DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 235

Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0211 

RIN No. 2105-AE07

Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Extension of comment period on proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period of an NPRM on the reporting of incidents 

involving animals during air transport that was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 

2012. See 77 FR 38747. The Department of Transportation is extending the period for interested 

persons to submit comments on this rulemaking from August 28, 2012, to September 27, 2012. 

This extension is a result of a request to extend the comment period for the proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 27, 2012. Comments received after this date 

will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2010-0211

by any of the following methods:

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments.

 Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
 Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays.

 Fax: 202-493-2251.

Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2010-0211 or 

Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. 

All comments will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our

dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment if

submitted on behalf of an association, a business, a labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's

complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR

19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov or to the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions

for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vinh Q. Nguyen, Trial Attorney, Office of 

the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-

366-7152 (fax), vinh.nguyen@dot.gov. You may also contact Blane A. Workie, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement 

and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, 

DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), blane.workie@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 2012, the Department published a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning the requirement for air carriers to report to the 

Department incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport. The 

NPRM proposed to: (1) expand the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled 

service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats; (2) expand the 

definition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs transported by the carriers, regardless of 

whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment 

(e.g., shipped by a breeder); and (3) require all covered carriers to provide in their December 

reports for each year the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air 

transport for the calendar year. We also sought comment on requiring carriers to report the total 

number of animals transported in the calendar year in the December reports. Comments on the 

matters proposed were to be received 60 days after publication of the NPRM, or by August 28, 

2012.

Request for Comment Period Extension

We received a joint request for an extension of time in the comment period for this 

rulemaking from Airlines for America (A4A), the Regional Airline Association (RAA), the Air 

Carrier Association of America, Inc. (ACAA), and their respective members (the petitioners). 

According to the request, the extension of time is needed so interested parties have sufficient 

time to review and comment on the preliminary regulatory analysis (PRA). The petitioners state 

that as of July 20, 2012, the docket associated with this rulemaking did not yet include the 

Department’s PRA, which provides the cost and benefit analysis underpinning the proposal. The 
petitioners state that comment development cannot progress until the PRA is available. The 

PRA was posted in the docket on July 24, 2012.

Under the circumstances, we concur with the request for an extension of the comment 

period. We have decided to grant an extension of 30 days, or until September 27, 2012, for the 

public to comment on the NPRM. In doing so, we have balanced the stated need for additional 

time for comments with the need to proceed expeditiously with this important rulemaking. We 

take note of the fact that with the additional 30 days we are granting here, interested parties will 

have more than two months to comment on the PRA, which we believe is adequate time for 

analysis and coordination regarding the proposals. Accordingly, the Department finds that good 

cause exists to extend the time for comments on the proposed rule from August 28, 2012, to 

September 27, 2012. We do not anticipate any further extension of the comment period for this 

rulemaking. Comments received after September 27, 2012, will be considered to the extent 

practicable.

Request for Clarification

In addition to requesting that the comment period be extended, the petitioners posed a 

number of questions to the Department concerning the proposed requirement that carriers report 

the total number of animals transported during a calendar year with that year’s December 

reports, the cost to carriers of amending the definition of “animal” for reporting purposes, and 

the number of carriers affected by the reporting requirement.

Issues Concerning the Proposed Requirement that Carriers Report the Total Number of Animals 

Transported in the Calendar Year in the December Reports
The petitioners state that there are conflicting statements between the NPRM summary

and the NPRM Regulatory Analyses and Notices (RAN) section with respect to the proposed 

requirement that carriers report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year in

the December reports. They state that while the RAN section indicates that carriers would be 

required to report only during the months where the carriers experience a reportable animal 

incident, the preamble asks whether carriers should be required to file reports in months when no 

incident takes place. The petitioners seek clarification on this issue and request that the RAN 

section of the preamble be clarified if the proposal is that carrier be required to file negative 

reports.

As stated in the RAN section, in addition to proposing that covered carriers report the 

total number of animals transported in the calendar year in their December reports, the 

Department proposed that covered carriers only submit a report during the months when the 

carriers have a reportable animal incident. However, we also sought comment on whether to 

require carriers to file reports even if the carriers did not have any incidents involving the loss, 

injury, or death of an animal during a particular month. This is not inconsistent. The NPRM is 

not proposing that carriers file a negative report but is soliciting comment on this point so we can 

determine whether the final rule should include a general requirement that covered carriers must 

submit reports each month even if the carriers do not have any reportable incidents during a 

particular month or perhaps a requirement that carriers must file a December report regardless of 

whether any incidents occurred in that month to cover the total number of animals transported 

that year.

Issues Concerning the Cost to Covered Carriers of Amending the Definition of Animal
The petitioners state that for the 15 carriers that are currently required to report incidents 

involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport, the RAN is incorrect in 

stating that there would be no additional costs associated with amending the definition of 

“animal” for reporting purposes to include all cats and dogs transported by the carrier regardless 

of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial 

shipment. They state that the 15 carriers already subject to the reporting requirement would 

likely incur additional costs, and the Department should correct the RAN. 

The statement in the RAN that there would be no additional costs to the 15 carriers that 

already collect information on incidents involving loss, injury, or death of an animal refers to 

costs associated with actually filing monthly reports. The Department acknowledges that there 

would be costs associated with collecting more information to report, i.e., not only on incidents

involving pets but also incidents involving dogs and cats that are shipped commercially. In the 

NPRM, the Department states that it believes the cost of the proposed expanded definition of an 

animal covered by the reporting rule would impact airlines but the cost would still be 

minimal. We encourage comments and data about expected costs resulting from the expansion 

of the definition of “animal.”

Issues Concerning the Scope of the Reporting Requirement

The petitioners state that although the RAN states that the scope of the carriers covered 

by the animal incident reporting requirements would expand under the NPRM proposal from 15 

to 36 carriers, the NPRM does not list the carriers so there is no way to verify if the list is 

accurate. They point out that presumably the PRA lists the potentially impacted carriers and that 

informed comment cannot progress until the PRA and that information is available.
The PRA does in fact list the carriers that would be affected by the NPRM and, as 

noted above, the PRA was posted in the docket on July 24, 2012. The public is invited to 

comment on the accuracy of that list.

Issued this 28th day of August, 2012, in Washington, D.C. under authority delegated in 14 CFR 

Part 1.

_______________________________

Robert S. Rivkin

General Counsel