Finally! get rid of fake service dogs!
 

https://www.facebook.com/ABCNews/?hc_ref=ARTo1pY1JH7XWjvte5pq-J7xQA-ywKXGw3U-vhe7nD3V7FpQJ8D9572llILLDL9pS7E&fref=nf

· NEW: Dept. of Transportation seeks public comment on regulation of service animals on airplanes, looking to "ensure seamless access to air transportation for individuals with disabilities while also helping to deter the fraudulent use of animals not qualified as service animals." https://abcn.ws/2rOIUJi

Um... these proposed rule changes, upon which comments are being sought, are pretty timid. It's not really much of a step forward.

DOT announcement: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot3618

Full docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOT-OST-2018-0068

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...50420f2a5d.png

The path from 'Request for comment' to 'Final rule' can be very long on a contentious issue. If there's something that's in effect within two years of today, color me surprised.

It's a start!

What's the basis of your comment?

Suggested change: definition of a service animal should be consistent with federal statue (eg. dog only)

Did you read the rule changes?

The DOT also issued today an Interim Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding Service Animals, which would seem to suggest that any forthcoming changes won't happen soon.

I'm surprised. If you did, it would be obvious that the proposed changes are timid and only a tiny step towards limiting "fake" ESAs.

Lets look at the proposed rule changes. My comments follow each proposal.

• (1) treating psychiatric service animals similar to other service animals; [This would make it easier to fly with PSAs, not harder.]
  
• (2) distinguishing between emotional support animals and other service animals; [This is actually now already the case functionally.]

• (3) requiring emotional support animals to travel in pet carriers for the duration of the flight; [Positive. This is a new change that would be welcomed by those wanting more restrictions on ESAs.]
  
• (4) limiting the species of service animals and emotional support animals that airlines are required to transport; [Carriers already do this. This would codify it into law.]
  
• (5) limiting the number of service animals/emotional support animals required to be transported per passenger; [Assuming that limit becomes 1 (from 3) I don’t see this as a very harsh change, or one that would affect many passengers with PSAs/ESAs.]
  
• (6) requiring service animal and emotional support animal users confirm that their animal has been trained to behave in a public setting; [While this sounds like a positive change, the rule would not require that the animals be trained, but that the passenger confirm that the animal is trained. Those are two very different things.]
  
• (7) requiring service animals and emotional support animals have a harness, leash, or other tether with narrow exceptions; [A positive but minor change, that presents only a small hurdle to those with ESAs.]
  
• (8) limiting the size of emotional support animals or other service animals that travel in the cabin and the potential impact of such a limitation; [Another potentially positive change, but one that would affect only a small number of those traveling with ESAs.]
  
• (9) prohibiting airlines from requiring a veterinary health form or immunization record from service animal users without an individualized assessment that the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause a significant disruption in the aircraft cabin; and [This is a limitation on carriers that would be a negative change and hurt efforts to restrict ESAs.]
  
• (10) no longer holding U.S. airlines responsible if a passenger traveling under the U.S. carrier’s code is only allowed to travel with a service dog on a flight operated by its foreign code share partner. [Irrelevant to the ESA discussion.]

There are a couple positives here, but as I suggested earlier, they're pretty small efforts. The text of the Interim Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding Service Animals (posted earlier) gives some deeper insight into the DOT's position, as they balance the interests of air carriers, passengers and the disabled. Take a look.

The current DOT rules are just fine. It is the carriers', including WN, which have rules not as tough as DOT permits.

The key DOT provision is that carriers may require a written diagnosis from a licensed professional of a DSM III mental disease or defect. That is not a fake diagnosis which most people, other than Cpl. Klinger, likely want in their medical records and most professionals licensed to make that type of diagnosis are not likely to run around signing letters without a full examination.

That's not a proposed rule change.

The DOT isn't asking you to suggest proposed rule changes, they're asking you to comment on the ones they're proposing.

That's how the process works.

This proposed change is the closest to what you suggest:

(4) limiting the species of service animals and emotional support animals that airlines are required to transport;

But that most likely refers to codifying into law excluding exotic species like insects and reptiles, which many carriers already do as a matter of policy. (See the Interim Statement for more insight.) It's highly unlikely that the law would be revised to disallow cats, for example, or specifically allow only dogs as you've suggested. That's not what is being proposed.

Also, ultimately, doing as you suggest would affect only a very small number of travelers with PSAs or ESAs, and would do absolutely nothing to "get rid of fake service dogs," the perhaps rudely-stated goal of most passengers expressing the need for changes to existing policy.

Good god.

Again. As I have said multiple times now, each time you make this exact same incorrect statement: NO.

No. No. NO.

Carriers may absolutely NOT require a written diagnosis from a licensed professional of a DSM III mental disease or defect.

Carriers can only require a statement from a licensed professional that the passenger is under their care for a disability listed in the DSM.

Not a specific diagnosis.

These are two very different things.

As we've discussed in other threads: The DSM recognizes somewhere north of 450 distinct disorders, which include things like "anxiety disorder" (made up or not), claustrophobia, "denial," insomnia, erectile disfunction, "night eating syndrome," OCD, and stuttering.

The specific disorder would not be disclosed. That would be a HIPPA violation.

I think you highly overestimate any negative effects of having a DSM diagnosis in your "medical records."
(Which are all, of course, privacy protected by HIPPA.)

People have been getting these kinds of diagnoses for years for purposes like obtaining prescription drugs (including, now, marijuana) and work leave-related legal issues, and some "professionals" already make these diagnoses online through questionnaires and virtual visits.

Lastly, all major US carriers -- Delta, United, American and Southwest -- already require this statement for travel with an ESA.

Do tell me how you can tell if a service dog is fake.

But what about the other US carriers?