e 

in de pe nd en tly . Mo reov er, it has been es tim at ed th a t pe rh ap s an ad ditio nal 

1 or 2 pe rc en t of th e blin d po pu la tion wh o do no t a t pr es en t use dog g uide s wo uld 

be qu ali fie d to us e th em to ad van ta ge an d m ig ht c hoose to seek them in th e f ore ­

seea ble fu tu re . The to ta l nu m be r of dog gu ide use rs wh o m ig ht dir ec tly be ne fit 

from th e pa ss ag e of H.R. 5611 wou ld, in th e op inion of th e Se ein g Ey e, Inc., 

not lik ely ev er ex ceed 10,000. B ut if an y kin d of social cu sto m, co mmercial 

pr ac tice , or pu blic att it u d e is fu ndam en tlly dis cr im in at or y, it is ju st as di cr im inato ry to a sin gle in di vid ual as i t is to 10,000 or 10 m illion .

As a de m oc ra tic socie ty, th e United Sta te s may ta ke ju st ifia bl e pr id e in th e 

m an y op por tu nitie s pr ov id ed our ha nd icap pe d ci tize ns to sa ti sf y th eir sp ec ial
42 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS

needs through both public and private programs in rehabilitation, education, 

vocational counseling, training and placement, and others. But blind persons 

in particular look upon their special needs in vocational placement and mobility 

training as key factors in their resumption of independent liv ing; in becoming 

taxpay ers rather than the recip ients of tax-supported welfare. A recent survey 

of 1,200 seeing eye dog owners, incidentially, disclosed that 87 perecnt are gainfully occupied and find th eir dogs of g reat advantage in carryin g on the ir vocational, educational, domestic, and social activities. Reh abilitation experts, including those of the Health, Education, and Welfare 

Departm ent and the Veterans’ Administration, if called upon to testify before 

this committee, would, we a re certain, characterize the dog guide as one of only 

two valid solutions to the problem of independent mobility as experienced by the 

gre at majority of blind persons in their active years. The fac t is recognized 

by these same experts, as well as by experienced dog guide authorities, that noi 

all blind persons are qualified to use dog guides to advantage properly ; but those 

who can have proved over a period of 35 years t ha t they can come and go safely 

and efficiently with the aid of a carefully selected, w ell-trained dog guide. Their 

experience generally demonstrates that the dog guide has contributed to the ir 

economic independence, the ir physical and mental health and to the ir tota l 

image in the public mind as effective personalities and useful citizens. Th at there 

are still in existence actual or implied harriers to the ir achievements througn 

discriminatory practices in many places of public accommodation; that there 

are still such emba rrassing frustrations in the ir daily pursuit of life, liberty, 

livelihood, and happiness is decidedly inconsistent with American ideals.

It is the considered opinion of the Seeing Eye, Inc., Leader Dogs for the Blum, 

Inc., and Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc., that with its passage the impact of 

H.R. 5611 will be considerable, not only in the specific situations with which ic 

deals, but also in drawing attention to existing laws of the several States and in 

bringing about greater enlightenment in States where such laws do not as yet 

exist. In conclusion, the Seeing Eye, Inc., is pleased to share with the committee 

the following extrac t from a congratulatory message received on the occasion 

of its recent 35th corporate birthday from a blind Alabaman who has used a seeing eye dog since 1929:

“I have used a seeing eye dog for almost 35 years and am now using my fifth 

dog. My enthusiasm remains as high as ever. Thor [his present dog] is as 

wonderful to me as was my first dog Muddles. My dogs have placed me on an 

equal footing with my fellowmen and have enabled me to lead a useful, normal, 

and productive life.”

Mr. W illia ms. Wh o is yo ur fri en d?

Mr. Wiiitstock. Th is is Gem.

I also have some mate rials I tho ug ht you migh t like to have fo r your 

files. One of the se on th e t op is th e most releva nt, I think , and th at is 

a sum mary of the leg isla tion in the variou s State s deali ng wi th dog 

guides, which Seeing Ey e prepare d.

I do want to address my self lar ge ly to H.R. 5611 and its identical 

companion bill, H.R. 7210 because there are of pa rtic ul ar concern to 

the Seeing Eye.

I would like to say also, I speak fo r Seeing Eye, Inc ., which is the 

lar gest tra in ing school which trai ns dogs fo r lea ding bli nd persons, 

also fo r Leader Hogs f or the B lin d, of Rochester, Mich., and f or Guide 

Dogs for the B lin d in S an Ra fael, Ca lif. These t hree schools between 

them t ra in most of the dogs used by blind persons in th e Un ite d States. 

There for e, I speak fo r the 3,000-plus hig hly mobile blind ind ivi duals 

who do tra vel exten sively throug h the Un ite d Sta tes , and who do use 

the d ogs th at are tra ined by these schools.

We rea lize th at we are a minority group—act ually a minority group 

among blind persons. We do not ever expect th at t here will be more 

th an 10,000 b lind persons in the country who will eve ntu ally use dog 

guides at the same time. B ut we do th ink the re is a p roblem in inter-
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 43

state commerce and tha t it needs attention by Congress. I should 

explain that from the very early history of the Seeing Eye—and it was 

founded in 1929—our feeling was t hat we could accomplish far more 

through simply educating the public toward the fact tha t these are 

dogs that are very carefully selected; they are very carefully trained 

and they are placed with blind persons who are of high quality, who 

meet very basic qualifications of independence and good judgment. 

As a consequence, these are not dogs th at would complicate a public 

accommodation.

We had, I think, a great deal of success over the years in educating 

the public to the fact that a dog like this is far more than a pet. It is 

not a pet in the loosely controlled sense th at people would think of 

pets, but it is a dog that could go into a restaurant and would go underneath the table and would go to sleep. It is a dog that would go into 

airplanes and trains and not interfere with other passengers or cause 

inconvenience to public carriers. In other words, it is a prosthetic aid 

in the nature of a pair of eyeglasses or a hearing aid.

Through the years we did get very widespread acceptance. We 

can travel—and I do travel in behalf of the Seeing Eye some 50,000 

miles annually, and consequently do get to just about every city in the 

United States at one time o r another. Generally, travel for a blind 

person with a dog guide moves freely and without too many complications. I would like to compliment the airlines for the services we 

have gotten. I)og guide users have received the finest of care and 

courtesy from airline personnel. It is highly efficient and effective, 

and I think the airlines deserve a lot of credit. However, there are 

situations in interstate travel tha t do come up, even though few in 

number, which cause serious problems for independent minded persons traveling with a dog guide.

Those of us who use dog guides do not meet overwhelming numbers 

of restaurants or hotels which refuse us access with our dogs, but 

when it does happen, it does indeed cause serious hardship, crushing 

humiliation, and embarrassment. A hotel manager may not know 

tha t his State has a law requiring that the dog be permitted, or a restaurant owner may not realize tha t health regulations throughout the 

United States universally exempt dog guides. Their refusal can 

leave the blind person stranded or deeply humiliated.

There are also personnel for common carriers who are equally unaware of tariff permission for dog guides to be carried without charge 

and that in the custody of their masters, and who by their refusal 

consequently cause serious problems to a blind traveler. ”

Federal legislation will remove additional impediments to interstate travel by independent blind persons who use dog guides. It 

will also help to point up the existance of much State legislation in 

this area and will further help in the education of the general public 

to the fact that a dog guide is not a pet but is a prosthetic device 

which in no way would complicate a public accommodation. With 

the adoption of H.R. 5611 and H.R. 7210 we believe, too, tha t additional blind persons would be encouraged to find their independence 

in the use of dog guides, and this would help to extend self-sufficiency 

to other individuals. So we have asked for and are certainly happy 

to see H.R. 5611 and II.R. 7210 enacted into law.
44 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIER S

I would be very happy to answer any questions. That does conclude what I did want to say.

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.

Mr. Devine, did you have any questions ?

Mr. Devine. No; 1 appreciate very much your making these pamphlets available. They are quite interesting.

Mr. Williams. I do, too. I am particularly interested in the summary of legislation in the several States. I am going to send a copy 

of this, if you do not mind my taking one from the committee, down to 

my county legislator.

Mr. Wiiitstock. These booklets were prepared several years ago 

and since then California and Connecticut have passed bills and enacted them into law which do make it mandatory for public accommodations and transportation to serve blind persons within those 

States.

I would also add, because there was some question before about the 

criminal penalty, that these States have also enacted criminal provisions in line with the many States that have dog guide legislation. 

We, at the Seeing Eye, feel that penal provisions are essential—otherwise the law is meaningless. At the same time we would expect that 

the penalty would not have to be brought into force except on rare 

occasions. For example, in 1937 Indiana passed its dog guide law. 

It contained penal provisions and was the first of the States to pass 

such a law. The existance of the law has given blind persons in the 

State freedom to move about at will, and, to my knowledge, the penal 

provisions have not had to be enforced.

Mr. Williams. Mr. Wiiitstock, we certainly thank you for your 

testimony.

That will conclude the hearings.

STATEMENT OE JAM ES D. MANN, NATIO NAL ASSOCIATION OP 

MOTOR BUS OWN ERS

Mr. Mann. I would like permission to file a statement of the association and a copy of our tariff with the committee governing transportation of blind persons and I will get it to you tomorrow or the next 

day. . . .

Mr. Williams. We will be very happy to receive it, sir.

(The document referred to follows:)

National Association of Motor Bus Owners,

Washington, D.C., February 28,196//.

Hon. J ohn Bell William s,

Chairman, Transportation and Aeronautics Subcommittee, House Interstate and

Foreign Commerce Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : The National Association of Motor Bus Owners appreciate s your permission, granted a t the conclusion of the hearings on F ebruary 26, 

to submit its views on the so-called dog guide bills; namely, H.R. 5611, H.R. 7210, 

II.R. 8068, and H.R. 8928.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 45

NAMB O is th e nat io nal tr ad e as so ci at io n fo r th e in te rc ity m ot or bu s in dust ry 

an d se rv es as sp ok es man fo r ap pro xim at el y 1,000 ca rr ie rs , in cl ud in g Greyh ou nd . 

T ra ilw ays an d in de pe nd en t co mpa ni es which ac co un t fo r ab out th re e- fo urt hs of 

th e in te rc it y bus tra nsp ort ati on in t h e U ni ted St at es .

The bi lls of p art ic u la r co nc ern to th e in te rc ity bu s in dust ry are th e id en tica l 

bi lls H .R. 5611 an d II.R . 7210. to pro hi bi t th e ex clu sio n of do g gu ides f or th e blind 

from cert ain pu blic carr ie rs , tr an sp o rt te rm in al s, an d oth er pl ac es of bu sine ss 

which oper at e in in te rs ta te comm erc e.

As fa r as th e in te rc ity bu s in dust ry is co nc ern ed, th is pr op os ed le gi slatio n 

wo uld se rv e no us ef ul pu rp os e as th ere is no pr oh ib itio n again st do g gu ides im ­

posed by th e oper at ors of in te rc it y bu ses , or in th e te rm in al s, in cl ud in g th e 

re sta u ra n ts a nd o th er e at in g plac es the re in , w hi ch th ey serv e.

Th e in te rc it y bu s in dust ry m ak es no ch ar ge fo r gu ide dog s, nor do es it m ak e a 

ch ar ge fo r an att endant, who , in th e ab se nc e of a gu ide dog. tr avels w ith a blind 

pe rso n, wh o mee ts th e cri te ri a of th e American Fou nd at io n fo r th e Blind .

In th is co nn ec tio n, I am en clo sin g a cop y o f Natio na l Bu s Traff ic As sociati on , 

Inc ., loca l an d jo in t redu ce d fa re C ir cu la r No. A -7 5, 15 th revised pa ge 11 an d 15th 

re vi se d pa ge 12. Ther e is no lik elihoo d th a t th es e ta ri ff pr ov isions will be m od ified in a ny w ay to af fe ct th e blind ad ve rs ely.

The re fo re , we re sp ec tfully ur ge th a t you r su bc om mitt ee no t co ns id er fa vo ra bl y 

H.R. 5611 and II.R . 7210. Ho we ver^ s ho ul d th e su bc om mitt ee in its wi sdom deem 

th is le gi sl at io n ne ce ss ar y, we re qu es t th a t in te rc ity m ot or bu ses, su bj ec t to th e 

ju ri sd ic ti on of th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Co mm ission , be specifically ex em pted 

from i ts provisio ns .

T hi s re qu es t is ba se d on th e pr em ice th a t su ch legi slatio n is cu st om ar ily desig ned to co rr ec t an in ju st ic e, or an ab us e, or an ineq uity, an d no such co ndi tion e xis ts i n the in te rc it y bus in dust ry to w hi ch t he propo se d le gi slat io n wou ld 

be ap plicab le. F u rt h er, th e pe na lty pr ov isio ns co uld re su lt in un du e an d un ne cess ar y hara ss m en t by th e few who a re ev er se ek ing an op por tu ni ty to ta ke adva nt ag e of an y law .

The in te rc it y bu s in dust ry is mos t so lici to us of th e blind. On e ex am ple of 

it s co nc ern and in te re st is an ope ra tion of Sa fe w ay Tra ilw ay s, headquar te re d 

in th is cit y. Eve ry F ri d ay af te rn oon th is co mpa ny se nd s a bu s to th e M ar yla nd Sch ool fo r th e Blin d at Ove rle a, Md. (o ut si de of B alt im ore ), an d br in gs 

th os e ch ildr en wh ose fa m ilie s liv e in th e W as hi ng to n are a to th is cit y. Th e 

ch ildr en re tu rn by bus to th e sch ool on Sun da y af te rn oo n. Th e ro un d tr ip 

fa re is $1.80 an d a one-w ay tick et is $1. Fr om a re ve nu e st an dpoin t th e op er ation is a losing pr op os iti on as th e bu s dea dh ea ds to Ove rle a on F ri d ay a ft e rnoo n an d to W as hi ng to n from Ove rle a on Su nd ay .

The ot her tw o bi lls be fo re th e su bc om mitt ee fo r co ns id er at io n are H.R. 8068 

an d H.R. 8928, which re la te to a ir c arr ie rs . T her e is on e fe atu re of one of the se 

b il ls ; na mely, H.R. 8928, which wo uld ca us e co nc ern to th e in te rc it y bu s in ­

dus tr y, sh ou ld it be rec om me nd ed by your su bc om mitt ee th a t p a rt I I of th e 

In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Ac t be si m ilar ly am en de d, an d th at is th e st ip ula tion fo r 

fr ee tr ansp ort ati on fo r att en d an ts of di sa bl ed pe rson s.

As po inted ou t by th e sp ok es man fo r th e A ir T ra n sp o rt Assoc iatio n of America , th is pr ov ision wou ld ca us e in nu m er ab le adm in is tr ati ve prob lem s an d cou ld 

open th e flood ga te s fo r al l ki nd s of ab us es . For ex am pl e th e de te rm in at io n of 

w ha t is a “d isab le d per so n” wo uld be a so ur ce of const an t co nt en tio n an d po ssible litiga tion . Su ch an am en dm en t to p a rt II of th e In te rs ta te Comm erc e Ac t 

wo uld ne ce ss ar ily be opposed by th e in te rc it y bu s in dust ry .

We will a ppre ci at e it if th e v iew s of NA MBO as e xp re ss ed h er ei n, to get her w ith 

th e enclo sed ex ce rp t from th e a bove d es cr ib ed ta ri ff , are mad e p a rt o f th e officia l 

re co rd of th e hea ri ng s on th e af or em en tion ed bills .

Ve ry tr uly yo urs,

J ames D. Mann, Secretary-Man ager.
46 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

M .P .S .C .N o. 7 P .U .C .O .N o.7 .

P.S .C .N .Y .N o.5 W is .P .S .C .N o.9 W yo .P .S .C .N o.85

LOC AL AND JOINT REDUCE D FARE CIRCULAR No. A-7 5 

NATIONAL BUS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, INC., AGENT 

506 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago 5, Illinois

Is su e d : Ju ne 7, 1963

Also Other State Commission 

Numbers Shown on Title Page

F if te e n th R ev is ed Pag e 11 

C an ce ls

F o u rt een th R ev ised Pag e 11 

E ff e c tiv e : Ju ly 15 , 1963

SECTION E

REDUCED FARES ACCOUNT BLIND

Rule

No. RULES AND REGULATIONS

1 TO WHOM GRANTED:

A b li n d pers on an d on e se e in g a tt e n d a n t tr a v e lin g to g e th e r up on p re s e n ta tio n o f a co up on (a s 

! h e r e in a f te r d e s c rib e d ). (S ee ex am ple in Rule 5 h e r e o f) .

NOTE.-- Red uc tio ns w ill NOT be g ra n te d when:

(1 ) A b lin d per so n i s acco mpa nied by a tra in e d dog a c tin g a s a g u id e. (A gen ts w i l l r e f e r 

to N a ti o n a l P assen g e r T a r if f N o.A -1 000,I .P .U .C .N o.2 2 ,M P -i ll .C .C .N o .1 1 1 ., P .S .C .I .N o .B -4 4 , 

la .C .C .N o .3 0 ,D .M .T.Ky. No.2 4 ,B us- P.S .C .M d.N o.2 1 ,M .P .S .C .N o.2 9,M in n.R .C .N o.1 6,M .R .C .N o. 24 ,

P.S .C .N .Y .N o.1 3 ,N .D .P .S .C .N o.2 1 ,P .U .C .O .N o.2 8,O kla .C .C .N o.2 9 ,P .U .C .S .D .N o.2 1 ,MP-V .C .C .N o. 

7 1 ,M P-P.S.C.W .V a.No .3 9 ,W is .P .S .C .N o.2 9 ,W yo .P .S .C .N o. 3 1 ,amendments th e r e to o r r e is s u e s 

th e r e o f , is su e d by N a ti o n a l Bus T r a f f ic A s s o c ia ti o n ,I n c .. A g e n t,o r o th e r la w fu ll y p u b li sh e d 

t a r i f f s fo r r u le s an d re g u la tio n s g overn in g th e tr a n s p o r ta tio n o f tr a in e d do gs ac companyin g a b lin d p a sse n g er pay in g re g u la r f a r e ) .

(2 ) A b lin d p ers o n i s acco mpa nied by an a tt e n d a n t an d a " tr a in e d dog".

(3 ) A b lin d p ers o n i s tr a v e lin g alo n e .

(4 ) Two o r more b lin d pers ons a re tr a v e lin g to g e th e r .

2 | CONDITIONS OF SALE:

The re duce d f a r e s a u th o riz e d h e re in w ill be g ra n te d by c a r r i e r s p a r ti e s h e re to (s e e e x c e p ti o n s) 

ito b li n d p ers o n s p ro p e rl y i d e n tif ie d and on e sig h te d , a tte n d a n t up on p re s e n ta tio n to t i c k e t a g e n t,o f a 

'c ou po n is su e d by e i t h e r th e Am erican F oundat io n fo r th e B li n d ,I n c .,1 5 West 16 th S tr eet, N ew York 11, 

N.Y .; th e Can ad ia n N ati o n al I n s t i t u t e fo r th e B li n d , 1929 Ba yview A ve nue, Toro nto 17,O n ta rio o r th e 

B r a ille I n s t i t u te o f A m e ric a ,I n c .,74 1 Nor th Vermo nt Ave nu e,Lo s A ngel es 2 7 .C a lif o r n ia ,a n ex am pl e o f 

which i s show n in Rule No.5 h e re o f.

Such co up on s a re good d u ri n g th e c a le n d e r y ea r fo r wh ich is s u e d . Ea ch co upon e n t i t l e s p erso n 

named to p u rc h ase p a r ty t i c k e t (f o r use o f th e b lin d p erso n and on e s ig h te d a tte n d a n t) a t f a r e 

a u th o ri z e d h e re in . I f co upon i s p a r t o f a book o f c o u p o n s ,i t.p ro p e rly ex e cu te d ,m u st be d eta ch ed fro m 

cou pon book by agent a t ti m e o f s a le o f t i c k e t .

[ One-Way F are s:

One a d u lt one-w ay fa re ap p ly in g v ia ro u te tr a v e le d w ill ap p ly fo r th e p a rty tic k e t co v e ri n g 

■p as sage o f th e b lin d per so n an d ac co mpa ny ing a tte n d a n t. (S ee E x c e p ti o n s).

[R ou nd -T rip F are s:

Do uble th e a d u lt on e-wa y fa re ap p ly in g v ia ro u te tra v e le d w ill a p p ly fo r th e p a r ty t i c k e t , 

•c o v eri n g r o u n d - tr ip p as sa ge o f th e b li n d pers o n an d acco mpa ny ing a tte n d a n t. (S ee E x c e p ti o n s). 

C h il d r e n 's F are s:

C h il d r e n 's one-w ay f a r e .

Sev en ty fiv e (75%) p e rc e n t o f th e on e-wa y a d u lt f a r e ap p ly in g v ia ro u te tra v e le d w i l l ap p ly fo r 

a p a r ty t i c k e t c o v e ri n g pas sa ge o f a b lin d c h ild be tw ee n th e ag es o f f iv e (5 ) and tw elv e (1 2) 

y ea rs o f ag e an d a sig h te d a tte n d a n t.

C h il d r e n 's r o u n d - tr ip f a r e .

Do uble th e on e-wa y c h ild r e n 's f a re show n ab o v e ,a p p ly in g v ia ro u te tr a v e le d w ill apply fo r th e 

p a rty tic k e t.c o v e r in g th e ro u n d - tr ip passag e o f a b lin d c h ild an d a s ig h te d a tte n d a n t.

Eac h. co up on o f p a rty t ic k e t fo r use o f b lin d p asse n g er an d a tte n d a n t sh o u ld be p la in ly mark ed 

w it h th e i n i t i a l s o f th e is s u in g a g e n cy ,a s fo ll o w s:

"F or use o f b lin d p a sse n g e r and a tte n d a n t," w it h c e r t i f i c a t e num ber a s fo ll o w s:

"A .F .B . C e r t i f i c a t e N o." , "C .N .I .B . C e r t i f i c a t e N o." , " B .I . A .I . C e r t i f i c a t e No ."

For e x p la n a ti o n o f a b b r e v ia tio n s and re fe re n c e m ark s,n o t e x p la in e d on t h i s p a g e ,s e e pag e 1.

(P rin te d in U .S .A .) (SO CHAHGI IS THIS PAGS) C o rre c ti o n No.221
GUID ES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 47

M .P .S .C .N o.7 P.U .C .O .N o.7

P.S .C .N .Y .N o.5 W is .P .S .C .N o.9 W yo .P .S .C .N o. 85

LOCAL AND JOINT REDUCED FARE CIRCULAR No. A-75

NA TION AL BUS TR AFFIC ASS OCIAT ION . INC., AG EN T

50 6 Sout h Wabash Av enue, Chicago 5, Illinois

Is su e d : Ju ne 7 , 1963

A ls o o th e r S ta te Comm ission 

Num bers shown on t i t l e pag e.

F if te e n th R ev is ed Page 12 

C an ce ls

F o u rt e e n th R ev is ed Page 12 

E ff e c tiv e : Ju ly 15, 1963

SECTION E

_______________________________________REDUCED FARES ACCOUNT BL IND- -Conclu ded

RULES AND REGULATIONS

5 FORM OF REQUESTS:

Below 1s an ex am ple o f th e t i c k e t a g e n t's c o u p o n ,a s is su e d by th e a g e n c ie s f o r th e b lin d l i s t e d 

In R ul e No.2 h e re o f:

Ticket Agent's Coupon No.

appears on the Iden tificatio n Card which .« 

presented herew ith to ve rify my eligib ili ty

t ma y sig n coup on fo r blind passen ger

v f blind pa sse ng er an d of Ti ck et A g

pon, and send it with his ticket report to the Accounting Department of hu Division.

Ticket Form ............... No..

(Void unless accompa

...Amount.

1 attendant*

On C e r t i f i c a t e Bo oks Is su e d by th e American Foundati on For th e B li n d ,i d e n t i f i c a t io n w ill be made 

(t h ro u g h th e use o f a s e p a ra te id e n t i f i c a ti o n c a rd hav in g th e name and a d d re ss o f th e b lin d p e r s o n ,t o ­

g e t h e r w it h h is o r h e r p ic tu r e on th e re v e rs e s id e .

A p p li c a n ts who do n o t ha ve c e r t i f i c a t e s , f o r t h i s re duce d fa re tr a n s p o r ta tio n sh o u ld be r e f e r r e d 

Ito th e E d u c a ti o n a l D ir e cto r, A m e ri can Foundat io n fo r th e B lin d ,15 West 16th S tr ee t,N ew Yo rk 1 1 ,New Yor k: 

(The C an ad ia n N a ti o n a l I n s t i t u t e fo r th e B li n d ,P e a rs o n H a ll,929 Ba yview A ve nue. Toro nto 1 7 ,O n ta rio ; 

Ca na da ; o r th e B r a i l l e I n s t i t u t e o f A m er ic a, I n c . ,7 41 N or th Vermont Ave nu e,Lo s A ngel es 2 7 ,C a l i f o r n i a .

EXCEPTIONS

EXCEPTION 1 .—T he p ro v is io n s a u th o riz e d in t h i s s e c ti o n w ill not be a p p lic a b le in co n n e cti o n w it h one-w ay 

f a r e s o f t h i r t y - f i v e c e n ts (3 51 ) o r l e s s ,o r ro u n d - tr ip fa re s o f sev e n ty c e n ts (70j*) o r l e s s .

EXCEPTION 2 .-- F a r e s an d arr an g e m en ts show n in t h i s s e c tio n w ill not ap ply to t i c k e t s s o ld l o c a lly be tw ee n 

p o in ts on th e li n e s o f th e fo ll o w in g c a r r i e r s : (A p p li c a ti o n o f f a r e s a s show n in Rule No.3 , S e c ti o n E 

may be use d in co n n e cti o n w it h th e s a le o f i n t e r l i n e t i c k e t s o n ly ).

Oh io Bus Lin e Compa ny,The 

S hort L i n e ,I n c ., The wElim.

S hort L in e ,I n c . o f P enn..T he

EXCEPTION 3 . — F are s an d arr angem ents show n in t h i s s e c ti o n w ill not apply on o r v ia th e lin e s o f th e 

fo ll o w in g c a r r i e r :

W hite S ta r L in e s ,I n c .

For e x p la n a ti o n o f a b b r e v ia tio n s an d re fe r e n c e marks not e x p la in e d on t h i s p a g e .s e e pa ge 1.

( P rin te d in U .S .A .)
48 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIER S

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much.

The committee will stand adjourned.

(The following material was submitted for the record:)

I nte rs ta te Com mer ce C o m m is sio n ,

Washington, D.C., March 8, HXl.’i.

Hon. J ohn Reel W il l ia m s,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics,

House of Representa tives, Washington, D.C.

D ea r Ch a ir m a n W il l ia m s : This is in response to your request (communicated orally through professional staff member George W. Perry) for information concerning any difficulties experienced by blind persons under the perm issive approach to free transp ortation of seeing-eye dogs embodied in section 

22(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act.

Our information indicates that virtually all carriers engaged in interstate 

commerce have voluntarily adopted the practice of charging a single fare for 

the tran spo rtation of blind persons accompanied by seeing-eye dogs under industryw ide regulations applicable to such transportatio n. The railroads and the 

Pullm an Co., do so through circulars to their employees and the majo r bus 

companies so provide in a tariff filed for the ir account by the National Bus 

Traffic Association. For convenience, I enclose extracts from these publications.

In practice, it app ears tha t this volun tary system works well and involves few, 

if any, hardships. Thus, a search of our records over the past 5 years fail s to 

disclose a single instanc e of a complaint by a blind person as to the service 

and facilities provided by inters tat e ca rriers.

I tru st th at the foregoing will he of assistance to you in your consideration of 

H.R. 5611 and similar bills.

Sincerely yours,

Abe M cGregor Goff , Chairman.

Enclosure.

E xc er pt s Conta in ed in Cir cu la rs and T a r if fs of Car rier s Conc er ni ng t h e

T ra ns po rt at io n of Bli nd P er so ns Acc om pa ni ed by a See in g E ye D og

ra il

Circular BL No. 5, A. J. Winkler, agent

Sec. 3. Item 2. The term “guide dog” as used in this section means a dog 

that has been tra ine d by a recognized training agency or school to guide or lead 

a blind person (such as a seeing-eye dog) and blind person must show evidence 

by certificate or other means that the guide dog has been trained by a recognized 

training agency or school.

Item 3. R ule s an d R eg ula ti ons.—

(a) I n Co ach es .—A guide dog as described in item 2 above safely muzzled 

and on strong leash (accompanying a blind person traveling in a coach who holds 

valid transp ortation good in coach) will be tran spo rted without transp ortation 

charge.

T H E PULLM AN CO.

Circular dated December 1, liDfl

1. Where berth or seat accommodations is required by a tota lly blind person 

who is accompanied by a dog, specially trained as guide or leader, a separate 

berth or seat in a draw ing room, compartment, or other type of enclosed accommodation, when available, will be furn ished to such person upon collection of 

the r egu lar tariff berth or se at ra te.

General Rule: Where a totally blind person is sold a berth or seat in a room, 

under the rule mentioned, and such person is accompanied by a dog, specially 

trained as guide or leader, the dog must be kept in the room with the blind 

passenger and shall not be allowed in any open sleeping or parlor car space, or 

in section, buffet, lounge, or club car.

General Instr uc tio ns : If room accommodations are not available on an interstate journey, the passenger should be told th at his dog must be carried in the 

baggage car and th at he may then occupy a berth or seat in the body of the car 

if available, and the porter will guide him in necessary movements on th e car or 

train. Every courtesy and care consistent with the d uty owed other passengers 

must be accorded such blind persons.
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 49

MOT OR CA RRIER S

N at io nal Pas se nge r Tar if f A-1000, I.C.C. No. 9, M P- I.C .C . No. 774, issu ed by 

N at io na l Bu s Tr aff ic Assoc iatio n, Inc., ag en t, on be ha lf of th e m aj or m ot or carri ers th ro ug hou t th e U ni ted Sta te s, pr ov id es in ru le 9(2 ) th a t a dog tr ain ed fo r 

th e pu rp os e of, an d ac co mpa ny ing a blin d pe rson (p ay in g re gula r fa re ) no t 

ac co mpa nied by a seeing att en d an t will be ca rr ie d fr ee of ch ar ge . Su ch dog 

m us t be pr op er ly har ne ss ed an d muz zled an d m ust lie or st an d a t th e fe et of i ts 

m as te r.

T he See ing E ye, I nc., 

M or ristow n, N.J., Feb ru ar y 2 9 ,196J/-

Ho n. J oh n Bell W il lia m s,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics, Committee on

Inter sta te and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington,

D.C.

Dear Mr. W illi am s : I am w ri ti ng w ith a tw ofold pu rpos e : F ir st , to thank yo u 

an d th e Su bc om mitt ee on T ra nsp ort ati on an d A er on au tics fo r th e pr iv ile ge of 

pr ov id in g to th e co mmitt ee ou r te stim on y on H.R . 5611 an d its comp anion. II. R. 

7210. As yo u know , we are ve ry mu ch in te re st ed in th e fa vor ab le pa ss ag e of 

th e bills an d wo uld cer ta in ly be ha pp y to co op erate fu rth e r in an y way we can.

Secondl y, I am w ri ti ng to as k you to includ e a copy of th is le tt er as a p a rt of 

th e offic ial re co rd of th e su bc om m itt ee ’s F ebru ary 26 me eting. I am do ing so 

be ca us e in th e oth er tw o bills co ns idered , H.R. 8068 an d II.R . 8928, th er e was 

som e co nf us ion as to lang ua ge . Do gs tr ain ed by th e Se ein g Ey e, Inc., ar e 

iden tif ied in te rm s of our co rp or at e ti tl e as “se ein g-e ye do gs,” an d th e id en tify ­

ing na me is re gis te re d in th e U.S. P ate n t Office. We sugg est, co ns eq ue ntly, th a t 

in H.R. 8068, Con gr es sm an You ng er’s bil l, th e la ng ua ge be ch an ge d from “se ein g 

ey e” to th e ge ne ric te rm “dog gu ide.” In H.R. 8928, th e te rm “g uide do gs ” is 

us ed in a ge ne ric sens e and we wou ld urg e th a t th e te rm “do g gu id es ” be use d. 

We do so be ca us e th e te rm “g uide do gs” is th e na me used by Gu ide Do gs fo r th e 

Bl ind, o f Sa n R af ae l, C ali f., t o d en ote th e do gs th ey t ra in .

I unders ta nd M r. R ob er t W hitsto ck , adm in is tr ati ve a ss is ta n t of t he Se ein g Eye, 

Inc., dis tr ib ute d to th e mem be rs of th e co mm itt ee a su m m ar y of S ta te legi slatio n on dog gu ides an d th e ir r el at io n to pl ac es ser vi ng t he pu bli c. I am e nc losin g 

an addit io nal tw o copie s which I hope will be mad e p a rt of th e official reco rd 

of th e su bc om mitt ee he ar in g, alo ng w ith tw o copie s of th e C al ifor ni a an d Connec ticu t dog gu ide sta tu te s which were pa ss ed su bs eq ue nt to th e pu bl ic atio n of 

th e su m m ar y of l eg islatio n.

We w ant to th an k yo u fo r yo ur co ur te sy an d fo r th e pr iv ileg e of ap pe ar in g 

be fore th e S ub co mmitt ee on T ra nsp ort ati on a nd A eron au tic s.

Cor dial ly yo urs,

George Werntz, Jr .

A Sum ma ry of Legisla tion Rela ting to T ravel Wit h Dog Guid es

Pu bl ishe d by th e Se ein g Ey e, In c., M or ris town, N.J.

Rev ised Edi tion Apr il 1, 1958

T he Seeing Eye , I nc.,

Morristown, N.J., April 1,19-58.

Dear Gra du ate: In 1956 th e Se ein g Ey e comp iled an d dis tr ib ute d a su rv ey of 

S ta te legi slat io n pert ain in g to dog gu ide s. A nu m be r of ch an ge s ha ve subsequ en tly ta ke n plac e in p ert in ent S ta te legi slatio n an d thes e ch an ge s ha ve been 

in co rp or at ed in to th e pr es en t su m m ar y. We ho pe th e enclo sed in fo rm at io n wi ll 

pr ov e of h elp an d va lu e to y ou fo r us e ei th er in yo ur o wn S ta te o r in yo ur tr av el s 

fr om S ta te to S ta te .

As w as in di ca te d in th e 1956 su rv ey , th e Se ein g Ey e has co nt in ua lly ad he re d 

to a be lie f th a t it is a b ett er polic y to se cu re pr iv ile ge s fo r dog gu id e us er s 

th ro ug h ed uc at io n ra th e r th an le g is la ti o n ; ho we ve r, th er e ha ve bee n som e Sta te s 

w he re legi slat io n has been ne ce ss ar y. A dd iti on al ch an ge s in S ta te laws pert ain ­

in g to dog gu ides ca n be ex pe cted to oc cu r from tim e to tim e, an d we wi ll conti nue o ur e ffor ts to keep o ur files up to d at e.

Bes t w ishe s to yo u from all you r fr ie nds a t Se ein g Ey e hea dquar te rs . 

Cor di al ly yo urs,

George Wern tz, Jr.
50 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIER S

LE GI SL AT IO N PERTA IN IN G TO DOG GU IDES IN T H E UNIT ED ST AT ES BASED ON RES PO NSE S 

TO IN Q U IR Y MA DE BY T H E SE EI NG EY E TO ALL T H E ST AT ES

Arizona: Section 66-165g Arizona Code amended 1952 supplement— (a ).—Blind 

person shall carry a white cane when walking on stre et or highway unless 

accompanied by dog guide or sighted person, (b) Person operating motor vehicle shall bring car to a stop and yield right of way to blind person carryin g 

white cane or accompanied by dog guide at any street or highway intersection. 

Exception to this would be an emergency vehicle sounding a siren. Violation of 

above is a misdemeanor. Section 17-1607f Arizona Code 1939 as amended 

1954. Dog guide shall, upon presentation of proper proof, be vaccinated and 

licensed without payment of a fee.

Arkansas: Sections 1, 2, and 3 of act 253, approved March 12, 1957.—A dog 

guide, when in harness, and when it can be identified as having been trained 

at a recognized dog guide school, must be allowed to accompany its master, without charge, into public buildings, eating places, public conveyances, hotels, tourist 

cabins, public inns, and public elevators. Any person who violates the above 

provision is subject to not less tha n a $50 and not more than a $200 fine.

California: Chapter 11, Division 7, title 1, section 6906 Sta te Vending Stand

Laic 1953.—Blind person operating vending stan d in building owned or occupied 

by State, city, or county may keep dog guide with him in building while operating stand. Service 1919—Health and Safety Code 1951—Dog guide need no t be 

quarantined in the absence of evidence that he has been exposed to rabies unless m aster fails to keep dog guide safely confined at home and be made available 

for examination at all reasonable times. Ordinance No. 77,000 Los Angeles 

Municipal Code, Food & Beverages Section 35.02(k) : (1) Dog guide allowed in 

food stores, conveyances restauran ts, et cetera, if in possession of perm it issued 

by board of hea lth commissioner certifying person is blind and dog is a necessity. 

Board requires certificate from school where dog is trained (i.e., Seeing Eye identification ca rd ). This law pertains to Los Angeles only.

Colorado: Section 115-12-9 Colorado Revised Sta tutes 1953.—Dog guide allowed on all common c arriers with master if dog is properly muzzled. Regulations rega rding restaura nts , et cetera, are town and city ordinances. State hea lth 

depa rtment has a regulation prohibiting anim als in any place where food and 

drin ks are prepared or in stores. A hea lth departm ent official, however, has 

recently issued a clarification t ha t makes dog guides an exception to this regulation.

Connecticut: Section 3392, chapter 151 General Sta tutes Revision 191/9.—Dog 

guide may ride with master in any coach or pullman tra in car provided dog is 

in dire ct custody of master and properly muzzled. Such blind person shall not 

be required to obtain a private room or berth accommodation for dog guide.

Florida: Chapter 1/13.07 White Cane Law.— Blind person carryin g white cane 

or accompanied by dog guide given right of way when crossing streets. Driv er 

of vehicle shall come to a full stop and then proceed with caution. Violation: 

Maximum fine of $25. For default of payment, imprisonment of not more than 10 

days.

Chapter 1/13.08 Seeing Eye Dog Law.—Dog guide is allowed in hotels, res tau ­

rants, or other eatin g establishm ents with blind master. Violation : Maximum 

fine of $100, imprisonment of not more than 60 days, or both.

Georgia: Georgia laws 1955, page 155, House bill No. 201, section 1.—Dog guide 

trained by an accredited school is entitled full privileges and facilities of all 

public conveyances, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement or resort, providing dog is properly muzzled. Dog shall not occupy a seat 

in any public conveyance. Section 2.—Violation : Maximum fine of $100,3 months’ 

imprisonment, or both.

Illinois: Chapter 111% paragraph l/0a, Illin ois Revised Statutes 1953.—Dog 

guide and mas ter perm itted on all common carriers and dog may stay with 

master provided dog is properly muzzled. There are no laws in Illinois pertain ing to accommodation to public places, hotels, et cetera.

Indiana: Burns’ Indiana Sta tutes (1950 repl) acts 1973, chapter 193.1, page

920; 191/5 chapter 31/.1, page 62-16-212.—Dog guide from an accredited school entitled to full and equal accommodations and privileges of public conveyances, 

hotels, lodging places, public accommodation, amusement, or resort. Dog guide 

shall not occupy a seat in any public conveyance. 16-213: Vio lation : Fine not 

exceeding $100 or imprisonment of 3 months, or both. Sum not exceeding $100 is 

also payable to the aggrieved blind person.

Kansas: G.S. 191/9 8-558b.—Person operating motor vehicle shall brin g car to 

a full stop and yield right of way to blind person carryin g white cane or ac-
GUID ES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 51

companied by dog guide at any street or highway intersection, and then shall 

lake necessary precautio ns before proceeding. G.S. 1949 8-558c—Blind person 

not c arry ing cane or accompanied by dog guide accorded same rights and priv ileges on stre ets and highways and it shall not be evidence of contributory negligence if blind person does not have cane or dog. G.S. 1949 8-558d—Violation: 

Maximum fine of $25; imprisonment of not more tha n 10 days, or both.

Kentu cky: Abstract from KR 8 189.575.—The driver of a motor vehicle must 

come to a full stop when approaching an intersection where a blind pede strian 

with a white can or dog guide is atte mpting a crossing; however, it will not be 

deemed contributory negligence or evidence of co ntributory negligence for a blind 

pedestrian to travel on the streets withou t the aid of eith er a white cane or 

dog guide.

Louisiana: R.8. 21:52. 1950.—Dog guide traine d by accre dited school permitted full and equal accommodations of all public conveyances and accommodations, provided dog guide does not take seat in a public conveyance. Master 

to furn ish proof of traini ng of said dog. Violation: Maximum fine of $100; 

90 days’ imprisonment, o r both.

Maryland: No law relating to public places or conveyances. If permit is secured from the Baltimore Transit Co., said company will permit dog guide to 

travel if muzzled properly and if public vehicle is not too crowded. Baltimore 

Tr ansit Co. is not responsible fo r any injury to passengers.

Massachusetts: C.L. C272-98A.—Dog guide perm itted to any and all accommodations and privileges of public conveyances, places of public accommodations, 

amusements, et cetera, subject to same conditions as sighted persons, provided 

dog is properly muzzled. Violation : Maximum fine of $300.

Michigan: Act 10, page 13—-1987. Protection of Blind, Persons.—Driver of a 

vehicle approaching with in 10 feet of blind person carryin g a white cane or using 

dog guide shall come to full stop and take necessary prec autio ns before proceeding. Violation : Maximum fine of $100, imprisonment not more than 3 m onths or 

both. (CL1948-752.53) section 502c, Michigan Penal Code, 1948—Dog guide 

permitted in all public places, res tau ran ts, hotels, elevators, theaters, et cetera, 

and it shall be a misdem eanor if proprietor, manager, et cetera, refuses to permit 

blind person with dog guide if dog is wearing a harness and furth er if such 

person shall first have presented for inspection, credentials issued by an accredite d school.

Missouri: Revised Statutes, 191/9, section 209.150.—Dog guide entitled to all 

accommodations, facilities, privileges of all public conveyances, and places of 

public accommodations, subject to such reasonable regulations as may be established by the agency operatin g such public conveyance or accommodation, and 

no extr a fee is to be charged. Dog must be properly muzzled. Section 209.160— 

Violation : Person violating law shall be guilty of misdemeanor.

'Nebraska: Section 28-1/78— White Cane Law.— It is unlawful for person not 

blind to c arry a white cane. Use of a white cane or dog guide by a person shall 

be officially recognized as an indication th at bea rer is blind. Section 28-479— 

Blind person with w hite cane or dog guide is given right of way on street or h ighway and operator of vehicle m ust stop when necessary and proceed with caution. 

Section 28-480—Violation: Maximum fine of $100, 5 to 30 days’ imprisonment, 

or both.

New Hampshire: Revised Laws of New Hampshire, section 31/, chapter 119.—

Blind person with w hite cane or accompanied by a dog guide shall have the right 

of way on crosswalks in compact parts of town. Operator on highway shall 

exercise every reasonable precautio n and if necessary stop his motor vehicle. 

Section 9a, cha pter 180, Revised Laws—Dog guides to remain with master on 

fees.

New Jersey: R.S. 1/8: 3-33.—Dog guide perm itted to remain with master on* 

public conveyances. The Board of Public Utility Commissioner shall prescribe 

rules and regulations concerning such custody. R.S. 48: 3-34—Blind person accompanied by dog guide may be tra nsp orted on public conveyance at ordinary f are 

charged to one person, under such reaso nable regulations as may be established 

by the carrier.

New Mexico: 8. 1/7-1-7. New Mexico, 1953 C.8.—Dog guide perm itted in any 

place of public accommodations such as res tau ran t, hotel, hospital, store, common 

car rier, theater, provided dog is muzzled and under control of blind person. 

Vio lation : Maximum fine of $25 S. 47-1-8 New Mexico—Dog guide shall be 

exempt from license fees. Any person viola ting this act shall be guilty of 

misdem eanor and be fined $10, toge ther w ith cost of presecution.
52 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIK CAR RIER S

N ew Yor k: Pe na l lai r sec tio n 518.— Any pe rson wh o do es no t allow accomm od ations , fa ci lities , or pr iv ile ge s fu rn is hed by innk ee pe rs, com mon ca rr ie rs , 

th eate rs , re st aura nts , ho tel s, pu blic pla ces of am us em en t or re so rts (e xc ep t 

motion pi ct ure th eate rs ) to s ig ht le ss pe rson s ac co mpanie d hy dog gu ides (u nl es s 

ad m ission of su ch pe rs on s an d dogs wo uld te nd to cr ea te a da ng er ou s si tu ati on) 

is guilty of a misd em ea no r. Pu bl ic Service La w secti on 63-h -% —All om nibu s 

co rp or at io ns re qu ir ed to per m it dog pr op er ly har nes se d an d mu zzled to ri de on 

al l su ch ve hicle s op er at ed fo r publi c tr an sp ort at io n. M as te r to carr y pr oper 

iden tif icat io n issu ed by Th e Se ein g Ey e (ide ntification c ard ). No ch ar ge is to 

be mad e fo r dog. R ai lroad La w, secti on 211—Dog gu ide pr op er ly mu zzled an d 

har nes se d an d m as te r carr yin g pr op er id en tif ication iss ue d by Th e Se ein g Ey e, 

per m itte d to ride on all such vehic les ope ra te d fo r pu blic tr an sp ort ati on. I t 

sh al l be the du ty o f e ve ry s tr eet su rf ac e ra ilro ad c or po ra tion , oper at or of su bw ay , 

elev at ed or ot her ra pid tr an sit ra ilro ad , ta xi ca b op er at or s, or si m ilar ve hicles 

to pe rm it th e abo ve. A gr ic ul tu re an d m ar ket s law . section 109—Dog gu ides 

ex em pt from lic en se fee s.

Nor th Carolina : Se ct io n 67-29.— Blind pe rson ac co mpa nied by dog gu ide which 

h as be en ed uc at ed by a rec ogniz ed tr ain in g school is en titled to fu ll an d eq ua l 

ac co mmod ati on s, ad va nt ag es , fa ci lities , an d privile ge s of all pu blic co nv ey an ce s 

and al l plac es of pu blic accomm odation.

Nor th D ak ot a: 1955 Se ss io n La w, ch ap ter 237, section 32.— <Only bl in d pe rs on 

sh al l carr y in a ra is ed or ex tend ed po sition , a w hi te c ane. Blin d pe rson carr yin g 

ca ne or ac co mpa nied by dog gu ide giv en ri ght of way a t st re et in te rs ec tions 

an d dri ver of ve hicle to com e to a ful l stop an d then pro ceed w ith ca ut io n. 

Violat ion : Maxim um fine of $25.

Oh io: Cha pter 955, R ev is ed Code, section 955.43.—Do g gu ide m ay re m ai n w ith 

m as te r on com mon carr ie rs if p ro pe rly muzzle d an d on leas h. M as te r m ust h av e 

pr op er id en tif ication th at dog was tr ain ed a t an ac cr ed ited school . (E xc ep ­

tio ns—ra il ro ad sle ep ing ca r, pa rlor , club, bu ffe t, or loun ge ca r.) Hou se bi ll 47 - 

1955—Dog gu ide ex em pt from lic en se fees.

Orego n: ORS 609.100.— Dog guide ex em pt f ro m lice nse f ees.

Pen ns yl va ni a: Pub lic U tility Co mm ission , Iras and taxi ca b ray il la ti o n s, ra le

15— Apr il 1946.— Dog gu ide per m itte d on al l com mon carr ie rs prov id ed do g is 

pr op er ly leas he d an d mu zz led an d sh al l not occ upy a se at in th e conveyance, 

de par tm en t of he al th ru le s, ad op ted 1945, am en de d 1946 se ction 16.—Dog gu ide 

acco mpa nied by m as te r pe rm itte d in an y roo m in wh ich foo d or dri nk is served , 

pr ep ar ed , or stor ed . Act 25 8: W hi te Ca ne La w.—Blin d pe rson w ith w hite ca ne 

or d og g uide giv en righ t-o f-way on st re ets an d high way s. O per at or of ve hicle to 

com e to fu ll sto p whe n ne ce ss ar y an d pro ceed w ith c au tio n. Vi olati on : M ax im um 

fine of $25 an d co sts of pros ec ution. For d efa ult of pa ym en t, im pr ison m en t not 

ex ceed ing 10 da ys . Hou se bill 258 pa ss ed M arch 1956 to become act No. 396.— 

Dog g uide s to be e xe mpt fr om lice nse fees.

Rho de I sl and: Ge neral la ws 1948, ch ap te r 402, section 1.— Dog gu ide fr om recogniz ed sch ool per m itte d w ith m as te r on com mon carr ie rs , in elev at or s, pu blic 

accommo datio ns, w ithout ex tr a ch ar ge prov ided pr ov isions of th is s ec tio n do no t 

ap ply to ra ilro ad sle eping , pa rlor , clu b, bu ffe r, or lou ng e ca rs . C hap te r 1686, 

Pu blic La ws of Rh od e Is la nd 1946. se ction 1. chap te r 2595 -193 8. am en de d to in ­

clu de th e fa ct th a t it is a misde m ea no r fo r oper at or of bus, elev ator , et ce te ra , to 

re fu se pa ssag e of blind pe rson an d dog gu id e an d fine of $500 fo r ea ch offense.

So uth Dak ota: H .B . 263, ch ap ter 176, March 1949.— Blin d pe rson carr yin g w hite 

ca ne or acco mpa nied by dog gu ide giv en righ t-o f-way at in te rs ec tio ns . D river 

of vehic le to com e to fu ll stop an d ta ke ne ce ss ar y pre ca utions whe n proc eeding . 

Violation : Maxim um fine of $25. (T he us ual polic y in th e S ta te has bee n to 

ad m it blind pe rs on s w ith dog gu ides in to re sta u ra n ts , pu blic bu sine sses, an d co nveyances. )

Te nn essee: H. B. 19. c ha pt er 1 Pu bli c Act s of Te nn essee. .Ja nu ary 1955— se ct ion

1.— Dog gu ide per m itte d in all bu ild ings , pu blic conv ey an ce s, if pr op er id en tifica ­

tio n from recogn ize d school, if ac co mmod ations are av ai la bl e an d dog is p ro pe rly 

ha rn es se d. Violat ion : Max im um fine of $50.

Tex as : Ve rn on 's Tex as Civil Sta tu te s, ar ticl e 889a .— Dog gu ide perm itte d on 

al l com mo n carr ie rs pr ov id ed dog is mu zzled an d it sh al l be des ig na te d whe re 

dog sh al l rid e. No ex tr a ch ar ge to be m ad e fo r dog. Secti on 3—Any pe rson 

vi ol atin g above sh all be gu ilty of misde m ea no r and may be fined no t less th an 

$50 no r mo re th an $200. Arti cle 6701e—section 1—On ly blind pe rson may carr y 

w hi te ca ne in a ra ised or ex tend ed po sitio n on an y pu blic st re et or high w ay .
GUID ES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 53

Se ction 2—B lin d pe rs on ca rr yin g w hi te c an e or ac co mpa nied by dog gu ide giv en 

righ t-o f-way a t in te rs ec tions or c ro ss wal ks an d dri ver of v ehicl e m us t ta k e ne ce ssa ry pr ec au tion s or come to fu ll stop whe n ne ce ss ar y. Se cti on 4—V io la tion: 

M ax im um tine of $200. A rtic le 45it<ki—s ec tio n 1—Dog gu ide per m itte d to ho tel , 

to u ri st ca bin, pu blic inn, pu blic ca fe, pu blic elev at or , or si m il ar p lace a nd m as te r 

sh al l no t be re qu ired to pa y ad ditio nal ch ar ge prov ided dog is secu rely muzzled . 

Se cti on 2— Any pe rson vio la ting th is ac t sh al l be gui lty of a misde m ea no r an d 

tin ed n ot le ss t han $50 nor m or e th an $200.

Virgi ni a: Hou se bill 202 introd uc ed da un ar y 20, 1958, to th e Vi rginia Le gi slatu re was en ac ted int o lair un de r ch ap te r 56, in th e 1958 session and pr ov ides in

su m m ary as fo llo ws.— All law s an d re gul at io ns per ta in in g to dog s in ea ting e st ab ­

lish m en ts a re n ot a pp lica bl e to dog g uide s, an d a blind pe rson ac co mpa nied by his 

dog gu ide sh all be per m itte d in all re sta u ra n ts an d ea ti ng es ta bl is hm en ts in th e 

S ta te of V irg in ia.

W es t V ir gi ni a: Hou se bil l 326.— Pa sse d Mar ch 8, 1958, am en ds ar ticl e 10,

ch ap te r 61, by ad ding se ct io n 28.— I t sh al l be un la w fu l fo r an y ow ner, lessee , 

pr opri et or, m an ag er , su per in te nde nt, ag en t or em ploy ee of an y plac e of pu blic 

ac co mmod ation, am us em en t or re cr ea tion , in cl ud in g but no t lim ited to an y inn . 

ho tel, re sta u ra n t, ea ting house, ba rb er sh op , billiar d par lo r, stor e, pu blic conve ya nc e on la nd or w at er , th eate r, motion pic tu re ho use, pu blic ed uc at io na l 

in st it uti on, or el ev at or , to re fu se to per m it a blin d pe rson to ente r su ch pl ac e or 

to m ak e us e of th e ac co m mod atio ns av ai la bl e, fo r th e re as on th a t su ch blind 

pe rs on is be ing led by a dog guid e: Pro vide d, How ever , T h at such dog gu ide is 

w ea ring a h a rn e s s: And pr ov id ed f urt her. T h at su ch blin d pe rs on sh al l firs t ha ve 

pre se nte d fo r insp ec tio n cre den tial s issu ed by an ac cr ed ited sch ool fo r tr ain in g 

dog gu ides. Any pe rson wh o sh al l vi ol at e th is section sh al l be guilty of a m isde mea no r, an d up on co nv ict ion sh al l be fined an am ount no t to exceed $50.

Ca na da .— Gu ide dogs fo r th e blin d are ex em pt from ce rt ain co nd itio ns es ta blish ed fo r ot her dogs. How ev er, to av oid an y i>ossible dif fic ultie s it is reco mmen de d th a t all pe rson s ta kin g gu ide dogs into Can ad a carr y w ith them a hea lth 

ce rt if ic at e and a ce rtific at e of ra bi es va cc in at io n in dic at in g th a t th e dog ha s 

been in sp ec ted an d foun d fr ee of an y sy mptom s of co ntag io us dise as e, has no t 

been expo sed to ra bi es an d th a t no ca se of ra bi es ha s oc cu rred w ithin a 50-m ile 

ra diu s of th e plac e w he re th e dog is ke pt, fo r a pe rio d of 6 m on th s pri or to 

entr y in to Can ad a, an d th a t th e dog has been va cc in at ed ag ai nst ra bie s w ithin 

6 mon ths. Dog ow ne rs are also ad vi se d to carr y w ith them a sim ple id en tif ication car d ev iden cing th a t th e dog is a gu ide an d no t a pe t. Own ers shou ld als o 

ta k e th e dog ’s muz zle.

Tra ve l in co un tries ot he r th an th e United Sta te s an d Ca na da .—T he re is a 6- 

m on th qu ara n ti n e fo r al l do gs in th e U ni ted Kingdom, an d 4-mon th quara nti ne 

in H aw ai i. Th ese quara nti ne re gu la tion s see m to ap ply to in su la r co un trie s an d 

ha ve been mad e to pre ve nt th e in troduc tion of disease. In pla nn in g a tr ip 

to a fo re ig n co un try, oth er th an Can ad a, co nt ac t th e co ns ul ar serv ice or em bassy 

of th e co un tr y to be vis ited to de te rm in e th e st atu s of q u ara nti ne an d oth er 

re gu la tion s.

TH E FOLLOWING STATES HAV E NO LEG ISLATION PERTAIN ING SPE CIFICA LLY TO BLIND 

PERSON S US IN G DOG GUIDES

A laba m a

D el aw ar e

Id ah o

Io w a

Maine

M ar yl an d

M in ne so ta

M ississippi

M on ta na

Nev ad a

Ok lah om a

Sou th C arolina

U ta h

Vermon t

W as hi ng to n

W isc on sin

Wyo mi ng

Th e Pullm an Co. st il l g ra n ts th e pr iv ileg e of ta kin g a do g gu ide fr om an 

ac cr ed ited sch ool in a be droo m fo r on ly th e co st of a lower bert h prov id ed tr av el 

is on a tr a in in which th ere a re c ars w ith lo w er an d up pe r be rths .

Th e Atch iso n, To pe ka & S anta Fe R ai lw ay Co. ha s lift ed th e re st ri cti ons on 

al l ch air car eq ui pm en t w ith th e under st andin g th a t th e dog gu ide will be secu rely mu zzled . The re fo re , seeing -eye dog gu ides ma y acco mpa ny th eir m as te rs 

on chair ear s.
54 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CARRIERS

The cost and maintenance of a seeing-eye dog is considered a medical expense 

on your income tax report. Check with your local revenue officer for furth er 

inform ation.

Price list of seeing-eye equipment: Harness (complete), $12; harn ess (handle 

only). $5.50; harness (body section only ), $0.50; leash, $1; collar, 60 cen ts; 

muzzle, 60 cents ; comb, 35 cen ts; brush, $1.35; bed chain, 35 cents, snaps, 25 cents.

Be sure to muzzle your dog on all public conveyances and keep your dog under 

full control at all times.

When traveling, you are always in the public eye. When necessary, a dminister 

corrections firmly, quickly, and without fanfare. Be lavish in praise when 

deserved.

Public Act No. 641, Effective October 1, 1963

AN ACT CO NC ER NING GU IDE DOGS FOR T H E BL IN D

Be i t enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives in General Assembly

convened:

Section 1. (a) Any blind person may travel on a tra in or on any other mode 

of public tran sportation, and may e nter any other place of public accommodation, 

including any public building, inn, res tau ran t, hotel, motel, tou rist cabin, place 

of amusement, resort, or any facility of any such public accommodation, accompanied by his guide dog, and he may keep such guide dog with him at all times 

in any such public accommodation or facility th ereo f at no extr a charge, provided 

such dog sha ll be in the direct custody of such blind person, shall be wearing a 

harness and shall be properly muzzle d; and provided such blind person shall 

have in his possession a credential issued by an accre dited school for dog 

training, (b) Upon request of any person in charge of any such public accommodation or upon request of any employee thereof, such blind person shall 

present such credential for inspection, (c) Any person who prohibits a blind 

person who complies with the provisions of (a) and (b) of this a ct from traveling 

on a train or oth er mode of public transpo rtation or from entering any oth er place 

of public accommodation, or any facility thereof, accompanied by his guide dog, 

or who prohibits such blind person from keeping his dog with him at no extra 

charge in any such place of public accommodation shall be fined not more than 

one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than sixty days or both.

Section 2. Section 22-346 of the general statutes, as amended, is repealed.

Section 643.5 California Penal Code. Effective April 8, 1963

The people of the S tate of California do enact a s follows :

Section 1. Section 643.5 is added to the Penal Code to read :

“643.5 (a) Any blind i>erson who is a passenger on any common carrier , ai rplane, motor vehicle, railroad train, motorbus, streetcar, boat, or any other 

public conveyance or mode of tran spo rtation operating within the State of 

California, shall be entitled to have with him a guide dog specially trained for 

th at purpose, without being required to pay an additional charge therefore.

“ (b) Blind persons and their guide dogs shall not be denied admittance to 

any hotel, motel, public inn, public cafe, public elevator, or any other similar 

place within the Sta te of California because of such guide dogs. Such blind persons shall not be required to pay any additional charg es for their guide dog. but 

shall be liable for any damage done to the premises by their dogs.

“ (c) Any person, or persons, firm, association, or corporation, or the agent of 

any person, firm, association, or corporation, who shall violate the provisions 

of this act shall be guilty of a misdem eanor.”

Statement of J ohn F. Nagle, Chie f of the Washington Office of the

National Federation of the Blind

My name is John F. Nagle. I am chief of the Washington office of the National 

Federation of the Blind. My address is 19Q8 Q Stre et NW., Washington, D.C.

The National Federation of the Blind is a nationwide organization with a 

membership primaril y of blind men and women. We are joined together to secure 

by concerted action based on a shared philosophy, improved conditions, and increased opportunities for all blind persons-
GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIERS 55

Th e id en tica l bil ls, H.R . 5611, in trod uc ed by Con gres sm an Ja m es Trim ble, an d 

H.R. 7210, in trod uc ed by Co ng ressman A le xa nd er Pir nie , are co ns is te nt w ith ou r 

org an iz at io n’s ob ject ives an d our mem be rs’ effo rts , an d we su ppor t them an d 

re qu es t th e co mm itt ee to a ct fa vo ra bl y up on th em .

We are su pp or ting th e T rim bl e- Pirni e pr op os al be ca us e we kn ow th a t if a 

blind pe rson is to be fr ee to tr av el whe re h e ne eds an d wish es to go, hi s gu ide dog 

m us t b e f re e to tra vel w ith h im.

If a blin d m ast er is bar re d from ta kin g his dog w ith him on a tr ain , bu s, or 

plan e, th en he is re st ri cte d in hi s free do m of m ovem en t; he is lim ite d in hi s fr ee ­

dom o f ch oice.

If a blin d m ast er is barr ed fro m ta kin g hi s gu ide dog into a p ub lic e ati ng place, 

th e blin d m as te r ca nn ot en te r ei th er , fo r he is de pe nd en t up on hi s dog , an d th e 

dog m us t ac co mpa ny h im w he re ve r he goes.

In sh or t, to re str ic t th e ad m issibi lity of a gu ide dog on pu blic tr ansp ort ati on 

or in pu blic plac es is to deny ad m issibi lity to th e sigh tles s m as te r.

Alth ou gh few in st an ce s ma y oc cu r whe n a blind pe rson finds th a t hi s gu ide dog 

is no t we lco me to tr av el w ith him on a pu blic conv eyance, or to ente r w ith him 

in to a pu blic pla ce , ea ch in st an ce may lim it the blin d m as te r in th e pu rs u it of 

hi s livel ih ood; it ma y re str ic t him in hi s ef fo rt to en ga ge in so cial an d cu lt ura l 

ac tivi ties .

We ur ge th is co mmitt ee , th er ef or e— we urg e Co ng res s— to act fa vo ra bly on 

H.R. 5611, H.R. 7210.

F or we be lie ve th a t th es e id en tica l m ea su re s as F ed er al la w will se rv e to 

rem ov e anoth er b arr ie r of pr ej ud ic e an d m is unde rs ta nd in g from th e law an d 

from th e liv es of blin d American s wh o are st rivin g to ac hiev e inde pe nd en ce an d 

self-suff iciency by overc om ing , th ro ugh th e us e of a gu ide dog, th e ha nd ic ap pi ng 

conseq ue nc es of t h eir dis ab ility o f blindn ess.

P acific Air Lin e s,

Sa n Fr an cis co , Cfilif., Feb ru ar y 20, 19 6j.

Hon. J. Art hu r Younger, •

Co ng ressma n, W as hi ng to n, D.C. ■

(A tten tion Mr. W. E. W ill iamso n, Co mmitt ee Cl erk, New Hou se Office Build ing, 

W as hi ng to n, D .C .).

Dear Cong res sma n Younger : It has co me to th e att enti on of P ac ifi c A ir Lines 

th a t a he ar in g will be he ld on Feb ru ary 26, 1964, on H.R. 8068 which has been 

in tr od uce d by you. Pa cif ic Air Line s w ishe s to go on reco rd as being st ro ng ly in 

fa vor o f t his le gi slatio n.

It is tr u e th a t th e ta ri ff s pr ov ide fo r th e carr ia ge of seein g-ey e dog s, but th e 

ta ri ff does no t p ro vi de f c r a sigh te d pe rson ac co mpa ny ing th e b li id pe rs on in lie u 

of th e gu ide dog.

All blind peop le do not ha ve gu ide dog s. Many blin d peop le t ra vel by a ir an d 

mo re wo uld tr avel by a ir if a sigh ted pe rson ac co mpa nied the m an d was gr an te d 

th e same pr iv ileg es th a t a gu ide dog i s gra nte d ex ce pt th at, of c< u rse, th e sigh ted 

ix rs on wo uld occupy a se at . Thi s sim ply mea ns th a t tw o people wou ld be trav el - 

ii i g fo r th e pr ic e of one.

O ur ba sic in te re st stem s from the fa ct th a t on e of our ca ptf ins is now blind 

as a re su lt of be ing sh ot in th e he ad by a hijac ker . Thi s in di vi du al has ha d to 

lind a new way of lif e an d w ith g re at har dsh ip an d ef fo rt is mak in g re al prog ­

ress. H is liv elihoo d de pe nd s upon hi s abil it y to tr av el as re qu ired . The sa m e 

ca n be tr ue of man y oth er b lin d pe rson s. As p ert ain s to th e in di vi du al men tio ne d 

above an d, no d ou bt, to m an y oth er blind pe rson s, a sigh te d pe rson ac co mpa ny ing 

th e blind pe rson on tr avel tr ip s, man y of which ar e in th e purs uit of th e blind 

pe rs on ’s occ up ation an d liv elihoo d, is an d ca n be a g re at ass et to th e blin d pe rso n 

in his bu sine ss purs uits, w he re as a gu ide dog, of co urse , ca n co ntr ib ut e no thing. 

I t m us t be co ns id er ed th a t a blind pe rs on ’s inc om e is ve ry like ly mu ch less th an 

th a t of a no rm al sigh te d pe rson in th e same ci rc um stan ce s an d co ns eq ue ntly the 

blind i)erso n is no t in an eco nomic po sitio n th a t wou ld pe rm it him or her to pay 

tr ansp ort ati on for t he sigh ted guide .

As yo u know , m an y ra il ro ads an d bu s co mpa nies per m it su ch carr ia ge an d 

ha ve be en doing so f o r a long pe riod of time.

It is our o pin ion th at, sh ou ld th e carr ie rs b e per m itte d to g ra n t fr ee tr an sp o rt atio n to th e sigh ted pe rson wh o ac co m pa nies th e blind pe rson , ap pro pri ate sa fe ­

gu ar ds could be mad e in th e ta ri ff s co ve rin g such tr ansp ort ati on to pr ev en t 

ab us es o f t he priv ile ge .

Si nc erely yo urs,

Harry S. W h it e.
56 GUIDES FOR TOTALLY BLIND ON AIR CAR RIER S

Long Beach, Calif., January H , 196%. Hon. Oren Harris,

House of Repre sentatives,

Washington, DA'.

Dear Sir : May I respectfully request that you get your committee to bring 

H.R. 8068, pertain ing to 2-for-l blind privilege on airplanes now enjoyed by 

them on tr ains and buses.

I learned of the Honorable J. Arthu r Younger’s bill in the new Outlook of the 

Blind, presented by him the 1st session of this 88th Congress.

I am a blind retired Methodist minister and a World War I veteran. I am 

chaplain of the Associated Blind of Califo rnia and a member of the executive 

board of this incorporated body.

Hoping this bill passes the 2d session of the 88th Congress or at lea st gets to 

the floor for final action, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Harry G. Earle.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to 

the call of the Chair.)

o