JUL 31 1992





The Honorable Martin Frost
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
NCNB Tower, Room 720
801 West Freeway
Grand Prairie, Texas 75051

Dear Congressman Frost:

     This letter responds to your request on behalf of David L.
Barber, Assistant City Attorney of Arlington, Texas, for
information about the interpretation of "service animal" under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

     The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide
technical assistance to individuals and entities with rights or
obligations under the Act. This letter provides informal
guidance to assist Mr. Barber in understanding the ADA. However,
this technical assistance does not constitute a legal
interpretation of the statute and it is not binding on the
Department.

     As Mr. Barber notes, section 36.302 of the regulation issued
by the Department of Justice under title III of the ADA requires
that places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, retail
establishments, offices of service providers, and hotels, modify
their policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a
service animal by an individual with a disability. Section
36.104 of the regulation defines a "service animal" as an animal
that is "individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the
benefit of an individual with a disability . . . ." Section
36.301 of the title III regulation does, however, allow a public
accommodation to impose eligibility criteria that are necessary
for the provision of services and facilities. In particular,
paragraph (b) of that section allows for the imposition of
legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe
operation of a facility or service. A copy of the title III
regulation is enclosed.


cc: Records; Chrono; Wodatch; Bowen; McDowney; FOIA; Library.
    :udd:jonessandra:cong.frost





01-01096

                                   - 2 -

     Mr. Barber inquires whether public accommodations can
restrict the use of service animals to those that, along with
their owners, have completed intensive individualized training in
a specific area by an authority whose competence is recognized by
rehabilitation agencies. Texas law defines "support dog" in this
way.

     The Department's ADA regulation does not require that an
animal be certified by a State or have a permit nor does it allow
a State or public accommodation to require proof of training or
certification. The Department is aware of a wide range of State
regulatory definitions of service or support animal that are
narrower than the ADA definition. While these definitions may be
appropriate for State purposes, they cannot be used to narrow or
eliminate the scope of the ADA's coverage.

     Mr. Barber expresses several concerns about animal behavior,
including the possibility that any animal trained only by its
owner (or by a person not specially qualified) is more likely to
attack another service animal or person. In our view, such
behavior is generally at odds with the concept of an individually
trained service animal. In addition, because the ADA allows a
public accommodation to impose eligibility criteria, including
legitimate safety requirements, a public accommodation could
generally exclude from its facility any animal that displays the
kind of behavior mentioned, regardless of the kind of training it
has received and what function it serves for its owner.

     I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to
your constituent.

                                   Sincerely,




                                 John R. Dunne
                           Assistant Attorney General
                              Civil Rights Division

Enclosure






01-01097