Document ID: DOT-OST-2009-0093-0002
Agency: dot
Document Type: Rule
Title: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel
Posted Date: 2009-09-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register: September 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 180)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 47902-47906]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18se09-11]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. OST-2009-0093]

 
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel

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

ACTION: Request for comments on petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An advocacy group representing users of psychiatric service 
dogs has petitioned the Department to eliminate a provision of the 
Department of Transportation's Air Carrier Access regulation. The 
provision in question permits air carriers to require documentation and 
48 hours' advance notice for users of psychiatric service animals. In 
this document, the Department is seeking comment on the group's 
petition and related questions. This document is not a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. The Department has not decided whether to grant 
the petition by initiating rulemaking action or to deny the petition 
and retain the provisions without change. The Department will publish a 
document in

[[Page 47903]]

the Federal Register regarding the determination of the petition.

DATES: Comments in response to this request must be received by 
December 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and 
DOT Docket ID Number OST-2009-0093) 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 Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 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 (Office of the 
Secretary, DOT) and Docket number (OST-2009-0093) for this notice at 
the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your 
comments if you submit them by mail or courier. Note that all comments 
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov 
including any personal information provided and will be available to 
internet users. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in 
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you 
may visit http://www.DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For internet access to the docket to read background 
documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. 
Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, 
DC 20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant 
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, 
Room W94-302, 202-366-9310, bob.ashby@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Current Rule

    On May 13, 2008, the Department of Transportation (the Department; 
DOT) issued a revision to its Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulation 
(14 CFR Part 382). The regulation went into effect on May 13, 2009, 
replacing the previous version of Part 382 on that date.
    Section 382.117(e) of the revised Part 382, concerning service 
animals, states: If a passenger seeks to travel with an animal that is 
used as an emotional support or psychiatric service animal, the airline 
is not required to accept the animal for transportation in the cabin 
unless the passenger provides the airline current documentation (i.e., 
no older than one year from the date of the passenger's scheduled 
initial flight) on the letterhead of a licensed mental health 
professional (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical 
social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the 
passenger's mental or emotional disability). The documentation must 
state the following: (1) The passenger has a mental or emotional 
disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
Mental Disorders--Fourth Edition (DSM IV); (2) the passenger needs the 
emotional support or psychiatric service animal as an accommodation for 
air travel and/or for activity at the passenger's destination; (3) the 
individual providing the assessment is a licensed mental health 
professional, and the passenger is under his or her professional care; 
and (4) the date and type of the mental health professional's license 
and the state or other jurisdiction in which it was issued. In 
addition, section 382.27(c)(8) provides that airlines may require a 
passenger using a PSA or ESA to give up to 48 hours' advance notice and 
check in one hour before the check-in time for the general public, in 
order to permit the carrier to review and verify the documentation.
    The entire purpose of the ACAA, and the Department's rules 
implementing it, are to ensure nondiscriminatory air travel 
opportunities are available to people with disabilities. The service 
animal sections of the rule were drafted to carry out that purpose. In 
the preamble to the rule, the Department discussed issues concerning 
ESAs and PSAs two places. In the general discussion of service animal 
issues, the Department made the following statements:

    Another important issue that a number of commenters raised 
concerned ``emotional support animals.'' Unlike other service 
animals, emotional support animals are often not trained to perform 
a specific active function, such as path finding, picking up 
objects, carrying things, providing additional stability, responding 
to sounds, etc. This has led some service animal advocacy groups to 
question their status as service animals and has led to concerns by 
carriers that permitting emotional support animals to travel in the 
cabin would open the door to abuse by passengers wanting to travel 
with their pets. The Department believes that there can be some 
circumstances in which a passenger may legitimately travel with an 
emotional support animal. However, we have added safeguards to 
reduce the likelihood of abuse. The final rule limits use of 
emotional support animals to persons with a diagnosed mental or 
emotional disorder, and the rule permits carriers to insist on 
recent documentation from a licensed mental health professional to 
support the passenger's desire to travel with such an animal. In 
order to permit the assessment of the passenger's documentation, the 
rule permits carriers to require 48 hours' advance notice of a 
passenger's wish to travel with an emotional support animal. Of 
course, like any service animal that a passenger wishes to bring 
into the cabin, an emotional support animal must be trained to 
behave properly in a public setting. (73 FR 27614; May 13, 2008)

    In the preamble's discussion of section 382.117, the Department 
added the following:

    There are new, more detailed procedures for the carriage of 
emotional support and psychiatric service animals. The carrier may 
require the passenger to provide current documentation from a mental 
health professional (e.g., a medical doctor that is treating the 
passenger's mental or emotional disability or a licensed clinical 
social worker) caring for the passenger that the passenger has a 
specific, recognized mental or emotional disability and that the 
passenger needs to be accompanied by the specific emotional support 
or psychiatric service animal in question, either on the flight or 
at the passenger's destination * * * [C]arriers can properly apply 
the same policies to ``psychiatric service animals'' as they do for 
emotional support animals. This is because carriers and the 
Department have encountered instances of attempted abuse of service 
animal transportation policies by persons traveling with animals in 
both categories [e.g., in communications among carriers, passengers, 
and the Department's aviation consumer protection staff]. Should the 
Department encounter a pattern of abuse concerning service animals 
in other categories, we can consider additional safeguards with 
respect to those categories as well. (Id. at 27655)

    The ACAA final rule also included a guidance document concerning 
service animals, which made the following statements concerning 
emotional support animals (ESAs) and psychiatric support animals 
(PSAs):

    With respect to an animal used for emotional support (which need 
not have specific training for that function but must be trained to 
behave appropriately in a public setting), airline personnel may 
require current documentation (i.e., not more than one year old) on 
letterhead from a licensed mental health professional, including a

[[Page 47904]]

medical doctor that is treating the passenger's mental or emotional 
disability or a licensed clinical social worker, stating (1) that 
the passenger has a mental health-related disability listed in the 
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV); (2) 
that having the animal accompany the passenger is necessary to the 
passenger's mental health or treatment; (3) that the individual 
providing the assessment of the passenger is a licensed mental 
health professional and the passenger is under his or her 
professional care; and (4) the date and type of the mental health 
professional's license and the state or other jurisdiction in which 
it was issued. Airline personnel may require this documentation as a 
condition of permitting the animal to accompany the passenger in the 
cabin. The purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse by 
passengers that do not have a medical need for an emotional support 
animal and to ensure that passengers who have a legitimate need for 
emotional support animals are permitted to travel with their service 
animals on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to require the 
documentation to specify the type of mental health disability, e.g., 
panic attacks.
    There is a separate category of service animals generally known 
as ``psychiatric service animals.'' These animals may be trained by 
their owners, sometimes with the assistance of a professional 
trainer, to perform tasks such as fetching medications, reminding 
the user to take medications, helping people with balance problems 
caused by medications or an underlying condition, bringing a phone 
to the user in an emergency or activating a specially equipped 
emergency phone, or acting as a buffer against other people crowding 
too close). As with emotional support animals, it is possible for 
this category of animals to be a source of abuse by persons 
attempting to circumvent carrier rules concerning transportation of 
pets. Consequently, it is appropriate for airlines to apply the same 
advance notice and documentation requirements to psychiatric service 
animals as they do to emotional support animals. (Id. at 27659).

The PSDS Petition

    The Psychiatric Service Dog Society (PSDS) is an Arlington, 
Virginia, based organization that describes itself as a service and 
advocacy organization focused exclusively on the use of psychiatric 
service dogs by persons living with mental health disabilities. At the 
Department's June 3, 2008, consumer forum concerning the revised ACAA 
rule, a PSDS representative expressed the organization's objections to 
section 382.117(e). DOT staff responded that the organization could 
file a petition for rulemaking concerning the section, and the PSDS 
representative indicated that the organization would do so.
    Under the Department's regulatory procedures, any person may file a 
petition to issue, amend, or repeal a rule (49 CFR 5.11(a)). The PSDS 
petition, dated April 13, 2009, has now been received by the 
Department. Interested persons can read the entire petition at DOT-OST-
2009-0093. It consists of a three-page letter from PSDS and 32 pages of 
letters or e-mails from constituents or supporters of the organization. 
In its petition, which meets the procedural requirements of section 
5.11, PSDS requests that section 382.117(e) be repealed. While the 
petition does not specifically refer to section 382.27(c)(8), we 
understand the petition to seek its repeal as well.
    The Department can take one of two actions with respect to the 
petition: It can grant the petition by initiating rulemaking action 
(e.g., publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking to repeal or modify 
the provisions in question) or it can deny the petition and retain the 
provisions without change. When the Department denies a petition, we 
send a denial letter to the petitioner explaining our reasons for the 
decision.
    In order to assist the Department in deciding which course to 
follow, we are, in this document, seeking comment on the issues PSDS 
raises in its petition. We note that taking action at this time to 
change the regulatory provisions in question would constitute a 
substantive amendment requiring us to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for public comment. Because PSDS waited as long as it did to 
file its petition, the Department did not have time to take action 
before the May 13, 2009 effective date for the revised Part 382. Nor 
does the Department believe that immediate action to change the final 
rule would be prudent prior to an opportunity to review comments on 
issues concerning which a wide variety of parties may have an interest 
in.
    The main arguments that PSDS and its supporters cite as a basis for 
the repeal of section 382.117(e) are the following:
     In terms of applicable procedures, the Department's final 
rule does not draw distinctions between the two categories of animal. 
The PSDS petition appears to support drawing a sharp distinction 
between PSAs and ESAs. The former must be trained for public access and 
have basic obedience training as well as handler-specific behaviors to 
ameliorate or mitigate the effects of a mental health-related 
disability. The latter are rarely more than pets, requiring little or 
no training. Therefore, it is improper for the rule to apply the same 
procedural provisions to both categories of assistance animal.
     By imposing additional procedural requirements on users of 
PSAs, which are not imposed on service animals used by individuals with 
other disabilities, the rule discriminates against and stigmatizes 
individuals with mental health-related disabilities who use PSAs. If 
DOT thinks it appropriate to impose these requirements on PSA users, 
then DOT should be amenable to imposing similar requirements on people 
with other disabilities who use service animals.
     It would be easy for someone with a PSA to cheat, simply 
by claiming that his or her dog was a service animal for another 
disability, such as epilepsy, heart disease, diabetes, dementia etc.
     Many people with mental health-related disabilities use 
general practitioners rather than specialists in mental health matters, 
and the Department's rule appears not to allow for letters from general 
practitioners.
     The rule violates the medical privacy of PSA users by 
requiring confidential medical information to be provided to airline 
personnel. Moreover, the rule makes no provision for the confidential 
treatment of this information once it gets into the airline's hands, 
and fails to answer questions concerning the security, storage, or use 
of the information. PSDS expresses the concern that the Transportation 
Security Administration could gain access to the information and 
require additional security measures (e.g., secondary screening) for 
persons identified as having mental health-related disabilities.
     It may be difficult or impossible for persons who do not 
have medical insurance or otherwise lack access to affordable medical 
care to obtain the medical documentation the rule allows airlines to 
require. In addition, the requirement that the documentation be no more 
than a year old could work an additional financial hardship on PSA 
users, because they would have to pay annually for the required 
documentation. This could result in the denial of air transportation to 
people in this situation.
     The 48 hours' advance notice provision would make it very 
difficult for PSA users to fly in the case of short-term situation 
(e.g., a family or medical emergency) that did not permit them to 
provide 48 hours' advance notice.
     DOT does not have adequate evidence that there is a 
problem with people trying to sneak pets aboard aircraft, so as to 
justify imposing the procedural requirements on PSA users.
     Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other 
laws concerning nondiscrimination on the basis of disability, users of 
service animals (including PSAs) do not have to comply with 
requirements like those in section 382.117(e).

[[Page 47905]]

     Some letters from supporters of the PSDS petition 
suggested that other provisions of Part 382, such as those concerning 
``direct threat,'' ``fundamental alteration,'' and general language 
concerning identification of service animals would be sufficient with 
respect to PSAs and ESAs, without including language like that of 
section 382.117(e).

Information and Questions Concerning the PSDS Petition

    To help highlight issues raised by the petition for commenters, the 
Department presents the following information and questions:

Differences Between PSAs and ESAs

    The letters of support for PSDS' petition mention that PSAs are 
trained for public access and obedience (which a number of letters 
assume or say is not true of ESAs). In fact, are ESAs trained to behave 
properly in public settings? Note that, under the ACAA rules, airlines 
are never required to carry in the cabin an animal--even one that is 
assisting a person with a disability--that is not behaving 
appropriately in a public setting.
    The letters of support for PSDS' petition state that PSAs are 
trained to provide medically necessary, therapeutic, or other services 
for their users. However, the letters do not specify what any of these 
services are. What are these services, and how, if at all, are they 
relevant to the use of a PSA during the user's air travel or activities 
at the user's destination? With respect to travel on an aircraft, how 
do these services differ from those that would be provided by an ESA 
during a flight or at the passenger's destination? How, if at all, 
would any such differences justify treating ESAs and their users 
differently from PSAs and their owners in the context of air 
transportation? What, if any, distinctions have airlines drawn or 
attempted to draw between the two categories of animals, and what is 
the basis for any such distinctions?
    It appears from some material in the supporting letters that PSAs 
do, in fact, provide services related to emotional support. For 
example, one letter from a PSA user related the following about her 
dog:

* * * [H]e gives me unconditional love no matter what I look or feel 
like that day. He is there right by my side even when I don't ask 
him to, lying at my feet because he knows that helps me. He helps me 
when no nothing or no one else will. He is very reliable. I never 
have to worry if he is going to be ``busy'' that night like I would 
friends or family. He is never angry if I talk too much or pet him 
too much * * *. He gives me better hugs than my husband * * *.

Another letter, from a therapist, said that an assistance animal 
enabled her clients to ``get out of the house and go places without the 
fear and panic they had before. It is so helpful for them to have their 
dog with them in all environments to reduce dissociation, panic, and 
anxiety.'' Do these obviously significant functions that dogs called 
PSAs perform for their owners differ from those that would be performed 
for their owners by dogs called ESAs in a way that would support 
different treatment for the two groups in airline travel? We note that 
over the years, many individuals who travel with ESAs have stated that 
their service animals, in addition to being trained to behave properly 
in public settings and providing needed emotional/mental health support 
without which they cannot travel, do in fact perform specific physical 
tasks related, for example, helping lessen anxiety in stressful 
situations.

Need for Procedural Requirements

    We seek comments from airlines and other interested persons about 
their experience with passengers attempting to pass off pets as service 
animals, especially as it may relate to ESAs and PSAs. Are there 
problems that air carriers have encountered in distinguishing pets from 
animals that provide services to passengers with disabilities? What 
procedures do airlines use to draw this distinction, and how well do 
these procedures work? How pervasive are any such problems? What, if 
any, experience do airlines have with people attempting to bring pets 
on board on the basis of claims that the animals are service animals 
for disabilities that are not readily apparent other than mental 
health-related conditions, such as seizure disorders, heart conditions, 
diabetes, etc? What, if any, problems are created for airlines when 
people have attempted to bring or have succeeded in bringing pets into 
the cabin under the guise of being service animals? Do airlines have 
any statistics or compilations of experience with people attempting to 
pass off their pets as service animals that they could share with the 
Department?
    Do the procedural provisions of section 382.117(e)--and the 
previous provisions of DOT guidance concerning ESAs--help airlines 
distinguish between service animals and pets? If, as the petition 
requests, paragraph (e) were deleted, would airlines have sufficient 
other, arguably less burdensome, means of making these determinations? 
What would be the effect, if any, on the ability of airlines to make 
reasonable determinations in these matters if the provisions of 
paragraph (e) remained in effect for users of ESAs but not users of 
PSAs? Are there problems that airlines have encountered in the past 
with passengers initially claiming that their animal is an ESA and 
later characterizing that same animal as a PSA? If so, please describe 
such problems. The Department's rule is now in effect: Have passengers 
or airlines encountered any actual problems concerning the 
implementation of the provisions in question in this context?
    The Department, the service animal community (e.g., handlers, 
organizations), and the airlines all share the goal of stopping the 
abuse of service animal access rights by passengers who fraudulently 
assert that their pets are service animals. The Department is 
interested in identifying effective alternative methods to prevent such 
fraud. We, therefore, invite members of the public, and in particular 
members of the service animal community, to propose methods for 
preventing/detecting fraud that they believe are feasible alternatives 
to the current medical documentation requirements.

Medical Privacy

    With respect to the medical information provided to airlines under 
paragraph (e) and other provisions of Part 382 concerning medical 
documentation, the Department has issued the following guidance:

    Q. What should carriers do to safeguard the personal medical 
information (e.g., physician's statements, medical certificates and 
documentation from licensed mental health professionals for 
emotional support and psychiatric service animals) that they require 
of passengers in order to provide certain accommodations?
    A. When a carrier requires a passenger to provide personal 
medical information as a condition for obtaining disability 
accommodations, we recommend that the carrier take steps to 
safeguard this information, such as maintaining it in a separate 
confidential file for the same period of time it retains that 
passenger's reservation record for the flights involved.

Does this guidance sufficiently address medical privacy concerns 
arising from the operation of paragraph (e)? If not, should the 
Department amend its regulations to provide additional protections? If 
so, what should such amendments provide? Should there be additional 
language concerning such matters as how confidentiality is maintained, 
who has access to records and for how long, how are records disposed 
of, or whether a particular record retention period should be stated in 
the rule or guidance?

[[Page 47906]]

Family and Medical Emergencies

    Part 382 provides that, when a passenger does not provide advance 
notice for accommodations to which a carrier may apply an advance 
notice requirement, the carrier must provide the accommodation if it 
can do so by making reasonable efforts, without delaying the flights 
(see section 382.27(g)). The Department's rule is now in effect: Have 
passengers or airlines encountered any actual problems concerning the 
implementation of the provisions in question in this context?
    The Department has issued the following FAQ discussing this 
principle in the context of the procedural steps of section 382.117(e):

    Q. When must a carrier accommodate a passenger accompanied by an 
emotional support or psychiatric service animal who has not provided 
48 hours' advance notice?
    A. Carriers must accommodate a passenger accompanied by an 
emotional support or psychiatric service animal who has not provided 
48 hours' advance notice if the carrier can do so by making 
reasonable efforts, without delaying a flight. The carrier, at its 
discretion, may waive its 48 hours' advance notice requirement in 
order to expedite the emergency air travel of a passenger 
accompanied by an emotional support or psychiatric service animal.

Does this guidance adequately handle the situation of ESA or PSA users 
with a family or medical emergency requiring short-notice travel? 
Should air carriers be able to require documentation of the emergency 
from someone seeking to travel with a PSA or ESA who cannot provide 48 
hours' notice? Are there additional regulatory or guidance statements 
the Department should make on this matter, such as criteria for when 
and on what basis the 48 hours' advance notice period should be waived?

Lack of Medical Insurance or a Mental Health Care Provider

    In the absence of recent documentation from a mental health 
professional, how is an air carrier to determine whether a passenger 
has a current need for an ESA or PSA? Would anyone using a PSA or ESA 
have had a medical recommendation for the use of such an animal at some 
time in the past that could be documented? If not, what information 
could establish a basis for the individual's claim that he or she needs 
a service animal? The Department has issued the following FAQ 
discussing this principle in the context of the procedural steps of 
section 382.117(e):

    Q. May a carrier accept documentation from a licensed mental 
health professional concerning his or her need for a psychiatric or 
emotional support animal if the documentation is more than one year 
old?
    A. Carriers may, at their discretion, accept from the passenger 
documentation from his or her licensed mental health professional 
that is more than one year old. We encourage carriers to consider 
accepting ``outdated'' documentation in situations where a passenger 
with a disability provides a letter or notice of cancellation or 
other written communication indicating the cessation of health 
insurance coverage, and his/her inability to afford treatment for 
his or her mental or emotional disability.

Does this guidance successfully address the situation of persons with 
mental health-related disabilities who may currently lack medical 
insurance? What is the experience of airlines and passengers with the 
existing rule and guidance, which are now in effect? Should the 
guidance or underlying regulatory provisions be changed (e.g., to 
eliminate the requirement, change the period of one year to something 
else, require airlines to include alternate documentation in some 
cases)?

Use of General Practitioners

    The Department has clarified in the regulatory text of section 
382.117(e), quoted above under ``The Current Regulation,'' that among 
the individuals authorized to provide documentation concerning the need 
for ESAs or PSAs include medical doctors who are specifically treating 
a passenger's mental or emotional disability. Does this clarification 
successfully address the concern about the types of doctors who can 
provide the documentation that the rule now requires? If not, what 
additional provisions would commenters recommend?

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Analogy

    The Department notes that the ACAA is a separate statute from the 
ADA. The ACAA is a specialized statute dealing only with transportation 
by air, in an environment in which a large number of people are 
confined within a limited space for what may be a prolonged period of 
time. The Department has long taken the position that accommodations 
for persons with disabilities, and DOT requirements for them, may 
justifiably differ between the air travel context and other contexts, 
such as places of public accommodation regulated by the Department of 
Justice under its ADA regulations. We seek comment on the application 
of this principle in the matter of PSAs and ESAs.

Alternatives for Consideration

    After reviewing comments on this notice, the Department could make 
a number of different decisions with respect to the issues involved. 
The following are examples of actions the Department could take:
    1. Leave the rule unchanged.
    2. Leave the basic provisions of the rule (i.e., concerning 
documentation and advance notice) unchanged, but add provisions 
relating to specific concerns about the implementation of these 
provisions (e.g., with respect to medical privacy or other matters now 
addressed by FAQs).
    3. Eliminate documentation and advance notice provisions for all 
types of animals assisting passengers with disabilities.
    4. Eliminate the documentation and advance notice provisions for 
PSAs, but leave the provisions in effect for ESAs.
    5. Leave the existing documentation and advance notice provisions 
for passengers with disabilities who wish to bring service animals on 
board an aircraft but whose types of disabilities are not readily 
apparent.
    6. Leave the existing documentation and advance notice provisions 
in effect for ESAs and PSAs, but add parallel provisions for all 
passengers with disabilities who wish to bring service animals on board 
an aircraft.
    7. Substitute an alternative method of preventing ``cheating'' that 
would allow airlines to distinguish service animals from pets but that 
did not involve the current documentation and/or advance notice 
provisions.
    The fact that an idea is on this list does not mean that the 
Department necessarily supports it or believes that it would be good 
policy; the list merely sets out a range of possible approaches to the 
issues raised by the PSDS petition. Nor is the list exhaustive; the 
Department solicits other ideas for addressing these issues as well.

    Issued this 27th day of August 2009, at Washington, DC.
Christa Fornarotto,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-21351 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P