Issues Related to Accommodating Animals Traveling Through Airports (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration SubScriber categorieS Aviation • Operations and Traffic Management A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M ACRP SYNTHESIS 64 Issues Related to Accommodating Animals Traveling Through Airports A Synthesis of Airport Practice conSultantS James F. Smith Smith–Woolwine Associates, Inc. Floyd, Virginia and Elizabeth McKinney Falling Branch Enterprises Floyd, Virginia

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transportation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter national commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation sys- tem connects with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common oper- ating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Program. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subj ect areas, including design, construction, maintenance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and administra- tion. The ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can coop- eratively address common operational problems. The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici- pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry orga- nizations such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of air- port professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organizations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited period- ically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop- erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work- shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. ACRP SYNTHESIS 64 Project 11-03, Topic S10-14 ISSN 1935-9187 ISBN 978-0-309-27194-3 Library of Congress Control Number 2015937593 © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the techni- cal committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of The National Academies, the National Research Council, and the Federal Aviation Administration (sponsor of the ACRP) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. Published reports of the AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

TOPIC PANEL S10-14 LORI ANKERS, PenderAIR, Chantilly, VA PHIL BURKE, Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Minneapolis, MN JIM DUGAN, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Boring, OR LARRY FERRIGNO, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Dulles, VA LINDA HOWARD, Independent Aviation Consultant, Bastrop, TX LAURA M. MOYA, USDA–APHIS, Miami, FL BESS PIERCE, Virginia–Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, VA WALTER M. WOOLF, Air Animal Pet Movers, Tampa, FL LILLIAN MILLER, Federal Aviation Administration (Liaison) SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs MICHAEL R. SALAMONE, Senior Program Officer JOSEPH J. BROWN-SNELL, Program Associate EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03 CHAIR JULIE KENFIELD Jacobsen/Daniels Associates LLC, Garden Ridge, TX MEMBERS JOSHUA ABRAMSON, Easterwood Airport, College Station, TX DEBORAH ALE FLINT, Port of Oakland, Oakland, CA DEBBIE K. ALKE, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT DAVID N. EDWARDS, JR., Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission, Greer, SC LINDA HOWARD, Independent Aviation Consultant, Bastrop, TX ARLYN PURCELL, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY CHRISTOPHER J. WILLENBORG, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, East Boston, MA FAA LIAISON PAUL DEVOTI AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION JOHN L. COLLINS AIRPORTS CONSULTANTS COUNCIL MATHEW J. GRIFFIN AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL–NORTH AMERICA LIYING GU TRB LIAISON CHRISTINE GERENCHER Cover figure: Pets and Passengers Awaiting Flight at John Wayne Airport, January 6, 2015 (Linda Howard photo).

RESEARCHERS’ ACkNOWLEDGMENTS The researchers wish to acknowledge the generous sharing of time and experience given by the experts who participated in the interviews for this study and provided documentation: Air Animal Pet Movers Walter Woolf, DVM Airborne Animals Sally Smith Airline “X” Corporate Headquarters Airlines for America (A4A) Laura McKee Animal Air Services Rique Valdieso Assistance Dogs International—North America Corey Hudson Blue Grass Airport Amy Caudill, Scott Lantner Boston Logan International Airport Bob Donahue, Catherine Obert Canine Companions for Independence Meghan Hoyal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Gale Galland, Adam Langer, Julie Sinclair Chesapeake (VA) Community Animal Response Team Watson Lawrence, Samuel Tate Cotulla-LaSalle County Airport E. T. Page III Customs and Border Protection Dina Amato, Midgalia Arteaga Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport Charley Cotner, Marsha Crear, Jonathan DeJesus, Rickey Griffin, James Espinoza, Robert Hightower, David Magana, Shahla Pillai, Renea Porter, Kris Prettyman, Kevin Smith, Troy Snyder Denver International Airport Candace Brown, Mark Inzana, Mark Nagel, Julie Smith, Adam Steffl Detroit Metro International Airport Sean Brosnan, Dale Walker Dogs for Life Beth Stryker Dynasty Marine Associates, Inc. Ben Daughtry Federal Aviation Administration Lillian Miller Freedom Service Dogs Sarah Keyes Dr. Temple Grandin Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, Cargo Network Lee Sandler Guide Dogs for the Blind Jim Dugan H. E. Tex Sutton Mike Payne Heathrow Animal Reception Centre Susie Pritchard International Association of Assistance Dog Partners Joan Froling International Pet and Animal Transportation Association Kim Cunningham, Sally Smith Jackson-Evers International Airport Bonnie Wilson JetBlue Public Relations & Media, Customer Relations, Corporate John F. Kennedy International Airport Earlyne Alexander, Robbyn Stewart Los Angeles International Airport Katherine Alvarado Lufthansa Victoria Guevara Memphis International Airport John Greaud Miami International Airport Dan Agostino, Luis Arce, Rene Casellas, Ricardo Fernandez Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport Phil Burke New River Valley International Airport Keith Holt O’Hare International Airport Angela Manning Pender Air Lori Ankers Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Ed Faron Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Julie Rodriguez, Cynthia Segovia Piedmont Triad International Airport Stephanie Freeman Pittsburgh International Airport Hugh Hachmeister, Dave Shaw Roanoke–Blacksburg Regional Airport Kari Dabrowski Margaret J. Rucker, DVM Saint Francis Service Dogs Cabell Youell San Diego International Airport Colm Marmion San Francisco International Airport Christopher Birch Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Susan Goodspeed, Jamie Major, Monique Thormann SkyWest Carlos Lopez Southeastern Guide Dogs Linda-Marie Holiday Southwest Public Relations & Media, Customer Relations, Corporate Southwest Florida International Airport Lisa LeBlanc-Hutchings, Angela Schaefer The Seeing Eye Ginger Kutsch Transportation Security Administration Nico Melendez U.S. Department of Agriculture Laura Moya, DVM Virginia State Animal Response Teams Watson Lawrence, Samuel Tate Washington Dulles International Airport Larry Ferrigno The research team wishes to thank Marc Battaglia, Editor-in-Chief of Anything Pawsable for permission to use the examples from the Anything Pawsable blog in Appendix A. Throughout the study, the panel and ACRP staff gave outstanding advice, support, and assistance.

FOREWORD Companion and service animals are increasingly traveling through airport terminals and a wide range of species are transported as cargo. The roles and responsibilities of the airports regarding animals are very limited; the primary responsibility belongs with the owners of the animals and the airlines or cargo carriers. The overall system for the air transportation of pets and other animals works very well. However, when something goes wrong, airports are on the front line and require a cooperative approach by airlines, airport operators, and their associated contractors to respond. Because airport operators would like to institute effective practices to accommodate the well-being of animals traveling through airports, all would benefit from a compilation of existing literature and practice. This study seeks to discover those means of accommodation, describe issues experi- enced at airports and identify solutions, evaluate their effectiveness, identify gaps, and disseminate the information to airports of all types and sizes as well as to other interested parties. This study’s goal is to describe a coordinated approach for airports and their part- ners in animal transportation to accommodate the well-being of animals traveling through airports by using effective practices that are well-documented and presented in actionable form. Information used in this study was acquired through a review of the literature and interviews with airports, airlines, animal handling and forwarding companies, service dog companies, industry associations, and government agencies, plus two experts in animal health and behavior. James F. Smith, Smith–Woolwine Associates, Inc., Floyd, Virginia, and Elizabeth McKinney, Falling Branch Enterprises, Floyd, Virginia, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand. Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor- mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac- tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat- ing the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Coop- erative Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. PREFACE By Gail R. Staba Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Purpose of This Study, 3 Scope of This Study, 4 Categories of Animals Traveling Through Airports, 4 Companion Animals, 5 Farm Animals, 5 Marine Life, 5 Wildlife, 5 Numbers of Animals Traveling Through Airports, 5 Methodology, 6 Interviews, 6 Case Examples, 8 Data Analysis, 9 Results, 9 10 CHAPTER TWO CASE EXAMPLES Case Example 1—Roanoke–Blacksburg Regional Airport, 10 Case Example 2—Blue Grass Airport, 12 Case Example 3—Miami International Airport, 14 Case Example 4—Heathrow Animal Reception Centre, 16 21 CHAPTER THREE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT AFFECT TRAVEL OF ANIMALS THROUGH AIRPORTS ADA and Associated Regulations, 21 Air Carrier Access Act, Associated Regulations, and FAA Advisory Circulars, 22 Animal Welfare Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Associated Regulations, 23 International Air Transport Association Live Animal Regulations, 24 Centers for Disease Control Legislation and Regulations, 24 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Legislation and Regulations, 24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 24 State and Local Health Laws and Regulations, 25 26 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS Service Animal Relief Areas/Pet Relief Areas, 26 Existing Airport SARAs, 27 Existing Post-Security (Airside) SARAs, 29 Existing Pet Relief Area at a Cargo Facility That Receives Animals, 29 A Note on Costs, 34 Characteristics of “Ideal” SARAs, 34 Reducing Stress on Animals Traveling Through Airports, 36 Dealing with Weather-Related Issues, 44

Documentation of Service Dogs and Emotional Support Animals, 44 Communicating Information about Traveling with Animals and Shipping Animals, 47 Websites, 47 Social Media, 48 Press Releases, 48 Signage, 49 Automated Telephone Information Systems, 50 One-on-One Information, 50 Targeted Outreach, 50 Training, 52 Training at Airports, 52 Training at Airlines, 52 Training of Passengers and Shippers, 52 Training of the Traveling Animals, 53 A Possible Enhancement by Airports: Animal Emergency Contingency Planning, 53 54 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 56 GLOSSARY 57 ACRONYMS 59 REFERENCES 64 APPENDIX A BEHAVIORAL CRITERIA FOR ASKING FOR DOG TO BE REMOVED FROM AN AIRPORT 66 APPENDIX B EFFECTIVE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ANIMALS TRAVELING THROUGH AIRPORTS 68 APPENDIX C PARTICIPANTS IN STUDY 70 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

List of Figures 6 FIGURE 1 Initial interviewees by category. 7 FIGURE 2 Final interviews sought by category. 8 FIGURE 3 Outcomes of interview requests. 13 FIGURE 4 Customized 727 for horse transport at LEX (H.E. Tex Sutton photo). 13 FIGURE 5 “Air Horse One” (H.E. Tex Sutton photo). 19 FIGURE 6 Heathrow Animal Reception Centre (HARC photo). 19 FIGURE 7 HARC van meeting flight at LHR (HARC photo). 29 FIGURE 8 LAX’s outdoor SARA (LAWA photo). 29 FIGURE 9 MIA’s outdoor SARA (MDAD photo). 30 FIGURE 10 PHX’s “Pet Patch” SARA outside Terminal 3 (PHX photo). 30 FIGURE 11 PHX’s “Bone Yard” SARA outside Terminal 4 (PHX photo). 31 FIGURE 12 DFW’s post-security SARA at Gate D18 (Kris Prettyman & Renea Porter photo). 31 FIGURE 13 IAD’s post-security SARA in Concourse C (MWAA photo). 32 FIGURE 14 MSP’s post-security SARA in Lindbergh Terminal (Phil Burke photo). 32 FIGURE 15 SAN’s post-security SARA between Gates 46 and 47 of Terminal 2 (SAN photo). 33 FIGURE 16 SEA’s post-security indoor SARA in Concourse C (Courtesy: Sea-Tac Airport/Port of Seattle). 34 FIGURE 17 Pet relief area at CMH cargo facility (CCI photo). 36 FIGURE 18 IAD’s self-cleaning SARA design (MWAA slide). 37 FIGURE 19 Pawprints at SFO leading to SARA (SFO photo). 37 FIGURE 20 Graphic symbol on gate to outdoor SARA at SFO (SFO photo). 38 FIGURE 21 Fire hydrant in SFO SARA (SFO photo). 38 FIGURE 22 Graphic symbol at entrance to SARA at SAN (SAN photo). 39 FIGURE 23 Sign at entrance to SARA at SEA (Courtesy: Sea-Tac Airport/Port of Seattle). 43 FIGURE 24 IATA-approved metal crate (IATA photo from Live Animal Regulations). 43 FIGURE 25 IATA-approved plastic crate (IATA photo from Live Animal Regulations). 49 FIGURE 26 ROA arrivals entrance (Kari Dabrowski photo). 50 FIGURE 27 RSW arrivals entrance (Lisa LeBlanc-Hutchins photo). 51 FIGURE 28 Sign identifying a PetPort in Boston Logan’s Terminal A (Massport photo). List of Tables 7 TABLE 1 Types and Sizes of Airports in Study 11 TABLE 2 Pet Policies of Airlines at Roanoke–Blacksburg Regional Airport 17 TABLE 3 Stakeholder Roles in Animal Transportation at MIA 28 TABLE 4 Designated SARAs at the 23 Airports in Study 33 TABLE 5 Existing Post-Security SARAs at U.S. Airports as of November 2014 41 TABLE 6 Summary of U.S.DOT Airline Animal Incident Reports, 2012–November 2014 42 TABLE 7 Dogs That Chewed Their Way Out of Crates 42 TABLE 8 Comparison of Metal and Plastic Crates for Animal Transport