Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69379 

(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European 

Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness 

Directive 2014–0034, dated February 05, 

2014, for related information. This MCAI 

may be found in the AD docket on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating it in Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0775. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness 

Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 

93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@

airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.com. 

You may view this service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 13, 2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27631 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 1 

RIN 2900–AO39 

Animals on VA Property 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

regulation regarding the presence of 

animals on VA property. Current VA 

regulation authorizes the presence of 

seeing-eye dogs on VA property and 

other animals as authorized at the 

discretion of a VA facility head or 

designee. However, applicable Federal 

law authorizes the presence of guide 

dogs and other service animals when 

these animals accompany individuals 

with disabilities seeking admittance to 

buildings or property owned or operated 

by the Federal Government. This 

proposed rule would expand the current 

VA regulation to be consistent with 

applicable Federal law, and would 

clarify the authority of a VA facility 

head or designee to allow nonservice 

animals to be present on VA property. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

VA on or before January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through http://

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand 

delivery to the Director, Regulation 

Policy and Management (02REG), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Ave. NW., Room 1068, 

Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to 

(202) 273–9026. Comments should 

indicate that they are submitted in 

response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AO39-Animals 

on VA Property.’’ Copies of comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection in the Office of Regulation 

Policy and Management, Room 1068, 

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday (except 

holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for 

an appointment. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) In addition, during the 

comment period, comments may be 

viewed online through the Federal 

Docket Management System at http://

www.Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Edmondson, RN, JD, Patient Care 

Services (10P4), Veterans Health 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20420, (410) 637–4755. 

(This is not a toll free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to 38 U.S.C. 901, VA may prescribe 

rules to provide for the maintenance of 

law and order and the protection of 

persons and property on VA property. 

VA implements this authority in 

regulations at 38 CFR 1.218 pertaining 

to security and law enforcement and 

§ 1.220. This proposed rule would 

amend § 1.218(a)(11) to require VA 

facilities to permit service animals on 

VA property consistent with 40 U.S.C. 

3103 (section 3103) and Sec. 109, Pub. 

L. 112–154, 126 Stat. 1165 (2012) 

(section 109). Section 3103(a) provides 

that guide dogs or other service animals 

accompanying individuals with 

disabilities and especially trained for 

that purpose shall be admitted to any 

building or other property owned or 

controlled by the Federal Government 

on the same terms and conditions, and 

subject to the same regulations, as 

generally govern the admission of the 

public to the property. Section 109 

provides that VA specifically may not 

prohibit the use of a covered service dog 

in any VA facility, on any VA property, 

or in any facility or on any property that 

receives funding from VA, and further 

defines a covered service dog as a 

service dog that has been trained by an 

entity that is accredited by an 

appropriate accrediting body that 

evaluates and accredits organizations 

which train guide or service dogs. 

Current 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11), however, 

reads that dogs and other animals, 

except seeing-eye dogs, shall not be 

brought upon property except as 

authorized by the head of the facility or 

designee. Our current regulation can be 

interpreted to allow the head of a VA 

facility or designee to bar access to all 

animals other than seeing-eye dogs, 

which is inconsistent with both section 

3103(a) and section 109. We would 

therefore revise our regulation to be 

consistent with the requirements in 

section 3103(a) and section 109. We also 

note that these revisions would be 

consistent with the remainder of § 1.218 

and § 1.220, as well as consistent with 

VA regulations that ensure accessibility 

for programs or activities conducted by 

VA, 38 CFR 15.101 et al. 

The proposed revisions to 38 CFR 

1.218(a)(11) would establish nationally 

applicable criteria regarding the 

presence of service animals on VA 

property, to ensure that our regulations 

cannot be interpreted in a manner that 

conflicts with section 3103(a), section 

109, §§ 1.218 and 1.220, or § 15.101 et 

al. We note that section 3103(b) 

specifically authorizes the Secretary of 

VA to prescribe regulations that are 

necessary in the public interest to carry 

out section 3103(a) as it applies to any 

building or other property subject to 

VA’s jurisdiction, and VA is otherwise 

authorized to prescribe rules to protect 

persons and property on VA property 

under 38 U.S.C. 901. 

Consistent with section 3103(a), 

proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(i) would 

provide that service animals, as defined 

in proposed paragraph (a)(11)(viii), must 

be permitted to be present on VA 

property when those animals 

accompany individuals with disabilities 

and are trained for that purpose. Section 

3103(a) refers to animals that are 

‘‘trained’’ as well as ‘‘educated’’ for the 

purpose of accompanying individuals 

with disabilities, but we believe our 

regulation should be revised to only 

include reference to ‘‘trained’’ animals. 

We are not aware of any intent on the 

part of Congress in section 3103(a) to 

distinguish ‘‘trained’’ from ‘‘educated’’ 

in the context of the skills a service 

animal learns for the purposes of 

assisting individuals with disabilities. 

Additionally, we believe the concept of 

training an animal versus educating an 

animal is more relatable for a majority 

of the public. We explain later in this 

proposed rulemaking how the definition 

of ‘‘service animal’’ in proposed 

paragraph (a)(11)(viii) would be 

consistent with the definition of 

‘‘service animal’’ in regulations that 

implement the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as 

consistent with the meaning of ‘‘covered 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69380 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

service dog’’ in section 109. Proposed 

§ 1.218(a)(11)(i) would restate other 

requirements from section 3103(a), that 

the service animal must be in a guiding 

harness or on a leash and under the 

control of the individual with the 

disability at all times while on VA 

property, and that VA is not responsible 

for the care or supervision of the service 

animal. Lastly, proposed 

§ 1.218(a)(11)(i) would state that service 

animal presence on VA property is 

subject to the same terms, conditions, 

and regulations as generally govern 

admission of the public to the property. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ii) would 

provide that a service animal will be 

denied access to VA property or 

removed from otherwise accessible VA 

property under certain circumstances. 

The subsequent bases for removal in 

proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(A) through 

(C) would permit a VA facility head or 

designee to remove a service animal to 

maintain the general health and safety 

of veterans, VA employees, other VA 

stakeholders, and other service dogs. 

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 901(a)(1), 

maintaining the health and safety of 

individuals through security and law 

enforcement restrictions of presence or 

activities on VA property is the 

overriding purpose of § 1.218(a) (see, for 

instance § 1.218(a)(3) and (a)(5)), and 

the proposed restrictions in this 

rulemaking would not conflict with 

§ 1.218 generally or with VA regulations 

related to accessibility of VA programs 

for individuals with disabilities under 

38 CFR 15.101 et al. These bases for 

removal are also permitted under 

section 3103(b), which specifically 

authorizes the Secretary, VA to 

prescribe regulations that are necessary 

in the public interest to carry out 

section 3103(a) as it applies to any 

building or other property subject to 

VA’s jurisdiction. These bases for 

removal are further consistent with 

section 109 because they would not 

prohibit the use of service dogs 

generally, but rather would only limit 

the presence of service dogs under 

particular circumstances in which a 

dog’s behavior may be contrary to 

typical public access standards. A basic 

level of training is expected of and 

necessary for service dogs to access 

public areas, and such training in the 

least is contemplated by section 109, 

which provides that VA may not 

prohibit the use of service dogs if such 

dogs are ‘‘trained by an entity that is 

accredited by an appropriate accrediting 

body.’’ Section 109. However, we do not 

interpret section 109 to further require 

that service dogs must be trained by any 

specific entity to access VA property, 

because section 109 does not define an 

‘‘appropriate accrediting body.’’ More 

fundamentally, section 109 does not 

prohibit VA from granting access to a 

broader group of service animals than 

those trained by accredited entities 

generally (see Section 109 (mandating 

that VA may not prohibit the use of 

certain ‘‘covered service dogs,’’ but does 

not mandate that VA must only permit 

the use of such dogs)). Therefore, we 

interpret section 109 to only guarantee 

access to VA property for those service 

dogs that can dependably behave in 

accordance with typical public access 

standards for public settings. Proposed 

paragraphs 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(A) through 

(C) identify behaviors not in accordance 

with typical public access standards for 

public settings and therefore are the 

basis for removal, and consequently 

would not conflict with section 109. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(A) would 

provide that a service animal will be 

removed from VA property if the animal 

is not under the control of the 

individual with a disability as required 

under proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(i). In 

addition to being consistent with 

section 109, this restriction would be a 

restatement of the requirement in 

section 3103(a), to emphasize the 

fundamental importance of animal 

control in public settings. Proposed 

§ 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(B) would indicate that 

a service animal will be removed from 

VA property if the animal is not 

housebroken. We would further indicate 

that this means the animal must be 

trained to eliminate its waste in an 

outdoor area. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(C) would 

provide that a service animal will be 

removed from VA property if the animal 

otherwise poses a risk to the health or 

safety of people or other service 

animals. In determining whether an 

animal poses such a risk, VA would 

make an individualized assessment 

based on objective indications to 

ascertain the severity of the risk. These 

indications would either be actions of 

an animal that typically are followed by 

acts of aggression, or other external 

signs that the animal poses a risk to the 

health or safety of people or other 

service animals. To prevent any 

aggressive acts of a service animal for 

the purpose of maintaining the health 

and safety of people or other service 

animals, we would propose in 

paragraph (a)(11)(ii)(C)(1) specific 

external indicators that are commonly 

understood to be followed by aggressive 

acts of animals, to include growling; 

biting or snapping; baring its teeth; and 

lunging. Although we do not expect 

service animals to behave in such ways, 

owing to their special behavioral 

training to not be aggressive in public 

areas, it is nonetheless imperative that 

we establish a mechanism to remove an 

animal that is acting in an aggressive 

manner. 

We propose additional external 

indicators of disease or bad health in 

paragraph (a)(11)(ii)(C)(2) that would 

warrant a service animal being removed 

from VA property, such as external 

signs of parasites on a service animal 

(e.g. fleas or ticks), or other external 

signs of disease or bad health (e.g. 

diarrhea or vomiting). 

The presence of parasites would pose 

a threat to the health and safety of 

others, as many of these types of 

parasites can be spread easily by brief 

physical contact and in some instances 

even by close proximity. Additionally, 

many of these types of parasites 

reproduce quickly and in great volume 

to create infestation conditions that are 

much more difficult to remediate, 

versus removing a service animal with 

visible external parasites. Similarly, 

vomiting or diarrhea or other external 

signs of disease or bad health would 

signal immediate illness or disease that 

could be communicable to people or 

other service animals. 

We propose certain additional 

restrictions for service animal access in 

proposed paragraph (a)(11)(iii), 

specifically for property under the 

control of the Veterans Health 

Administration (VHA property), subject 

to the same terms, conditions, and 

regulations as generally govern 

admission of the public to the property, 

in accordance with section 3103(a), and 

also in accordance with VA’s authority 

to prescribe rules to protect persons and 

property on VA property under 38 

U.S.C. 901. VHA properties, as health 

care settings, must maintain the highest 

standard of clinical practice for the care 

of veterans. Therefore, we would 

authorize restrictions on the right of 

service animal access arising from 

patient care, patient safety, or infection 

control standards just as we restrict the 

right of members of the public. There 

are specific areas in VHA facilities 

where the presence of a member of the 

public or an animal would tend to 

compromise patient care, patient safety 

or infection control. In terms of 

members of the public, VA may be able 

to mitigate such risks to patient safety 

or infection control by imposing certain 

terms and conditions that would be 

impossible or impractical to impose 

upon service animals, such as a 

requirement to wear protective 

equipment such as gloves, gowns, or 

masks in areas where such equipment is 

required (such as operating rooms, and 

other critical medical care areas). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69381 

Another impossible or impractical 

requirement to impose upon service 

animals would be the requirement to 

remain continuously indoors in 

intensively monitored settings, such as 

acute inpatient hospital settings. In such 

settings, veterans would typically be 

recovering from an acute medical 

episode, and would not likely be able to 

effectively attend to the needs of a 

service animal (e.g. taking the service 

animal outside, or feeding or watering 

the service animal). Staff in these 

inpatient hospital settings must not be 

expected to set aside their patient 

monitoring and care duties to instead 

attend to the needs of a service animal. 

Additionally, the immediate needs of 

veterans in these settings would be most 

appropriately fulfilled by medical staff 

and not a service animal (for instance, 

getting in and out of a hospital bed). 

It is not possible to predict with 

certainty all specific areas on VHA 

property that would need to restrict the 

presence of a service animal for patient 

care, patient safety, and infection 

control reasons. We therefore propose 

general language authorizing restrictions 

based on patient care, patient safety, or 

infection control considerations as part 

of standards of good clinical practice, 

and additionally propose a list of areas 

within VHA facilities that must restrict 

the access of service animals. This list 

would not be exhaustive, but would be 

comprehensive to provide the public 

with notice of those areas that typically, 

because of patient care, patient safety, 

and infection control standards, may not 

be accessed by service animals. These 

areas in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(A) 

through (G) would include: Operating 

rooms and surgical suites; areas where 

invasive procedures are being 

performed; acute inpatient hospital 

settings (e.g. intensive care units, 

stabilization units, locked mental health 

units); decontamination, sterile 

processing, and sterile storage areas; 

patient rooms or patient treatment areas 

where it is indicated that a patient has 

animal allergies, or has fear or phobia(s) 

of animals; food preparation areas; and 

any area where personal protective 

equipment must be worn. Such 

restrictions would be consistent with 

section 3103(b), which authorizes VA to 

establish regulations necessary in the 

public interest to carry out section 3103 

as it applies to any building or other 

property subject to VA’s jurisdiction, as 

well as consistent with VA’s authority 

to prescribe rules to protect persons and 

property on VA property under 38 

U.S.C. 901. These restrictions would 

also be consistent with the mandate in 

section 109 that VA may not prohibit 

the use of certain service animals, 

because service animals would not 

actually be used by individuals with 

disabilities in a majority of these 

medical care areas, or in those areas in 

which public access generally is not 

granted. For instance, an individual 

with a disability would not be using a 

service animal while the individual was 

undergoing a surgical procedure; hence, 

preventing the animal to be present in 

an operating room or other surgical suite 

area would not be a prohibition on use, 

and a service animal restriction in these 

areas would not violate section 109. 

The restriction of service animal 

access to certain areas of VHA property, 

as health care settings, is further 

consistent with regulations that 

implement title III of the ADA. See 28 

CFR 36.302(c)(7). Though the ADA and 

the regulations implementing the ADA 

do not apply to agencies of the 

executive branch such as VA, VA is not 

prevented from adopting standards 

similar to those in the ADA when 

appropriate and applicable. In 

promulgating § 36.302, the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) considered a substantial 

number of public comments regarding 

service animal access during a 

comprehensive, multi-staged 

rulemaking process, culminating in the 

publication of a final rule at 75 FR 

56236, Sept. 15, 2010. We agree with the 

discussion and rationale used by DOJ in 

their rulemaking to limit the access of 

service animals in healthcare settings. 

Particularly, we agree that, consistent 

with Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention guidance, it is generally 

appropriate to exclude a service animal 

from limited-access areas that employ 

general infection control measures and 

that require persons to undertake added 

precautions. Id. 

We additionally propose in 

§ 1.218(a)(11)(iv) certain restrictions for 

service animal access, specifically for 

property under the control of the 

National Cemetery Administration 

(NCA), subject to the same terms, 

conditions, and regulations as generally 

govern admission of the public to the 

property, in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 

3103(a). NCA honors veterans and their 

families with final resting places in 

national shrines and with lasting 

tributes that commemorate their service 

and sacrifice to our Nation. VA’s 131 

national cemeteries are visited yearround, sometimes by large crowds for 

special events and ceremonies, and 

committal services, interments, and 

other memorials are held on a daily 

basis across the cemetery system. For 

these reasons, NCA must provide broad 

public access to cemetery grounds and 

facilities with certain limitations to 

ensure public safety. 

It is not possible to predict with 

certainty all specific areas on NCA 

property that would need to restrict the 

presence of a service animal for safety 

and maintenance reasons. We therefore 

propose general language authorizing 

restrictions to ensure that public safety, 

facilities and grounds care, and 

maintenance control considerations are 

not compromised. Additionally, we 

propose a list of areas within NCA 

facilities that must restrict public 

access, including service animals and 

their owners or handlers, to the same 

extent that the presence of the general 

public would be unauthorized. These 

areas in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iv)(A) 

through (C) would include open 

interment areas including columbaria, 

construction or maintenance sites, and 

grounds keeping and storage facilities. 

Such restrictions would be consistent 

with section 3103(a), which ensures 

access for service animals on Federal 

property only on the same terms and 

conditions, and subject to the same 

regulations, as generally govern the 

admission of the public. Such 

restrictions would also be consistent 

with section 3103(b), which authorizes 

VA to establish regulations necessary in 

the public interest to carry out this 

section as it applies to any building or 

other property subject to VA’s 

jurisdiction. Lastly, these restrictions 

would be consistent with section 109, 

because service animals would not be 

used by individuals with disabilities in 

those areas in which public access 

generally would not be permitted. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(v) would 

provide that if a service animal is 

denied access to VA property or 

removed from VA property subject to 

proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ii), or restricted 

from accessing certain VA property 

subject to proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii) 

and (a)(11)(iv), that VA would give the 

individual with a disability the 

opportunity to obtain services without 

having the service animal on VA 

property. This provision would be 

consistent with the regulations that 

implement the ADA at 28 CFR 

36.302(c)(3), and would be important to 

ensure that the individual with a 

disability still receives VA services. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(vi) would 

provide that, subject to limited 

requirements in proposed 

§ 1.218(a)(11)(vii), an individual with a 

disability must not be required to 

provide documentation, such as proof 

that an animal has been certified, 

trained, or licensed as a service animal, 

to gain access to VA property 

accompanied by their service animal. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69382 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed paragraph (a)(11)(vi) would 

further state that an individual may be 

asked if the animal is required because 

of a disability, and what work or task 

the animal has been trained to perform. 

A restriction on required documentation 

and permitting minimal inquiries would 

reduce administrative burden for 

veterans and other VA stakeholders 

seeking access to VA property, and 

would prevent VA staff from having to 

verify documentation that proves 

service animal training was completed. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(11)(vi) is 

consistent with regulations that 

implement the ADA. See 28 CFR 

36.302(c)(6). We agree with the rationale 

as stated in § 36.302(c)(6) that in most 

instances, it is apparent that an animal 

is trained to do work or perform tasks 

for an individual with a disability. 

Therefore, restricting documentation 

and permitting minimal inquiries as 

proposed in paragraph (a)(11)(vi) should 

not permit an undue number of 

nonservice animals to access VA 

property in contravention of the 

proposed criteria in this rulemaking. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) would 

state that an individual with a disability 

will be required to provide 

documentation that a service animal is 

up to date with certain vaccinations and 

veterinary examinations (as described in 

proposed paragraphs (a)(11)(vii)(A) and 

(B)), if such individual will be 

accompanied by the service animal 

while receiving treatment in a VHA 

residential program. This 

documentation would allow VA to 

confirm that a service animal was 

healthy for purposes of continuous, 

extended exposure to veterans, VA staff, 

and other VA stakeholders in residential 

rehabilitation and treatment areas on 

VHA property (such as VHA 

Community Living Centers, VHA 

Mental Health Residential 

Rehabilitation Treatment Programs, or 

Blind Rehabilitation Centers). Any 

additional documentation that would be 

requested under proposed 

§ 1.218(a)(11)(vii) would only be related 

to the health and wellness of the animal, 

and would not be related to an animal’s 

level of training or other certification 

that the animal was a service animal. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(vii)(A) 

through (C) would permit VA to request 

documentation to confirm that a service 

animal has a current rabies vaccination 

(1 year or 3 year interval, depending on 

local requirements), and that a service 

animal has had a comprehensive 

physical examination by a licensed 

veterinarian within the last 12 months 

that confirms immunizations with core 

canine vaccines (in addition to the 

required rabies vaccine) distemper, 

parvovirus, and adenovirus-2, and 

screening for and treatment of internal 

and external parasite as well as control 

of such parasites. Additionally, the 

individual with a disability would be 

asked to confirm in writing that at least 

seven days have elapsed since the dog 

recovered from (as applicable), any of 

the following: vomiting, diarrhea, 

urinary or fecal incontinence, sneezing 

or coughing, open wounds, skin 

infections or mucus membrane 

infections, orthopedic or other 

conditions that may interfere with 

ambulation within the VA facility, and 

estrus in intact female dogs. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) would 

define a service animal as any dog that 

is individually trained to do work and 

perform tasks for the benefit of an 

individual with a disability, including a 

physical, sensory, psychiatric, 

intellectual, or other mental disability. 

Other species of animals, whether wild 

or domestic, trained or untrained, 

would not be service animals for the 

purposes of this definition. The work or 

tasks performed by a service animal 

would have to be directly related to the 

individual’s disability. The crime 

deterrent effects of an animal’s presence 

and the provision of emotional support, 

well-being, comfort, or companionship 

would not constitute work or tasks for 

the purposes of this definition. This 

definition would apply regardless of 

whether VA is providing benefits to 

support a service dog under 38 CFR 

17.148. We recognize that this definition 

is broader than the definition of the 

types of dogs for which we pay benefits 

under § 17.148; specifically this 

definition would include service dogs 

that are trained to mitigate the effects of 

mental health disabilities (mental health 

service dogs). We explained in the 

proposed rulemaking associated with 38 

CFR 17.148 that VA does not yet have 

sufficient evidence to prescribe mental 

health service dogs as part of a veteran’s 

treatment plan, and therefore cannot at 

this time offer benefits to support the 

use of such dogs. 76 FR 35163, June 16, 

2011. However, the issue of whether the 

prescription of mental health service 

dogs is clinically appropriate to 

necessitate the provision of benefits 

under § 17.148 is much narrower than 

the issue of whether we should allow 

mental health service dogs to access VA 

facilities while accompanying 

individuals with disabilities. Therefore, 

we believe it is consistent to permit the 

presence of mental health service dogs 

on VA property for purposes of ensuring 

access for individuals with disabilities, 

while still (at this time) restricting the 

provision of benefits to support mental 

health service dogs in § 17.148. 

The definition of a ‘‘service animal’’ 

in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) would 

be consistent with the definition of 

‘‘service animal’’ in regulations that 

implement title III of the ADA. See 28 

CFR 36.104. To reiterate, although VA is 

not bound by the ADA, VA is not 

prevented from adopting standards 

similar to those in the ADA when 

appropriate and applicable. Because 

there is no existing definition of 

‘‘service animal’’ in any law or 

regulation that is applicable to VA, we 

find the definition in 28 CFR 36.104 the 

most relevant source for consideration 

of the issue of service animal presence 

on VA property, other than those service 

dogs VA recognizes under § 17.148. 

The definition of ‘‘service animal’’ in 

proposed paragraphs (a)(11)(viii) would 

also be consistent with our 

interpretation of the definition of a 

‘‘covered service dog’’ in section 109. 

We reiterate that we do not interpret 

section 109 to require that a service dog 

must be trained by any specific entity, 

and that section 109 does not prohibit 

VA from granting access to a broader 

group of service animals than those 

trained by accredited entities generally. 

We would not impose an accreditation 

requirement to verify that a service dog 

has been trained appropriately to gain 

access to VA property. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) would 

limit dogs as the only species of animal 

recognized as a service animal, and 

would further provide that dogs that 

merely provide crime deterrent effects, 

emotional support, well-being, comfort, 

or companionship to individuals (versus 

being individually trained to assist 

individuals with disabilities) are not 

service animals. These limitations are 

consistent with the current definition of 

‘‘service animal’’ provided in 28 CFR 

36.104. In promulgating § 36.104, DOJ 

considered a substantial number of 

public comments regarding species 

limitations for service animals during a 

comprehensive, multi-staged 

rulemaking process, culminating in the 

publication of the final rule at 75 FR 

56236, Sept. 15, 2010. We agree with the 

discussion and rationale used by DOJ in 

limiting the definition of a ‘‘service 

animal’’ to only dogs, and to only those 

dogs that are individually trained to do 

work and perform tasks for the benefit 

of an individual with a disability. 

Specifically, DOJ considered a 

substantial number of public comments 

regarding the exclusion of emotional 

support or companion animals from the 

definition of ‘‘service animal’’ in the 

regulations implementing the ADA. We 

agree with the discussion and rationale 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69383 

used by DOJ in support of this 

restriction, particularly that the mere 

presence of a dog that is not trained to 

perform work or tasks is not required by 

individuals in the context of public 

accommodations. In enforcing the ADA, 

DOJ has been in the unique position 

since the early 1990s to follow 

developments regarding service 

animals, and has determined that only 

dogs individually trained to assist 

individuals with disabilities should be 

defined as a ‘‘service animal’’ for 

consistent admittance to and presence 

in a variety of public settings. Therefore, 

we believe it is reasonable to defer to 

DOJ on these points. We would also not 

consider service dogs in training to be 

service animals for purposes of this rule, 

because such dogs in training have yet 

to be fully ‘‘trained to do work and 

perform tasks’’ as required in the 

proposed definition of ‘‘service animal.’’ 

These limitations will provide greater 

predictability regarding the presence of 

animals on VA property and facilities, 

and will reduce risks to the health and 

safety of those on VA property. It will 

also allow access to the vast majority of 

disabled individuals who rely on a 

service animal to assist them in moving 

about in public places. 

A miniature horse is not included in 

the definition of a service animal under 

regulations that implement the ADA. 

See 28 CFR 36.104. However, 28 CFR 

36.302(c)(9)(i) provides that public 

accommodations must make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, and 

procedures to permit the use of a 

miniature horse by an individual with a 

disability if the miniature horse has 

been individually trained to do work or 

perform tasks for the benefit of the 

individual with a disability. Public 

accommodation may consider multiple 

assessment factors under 

§ 36.302(c)(9)(ii) to determine whether 

allowing a miniature horse access will 

be a reasonable modification, which 

include the size and weight of a 

miniature horse and whether the 

handler has sufficient control of the 

horse, whether the miniature horse is 

housebroken, and whether the horse’s 

presence in a facility would 

compromise legitimate safety 

requirements necessary for safe 

operations. As stated in DOJ’s final rule, 

these assessment factors essentially 

permit exclusions of miniature horses 

because they are typically larger and 

harder to control than service dogs, and 

can be less predictable in behaving in 

accordance with typical standards of 

public access than service dogs. 75 FR 

56273. Because we are proposing a 

definition of ‘‘service animal’’ that is so 

similar to that implemented in ADA 

regulations, we have also considered the 

caveat in ADA regulations to permit 

access of miniature horses in public 

accommodations. After some 

consideration, we would exclude the 

access of miniature horses in this 

proposed rule because we find their 

larger size would make them more 

difficult to control within a facility or 

remove from a facility as needed. Horses 

are prey animals and thus have a 

heightened flee response when they 

perceive things in their environment as 

a threat. Coupled with this heightened 

response, VA healthcare facilities 

typically have smooth flooring that is 

able to withstand industrial cleaning 

and polishing (e.g. vinyl composite tile, 

polished concrete, etc.), which is 

difficult for hooved animals to walk on 

and may contribute to horses having 

difficulty ambulating or even falling. 

The presence of a miniature horse in VA 

facilities is also more likely to be 

disruptive and may result in egress 

issues because large numbers of people 

would likely congregate to see the 

miniature horse. Additionally, we are 

not aware that miniature horses 

generally can be reliably trained to be 

housebroken in the same manner as 

service dogs trained to hold their waste 

until it could be eliminated in outdoor 

areas. For instance, it would not be 

appropriate, especially in VA health 

care facility settings, to permit a 

miniature horse to eliminate its waste in 

a specialized waste bag the horse might 

wear while indoors. All of these factors 

present too high of a risk to legitimate 

safety concerns, both to persons and the 

animal, especially in VA health care 

facilities, to permit the presence of a 

miniature horse as a service animal. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix) would 

specify that generally, animals other 

than service animals are not permitted 

to be present on VA property, and any 

individual with a nonservice animal 

must remove it. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(11)(ix) would also, however, permit 

the head of a VA facility or designee to 

allow certain nonservice animals to be 

present on VA property for certain 

reasons. Proposed paragraphs 

(a)(11)(ix)(A) through (F) would specify 

the types of nonservice animals that a 

VA facility head or designee could 

permit to gain access to VA property. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(A) would 

allow, with approval of the VA facility 

head or designee, nonservice animals to 

be present on VA property for law 

enforcement purposes. This exception 

to the general bar on access for 

nonservice animals may be required to 

ensure that the safety of veterans, VA 

employees, and other VA stakeholders, 

if a law enforcement team must use 

animals to conduct investigations, such 

as explosives detection dogs that would 

be employed by State or Federal 

agencies. Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(B) 

would allow, with approval of the VA 

facility head or designee, nonservice 

animals to be present on VA property if 

such animals are under the control of 

the VA Office of Research and 

Development (ORD). The use of animals 

in VA ORD is a privilege granted to 

those investigators and programs that 

commit to meeting certain ethical and 

regulatory standards. VA ORD 

investigators and programs must follow 

VA policy on the use of research 

animals, which incorporates compliance 

with United States Department of 

Agriculture Animal Welfare Act 

Regulations. All VA ORD programs are 

accredited by the Association for 

Assessment and Accreditation of 

Laboratory Animal Care. We note that 

these and other external standards 

regarding animal use in VA ORD 

programs are controlling with regards to 

the actual criteria contained therein; 

proposed paragraph (a)(11)(ix)(B) would 

only establish the authority of a VA 

facility head to permit these animals to 

be present on VA property, so that we 

would not with this rulemaking limit 

the ability of these types of nonservice 

animals to be present on VA property. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) through 

(E) would be related only to property 

under the control of the Veterans Health 

Administration (VHA), as the three 

types of nonservice animals we would 

designate in these paragraphs would 

only be relevant for VA health care and 

hospital settings. Proposed paragraphs 

(a)(11)(ix)(C) through (E) would 

therefore contain the same general 

restrictions relevant to the presence of 

service animals in certain areas of VHA 

property, namely that the presence of 

the animal would only be permitted 

subject to patient safety, patient care, 

and infection control standards. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) would 

allow, with approval of the VA facility 

head or designee, nonservice animals to 

be present on VHA property if those 

animals are involved in the provision of 

animal-assisted therapy (AAT), which is 

a goal-directed intervention that 

incorporates the use of an animal into 

the treatment regimen of a patient, as 

provided or facilitated by a qualified VA 

therapist or VA clinician. AAT is 

designed to improve human physical, 

social, emotional, and cognitive 

function, and is provided in a variety of 

settings and may be group or individual 

in nature. Clinical disciplines such as 

physical, occupational, recreational, and 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69384 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

speech therapies use AAT animals to 

perform tasks that facilitate achievement 

of patient-specific treatment goals and 

objectives. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(11)(ix)(C) would further specify that 

an AAT animal may be present on VHA 

property if the animal is used to 

facilitate achievement of patient-specific 

treatment goals, as documented in the 

patient’s treatment plan. This 

requirement would ensure that these 

types of nonservice animals would be 

permitted access to VHA property only 

for the therapeutic benefit of veterans. 

This proposed paragraph would also 

specify that an AAT animal must be up 

to date with all core vaccinations or 

immunizations, prophylactic 

medications, and regular health 

screenings as determined to be 

necessary by a licensed veterinarian, 

and that proof of compliance with these 

requirements is documented and 

accessible in the area(s) where patients 

receive AAT. We would require that 

proof of compliance with these 

standards be kept in the areas where 

patients receive AAT, as it is these areas 

that an AAT animal would be exposed 

to patients as well as others. Such a 

requirement would ensure the quickest 

access to information as needed, to 

ensure that patient care, patient safety, 

and infection control standards are not 

compromised. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(D) would 

allow, with approval of the VA facility 

head or designee, nonservice animals to 

be present on VHA property if those 

animals are involved in the provision of 

animal-assisted activities (AAA), which 

are activities that involve animals to 

provide patients with casual 

opportunities for motivational, 

educational, recreational, and/or 

therapeutic benefits. Unlike AAT, AAA 

is not a goal-directed intervention that 

is necessarily designed to improve 

functioning, but that nonetheless may 

provide opportunities for patients to 

experience benefits as noted above. 

AAA does not have to be provided or 

facilitated by a VA therapist or 

clinician, and therefore is not 

necessarily incorporated into the 

treatment regimen of a patient or 

documented in the patient’s medical 

record as treatment. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(11)(ix)(D) would further specify that 

an AAA animal must be up to date with 

all required core vaccinations or 

immunizations, prophylactic 

medications, and regular health 

screenings as determined to be 

necessary by a licensed veterinarian, 

and that proof of compliance with these 

requirements is documented and 

accessible in the area(s) where patients 

may participate in AAA. We would 

require that proof of compliance with 

these standards be kept in the areas 

where patients may participate in AAA, 

as it is these areas that an AAA animal 

would be exposed to patients as well as 

others. Such a requirement would 

ensure the quickest access to 

information as needed, to ensure that 

patient care, patient safety, and 

infection control standards are not 

compromised. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(E) would 

allow, with approval of the VA facility 

head or designee, nonservice animals to 

be present on VHA property if those 

animals were present for purposes of a 

residential animal program in a VA 

Community Living Center (CLC), which 

is a long term care setting that provides 

nursing home care services to veterans, 

or in a Mental Health Residential 

Rehabilitation Treatment Program 

(MHRRTP). Nursing home and mental 

health care delivery have experienced a 

significant change in philosophy of care, 

which has resulted in an initiative to 

transform the culture of care in VA from 

a medical model where the care is 

driven by the medical diagnosis, to a 

person-centered model where the care is 

driven by the needs of the individual as 

impacted by medical conditions. In 

particular, VA has been working 

diligently to change the culture of the 

provision of nursing home care services 

in its CLCs to create a more homelike 

environment to foster comfort for 

veterans while also stimulating a sense 

of purpose, familiarity, and belonging. 

The presence of animals is one of many 

ways that VA seeks to enhance the CLC 

and MHRRTP environments for 

veterans. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(11)(ix)(E) would specify that 

nonservice animals may be present on 

VHA property if part of a residential 

animal program in a VA CLC or a 

MHRRTP, and would define a 

residential animal program as a program 

that uses the presence of animals to 

create a more homelike environment to 

foster comfort for veterans, while also 

stimulating a sense of purpose, 

familiarity, and belonging. We would 

state that any VA CLC or MHRRTP 

residential animal present on VHA 

property must facilitate achievement of 

therapeutic outcomes (such as described 

above), which would be documented in 

patient treatment plans. We believe this 

requirement ensures that animals would 

not be merely residing on a VA CLC or 

MHRRTP, but rather would be 

permitted extended access to VHA 

property only for the therapeutic benefit 

of veterans. This proposed paragraph 

would further specify that such an 

animal must be up to date with all core 

vaccinations or immunizations, 

prophylactic medications, and regular 

health screenings as determined to be 

necessary by a licensed veterinarian, 

and that proof of compliance with these 

requirements must be documented and 

accessible on the premises of the VA 

CLC or MHRRTP. This requirement that 

certain documentation be accessible 

where the animals are exposed to 

patients and others is supported by the 

same rationale as expressed above for 

AAT animals. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(F) would 

allow, with approval of the VA facility 

head or designee, nonservice animals to 

be present on NCA property if those 

animals were present for ceremonial 

purposes during committal services, 

interments, and other memorials, if the 

presence of such animals would not 

compromise public safety, facilities and 

grounds care, and maintenance control 

standards. Such an exception to the 

general rule for nonservice animals 

would permit NCA cemeteries and other 

facilities to honor veterans in line with 

longstanding military tradition, such as 

the presence of a horse-drawn caisson 

for particular services or observances. 

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(x) would 

define a disability, for purposes of this 

section, as ‘‘a physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one 

or more major life activities of the 

individual; a record of such an 

impairment; or being regarded as having 

such an impairment.’’ This definition is 

consistent with the definition of a 

disability in 42 U.S.C. 12102, which is 

applicable to VA through 29 U.S.C. 794, 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See 29 

U.S.C. 794 (a) (defining ‘‘individual 

with a disability’’ by reference to 29 

U.S.C. 705(20), which in turn defines 

‘‘individual with a disability’’ by 

reference to 42 U.S.C. 12102, for 

purposes of access to certain programs). 

Effect of Rulemaking 

The Code of Federal Regulations, as 

proposed to be revised by this 

rulemaking, would represent the 

exclusive legal authority on this subject. 

No contrary rules or procedures would 

be authorized. All VA guidance would 

be read to conform with this proposed 

rulemaking if possible or, if not 

possible, such guidance would be 

superseded by this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

provisions constituting a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69385 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This 

proposed rule would directly affect only 

individuals and would not directly 

affect any small entities. Therefore, 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking 

is exempt from the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), unless OMB waives such 

review, as ‘‘any regulatory action that is 

likely to result in a rule that may: (1) 

Have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in this Executive 

Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this regulatory action 

have been examined, and it has been 

determined not to be a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. VA’s impact analysis can be 

found as a supporting document at 

http://www.regulations.gov, usually 

within 48 hours after the rulemaking 

document is published. Additionally, a 

copy of the rulemaking and its impact 

analysis are available on VA’s Web site 

at http://www.va.gov/orpm, by 

following the link for VA Regulations 

Published From FY 2004 Through 

FYTD. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 year. This proposed rule would have 

no such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 

64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 

64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 

64.011, Veterans Dental Care. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose 

D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on November 17, 2014, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cemeteries, Government 

property, Security measures. 

Dated: November 18, 2014. 

William F. Russo, 

Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy 

& Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 

1 as follows: 

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), and as noted 

in specific sections. 

■ 2. Revise § 1.218(a)(11) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.218. Security and law enforcement at 

VA facilities. 

(a) * * * 

(11) Animals. (i) Service animals, as 

defined in paragraph (a)(11)(viii) of this 

section, are permitted on VA property 

when those animals accompany 

individuals with disabilities and are 

trained for that purpose. A service 

animal must be in a guiding harness or 

on a leash, and under control of the 

individual with the disability at all 

times while on VA property. VA is not 

responsible for the care or supervision 

of a service animal. Service animal 

presence on VA property is subject to 

the same terms, conditions, and 

regulations as generally govern 

admission of the public to the property. 

(ii) A service animal will be denied 

access to VA property or removed from 

VA property if: 

(A) The animal is not under the 

control of the individual with a 

disability; 

(B) The animal is not housebroken. 

The animal must be trained to eliminate 

its waste in an outdoor area; or 

(C) The animal otherwise poses a risk 

to the health or safety of people or other 

service animals. In determining whether 

an animal poses a risk to the health or 

safety of people or other service 

animals, VA will make an 

individualized assessment based on 

objective indications to ascertain the 

severity of the risk. Such indications 

include but are not limited to: 

(1) External signs of aggression from 

the service animal, such as growling, 

biting or snapping, baring its teeth, 

lunging; or 

(2) External signs of parasites on the 

service animal (e.g. fleas, ticks), or other 

external signs of disease or bad health 

(e.g. diarrhea or vomiting). 

(iii) Service animals will be restricted 

from accessing certain areas of VA 

property under the control of the 

Veterans Health Administration (VHA 

property) to ensure patient care, patient 

safety, or infection control standards are 

not compromised. Such areas include 

but are not limited to: 

(A) Operating rooms and surgical 

suites; 

(B) Areas where invasive procedures 

are being performed; 

(C) Acute inpatient hospital settings 

(e.g. intensive care units, stabilization 

units, locked mental health units); 

(D) Decontamination, sterile 

processing, and sterile storage areas; 

(E) Patient rooms or patient treatment 

areas where it is indicated that a patient 

has animal allergies, or has fear or 

phobia(s) of animals; 

(F) Food preparation areas; and 

(G) Any areas where personal 

protective equipment must be worn. 

(iv) Service animals will be restricted 

from accessing certain areas of VA 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69386 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

property under the control of the 

National Cemetery Administration 

(NCA property) to ensure that public 

safety, facilities and grounds care, and 

maintenance control are not 

compromised. Such areas include but 

are not limited to: 

(A) Open interment areas including 

columbaria; 

(B) Construction or maintenance sites; 

and 

(C) Grounds keeping and storage 

facilities. 

(v) If a service animal is denied access 

to VA property or removed from VA 

property in accordance with (a)(11)(ii) 

of this section, or restricted from 

accessing certain VA property in 

accordance with paragraphs (a)(11)(iii) 

and (iv) of this section, then VA will 

give the individual with a disability the 

opportunity to obtain services without 

having the service animal on VA 

property. 

(vi) Unless paragraph (a)(11)(vii) of 

this section applies, an individual with 

a disability must not be required to 

provide documentation, such as proof 

that an animal has been certified, 

trained, or licensed as a service animal, 

to gain access to VA property 

accompanied by their service animal. 

An individual may be asked if the 

animal is required because of a 

disability, and what work or task the 

animal has been trained to perform. 

(vii) An individual with a disability 

will be required to comply with the 

following requirements, if such 

individual will be accompanied by the 

service animal while receiving 

treatment in a VHA residential program: 

(A) The individual with a disability 

must provide VA with documentation 

that confirms the service animal has had 

a current rabies vaccine (one year or 

three year interval, depending on local 

requirements); 

(B) The individual with a disability 

must provide VA with documentation 

that verifies the service animal has had 

a comprehensive physical exam 

performed by a licensed veterinarian 

within the last 12 months that confirms 

immunizations with the core canine 

vaccines distemper, parvovirus, and 

adenovirus-2, and that confirms 

screening for and treatment of internal 

and external parasites as well as control 

of such parasites; and 

(C) The individual with a disability 

must confirm in writing that at least 

seven days have elapsed since the dog 

recovered from any instances of 

vomiting, diarrhea, urinary or fecal 

incontinence, sneezing or coughing, 

open wounds, skin infections or mucous 

membrane infections, orthopedic or 

other conditions that may interfere with 

ambulation within the VA facility, and 

estrus in intact female service dogs. 

(viii) A service animal means any dog 

that is individually trained to do work 

and perform tasks for the benefit of an 

individual with a disability, including a 

physical, sensory, psychiatric, 

intellectual, or other mental disability. 

Other species of animals, whether wild 

or domestic, trained or untrained, are 

not service animals for the purposes of 

this definition. The work or tasks 

performed by a service animal must be 

directly related to the individual’s 

disability. The crime deterrent effects of 

an animal’s presence and the provision 

of emotional support, well-being, 

comfort, or companionship do not 

constitute work or tasks for the purposes 

of this definition. Service dogs in 

training are not considered service 

animals. This definition applies 

regardless of whether VA is providing 

benefits to support a service dog under 

§ 17.148 of this chapter. 

(ix) Generally, animals other than 

service animals (‘‘nonservice animals’’) 

are not permitted to be present on VA 

property, and any individual with a 

nonservice animal must remove it. 

However, a VA facility head or designee 

may permit certain nonservice animals 

to be present on VA property for the 

following reasons: 

(A) Animals may be permitted to be 

present on VA property for law 

enforcement purposes; 

(B) Animals under the control of the 

VA Office of Research and Development 

may be permitted to be present on VA 

property; 

(C) Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) 

animals may be permitted to be present 

on VHA property, when the presence of 

such animals would not compromise 

patient care, patient safety, or infection 

control standards. AAT is a goaldirected clinical intervention, as 

provided or facilitated by a VA therapist 

or VA clinician, that incorporates the 

use of an animal into the treatment 

regimen of a patient. Any AAT animal 

present on VHA property must facilitate 

achievement of patient-specific 

treatment goals, as documented in the 

patient’s treatment plan. AAT animals 

must be up to date with all core 

vaccinations or immunizations, 

prophylactic medications, and regular 

health screenings as determined 

necessary by a licensed veterinarian, 

and proof of compliance with these 

requirements must be documented and 

accessible in the area(s) where patients 

receive AAT. 

(D) Animal-assisted activity (AAA) 

animals may be permitted to be present 

on VHA property, when the presence of 

such animals would not compromise 

patient care, patient safety, or infection 

control standards. AAA involves 

animals in activities to provide patients 

with casual opportunities for 

motivational, educational, recreational, 

and/or therapeutic benefits. AAA is not 

a goal-directed clinical intervention that 

must be provided or facilitated by a VA 

therapist or clinician, and therefore is 

not necessarily incorporated into the 

treatment regimen of a patient or 

documented in the patient’s medical 

record as treatment. AAA animals must 

be up to date with all core vaccinations 

or immunizations, prophylactic 

medications, and regular health 

screenings as determined necessary by a 

licensed veterinarian, and proof of 

compliance with these requirements 

must be documented and accessible in 

the area(s) where patients may 

participate in AAA. 

(E) Animals participating in a VA 

Community Living Center (CLC) 

residential animal program or a Mental 

Health Residential Rehabilitation 

Treatment Program (MHRRTP) may be 

permitted to be present on VHA 

property, when the presence of such 

animals would not compromise patient 

care, patient safety, or infection control 

standards. A residential animal program 

on a VA CLC or a MHRRTP is a program 

that uses the presence of animals to 

create a more homelike environment to 

foster comfort for veterans, while also 

stimulating a sense of purpose, 

familiarity, and belonging. Any VA CLC 

or MHRRTP residential animal present 

on VHA property must facilitate 

achievement of therapeutic outcomes 

(such as described above), as 

documented in patient treatment plans. 

Residential animals on a VA CLC or 

MHRRTP must be up to date with all 

core vaccinations and immunizations, 

prophylactic medications, and regular 

health screenings as determined 

necessary by a licensed veterinarian, 

and proof of compliance with these 

requirements must be documented and 

accessible on the VA CLC or MHRRTP. 

(F) Animals may be present on NCA 

property for ceremonial purposes during 

committal services, interments, and 

other memorials, if the presence of such 

animals would not compromise public 

safety, facilities and grounds care, and 

maintenance control standards. 

(x) For purposes of this section, a 

disability means a physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one 

or more major life activities of the 

individual; a record of such an 

impairment; or being regarded as having 

such an impairment. 

* * * * * 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69387 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 901, 40 U.S.C. 

3103) 

[FR Doc. 2014–27629 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Parts 2800 and 2880 

[LLWO301000.L13400000] 

RIN 1004–AE24 

Competitive Processes, Terms, and 

Conditions for Leasing Public Lands 

for Solar and Wind Energy 

Development and Technical Changes 

and Corrections 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2014, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

published in the Federal Register with 

a 60-day comment period a proposed 

rule, to facilitate responsible solar and 

wind energy development and to 

receive fair market value for such 

development. (79 FR 59021) The 

proposed rule would promote the use of 

preferred areas for solar and wind 

energy development and establish 

competitive processes, terms, and 

conditions (including rental and 

bonding requirements) for solar and 

wind energy development rights-of-way 

both inside and outside these preferred 

areas. The proposed rule would also 

make technical changes, corrections, 

and clarifications to existing rights-ofway regulations. Some of these changes 

would affect all rights-of-way and some 

provisions would affect particular types 

of actions, such as transmission lines 

with a capacity of 100 Kilovolts (kV) or 

more, or pipelines 10 inches or more in 

diameter. 

The BLM received requests to extend 

the comment period of this proposed 

rule. In response to these requests, the 

BLM is extending the comment period 

for 15 days beyond the end of the initial 

comment period. As a result of this 

extension, the comment period will now 

close on December 16, 2014. 

DATES: Send your comments on this 

proposed rule to the BLM on or before 

December 16, 2014. The BLM need not 

consider, or include in the 

administrative record for the final rule, 

comments that the BLM receives after 

the close of the comment period or 

comments delivered to an address other 

than those listed below (see ADDRESSES). 

ADDRESSES: Mail: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Director (630), Bureau of 

Land Management, Mail Stop 2134 LM, 

1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240, 

Attention: 1004–AE24. Personal or 

messenger delivery: Bureau of Land 

Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 

2134 LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, 

Washington, DC 20003. Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at this Web site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Brady, Bureau of Land Management, at 

202–912–7312, for information relating 

to the BLM’s solar and wind renewable 

energy programs, or the substance of the 

proposed rule. For information 

pertaining to the changes made for any 

transmission line with a capacity of 100 

kV or more, or any pipeline 10 inches 

or more in diameter you may contact 

Lucas Lucero at 202–912–7342. For 

information on procedural matters or 

the rulemaking process you may contact 

Jean Sonneman at 202–912–7405. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339, to contact 

the above individuals. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comment Procedures 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments by any one of 

the several methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Please make your comments as 

specific as possible by confining them to 

issues directly related to the content of 

the proposed rule, and explain the basis 

for your comments. The comments and 

recommendations that will be most 

useful and likely to influence agency 

decisions are: 

1. Those supported by quantitative 

information or studies; and 

2. Those that include citations to, and 

analyses of, the applicable laws and 

regulations. 

The BLM is not obligated to consider 

or include in the Administrative Record 

for the rule comments received after the 

close of the comment period (see DATES) 

or comments delivered to an address 

other than those listed above (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the 

address listed under ADDRESSES during 

regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

Before including your address, 

telephone number, email address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, be advised that your 

entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask in your comment to 

withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Janice M. Schneider, 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27639 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 74 

[GN Docket Nos. 14–166 and 12–268; FCC 

14–145] 

Spectrum Access for Wireless 

Microphone Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document initiates a 

proceeding to address how to 

accommodate the long-term needs of 

wireless microphone users. Wireless 

microphones play an important role in 

enabling broadcasters and other video 

programming networks to serve 

consumers, including as they cover 

breaking news and broadcast live sports 

events. They enhance event productions 

in a variety of settings—including 

theaters and music venues, film studios, 

conventions, corporate events, houses of 

worship, and internet webcasts. They 

also help create high quality content 

that consumers demand and value. 

Recent actions by the Commission, and 

in particular the repurposing of 

broadcast television band spectrum for 

wireless services set forth in the 

Incentive Auction R&O, will 

significantly alter the regulatory 

environment in which wireless 

microphones operate, which 

necessitates our addressing how to 

accommodate wireless microphone 

users in the future. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before January 5, 2015, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

January 26, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Murray, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–0688, email: 

Paul Murray@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket Nos. 14–166 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS