Animals on VA Property, 69379-69387 [2014-27629]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(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 https://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 https://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
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
Written comments may be
submitted through https://
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 https://
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,
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69379
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
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69381
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.
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69383
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
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
https://www.regulations.gov, usually
within 48 hours after the rulemaking
document is published. Additionally, a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
copy of the rulemaking and its impact
analysis are available on VA’s Web site
at https://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) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69385
(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
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(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.
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).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
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: https://
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:
ADDRESSES:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69387
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
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69379-69387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27629]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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 https://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 Sec. 1.220. This proposed rule would amend Sec.
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 Sec. 1.218 and Sec. 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, Sec. Sec. 1.218 and 1.220, or Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 69380]]
service dog'' in section 109. Proposed Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1.218(a) (see, for
instance Sec. 1.218(a)(3) and (a)(5)), and the proposed restrictions
in this rulemaking would not conflict with Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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).
[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 year-round, 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1.218(a)(11)(ii), or restricted from
accessing certain VA property subject to proposed Sec.
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 Sec. 1.218(a)(11)(vi) would provide that, subject to
limited requirements in proposed Sec. 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.
[[Page 69382]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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
Sec. 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 Sec. 17.148.
The definition of a ``service animal'' in proposed Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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
[[Page 69384]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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).
[[Page 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 https://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 https://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
0
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.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1.218(a)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 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
[[Page 69386]]
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 Sec. 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 goal-directed 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.
* * * * *
[[Page 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