| Home > 1994 Unified Agenda > ua14no94 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (TREAS)...
ua14no94 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (TREAS)...
This rule is necessary to further implement the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986. Summary of the Legal Basis: In the Department's regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which went into effect in 1979, the Department required federally assisted airports to play a role in boarding assistance for individuals with disabilities. Each operator at an airport receiving any Federal financial assistance shall assure that adequate assistance is provided for enplaning and deplaning handicapped persons. Boarding by level-entry boarding platforms and by passenger lounges are the preferred methods for movement of handicapped persons between terminal buildings and aircraft at air carrier airports; however, where this is not practicable, operators at air carrier airport terminals shall assure that there are suitable devices available for enplaning and deplaning handicapped passengers. Alternatives: The Department considered three approaches for assisting persons with disabilities in boarding and deboarding aircraft having fewer than 30 seats at airports where level boarding equipment was not provided. Air carriers and airport operators have the option of using lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices, not normally used for freight, to assist persons with disabilities in enplaning and deplaning small commuter- type aircraft. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The estimated annual compliance costs for carriers and airports of the NPRM's requirements would range from $1.0 to $8.3 million in 1993 dollars. The estimated cost depends upon the number and type of lift boarding devices assumed to be needed at different size airports. The benefits that would accrue from removing barriers to boarding and deboarding commuter type aircraft cannot be quantified, but could well include increased employment opportunities for persons with disabilities, as well as an enhanced quality of life associated with expanded travel opportunities. Other potential benefits could include reduced injuries and associated medical cost to airline passengers and to airline employees who hand-carry passengers onto aircraft because there is no other means of boarding assistance available. Risks: Requiring air carriers and air carrier airports to purchase and maintain boarding assistance equipment could cause financial hardship on these entities. However, not having such equipment available could result in injuries to passengers and employees who continue to hand- carry passengers with disabilities onto aircraft. While hand-carrying persons with disabilities in boarding chairs up and down airstairs on commuter planes (those with less than 30 seats) is not required by the Department's Air Carrier Access Act regulation, such service is sometimes volunteered by carrier employees. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ NPRM 55 FR 8081 03/06/90 NPRM Comment Period End 06/04/90 Second NPRM 58 FR 47681 09/10/93 NPRM Comment Per58 FR 63154d to 01/07/94 11/30/93 Second NPRM Comment Period End 12/09/93 Final Action 10/00/94 Small Entities Affected: None Government Levels Affected: None Analysis: Regulatory Evaluation 03/06/90 (55 FR 8081) Additional Information: The telephone number for TDD is (202) 755-7687; a taped copy of the NPRM is available on request. The issue of lifts for small commuter aircraft was removed from RIN 2105-AB60 and consolidated into this proceeding. Agency Contact: Robert C. Ashby Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington, DC 20590 202 366-9306 RIN: 2105-AB62 _______________________________________________________________________ DOT--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ___________________________________________________________ PRERULE STAGE ___________________________________________________________ 119. <bullet> +FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (94- 048) Legal Authority: 33 USC 1321(j) CFR Citation: 33 CFR 154 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This project would implement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that require an owner or operator of a marine transportation- related facility transferring bulk hazardous substances to develop and operate in accordance with an approved response plan. The regulations would apply to marine transportation-related facilities that, because of their location, could cause substantial or significant and substantial harm to the environment by discharging a hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shoreline. This would be defined as any facility capable of transferring hazardous substances regulated under 46 CFR Subchapters D and O to or from a vessel in quantities of 250 barrels or more. A separate rulemaking under RIN 2115-AE88 would address hazardous response plan requirements for tank vessels. This action is considered significant because of substantial public interest. Statement of Need: This rulemaking is intended to reduce the impact from hazardous substance spills from vessels and marine transportation-related facilities. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 4202(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), codified at 33 USC 1321(j)(5), mandates that the President issue regulations requiring the preparation of oil and hazardous substance discharge response plans. Although 4202(b)(4) of OPA 90 established an implementation schedule for these response plans for oil, it did not establish a deadline for submission or approval of hazardous substances response plans. The Coast Guard has issued separate interim rules governing response plan requirements for vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo and facilities that handle, store, or transport oil in bulk. Under section 1321, ``hazardous substances'' are designated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator has designated 297 chemicals as hazardous substances under this section. However, the Coast Guard has identified only 83 hazardous substances currently transferred in bulk by marine transportation- related facilities. Alternatives: The Coast Guard intends to determine what types of response strategies would be required to address spills of different types of hazardous substances. For some substances, containment and recovery may be the appropriate response. However, some spilled substances may not be recoverable from the water and other actions may be necessary. Plans would be required, by statute, to address responses to a ``worst case discharge.'' For facilities, a ``worst case discharge'' is ``the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions.'' The Coast Guard is considering requirements for response plans for less than ``worst case discharges,'' similar to the requirements adopted in the vessel and facility response plans rules for oil discharges. Additionally, as in the vessel and facility response plans for oil discharges, owners or operators are required by statute to maintain contracts or other acceptable arrangements with spill-response organizations. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The potential costs of this rulemaking may include the costs of developing and implementing a hazardous substance response plan, maintaining contracts with spill response organizations, reviewing and updating hazardous substance response plans, maintaining any required equipment, and training and exercising response personnel. Potential benefits include enhanced environmental quality from improved ability to respond to, contain, and recover spilled hazardous substances and a reduction in the severity of the impact of accidental hazardous substance discharges. The Coast Guard does not yet have sufficient information to estimate the potential monetary costs and benefits of this rule. A key element in developing effective regulations for hazardous substance response plans will be the development of an approach for addressing different types of hazardous substances. Risks: Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will not prevent a discharge of a hazardous substance, but it may improve the response and, in certain cases, help to minimize personal injury and damage to the environment. This rule should not affect the economic viability of facilities involved in transferring hazardous substances in bulk or have a significant impact on the volume of hazardous substances shipped by marine transportation-related facilities. Most facilities involved in transferring hazardous substances in bulk have developed plans, but there have not been requirements for standardization. Timetable: _______________________________________________________________________ Action DFR Cite _______________________________________________________________________ ANPRM 12/00/94 Small Entities Affected: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: None Analysis: Regulatory Evaluation Agency Contact: LCDR Walter M. Hunt Project Manager G-MS Department of Transportation
Other Popular 1994 Unified Agenda Documents:
|GovRecords.org presents information on various agencies of the United States Government. Even though all information is believed to be credible and accurate, no guarantees are made on the complete accuracy of our government records archive. Care should be taken to verify the information presented by responsible parties. Please see our reference page for congressional, presidential, and judicial branch contact information. GovRecords.org values visitor privacy. Please see the privacy page for more information.|
Supreme Court Decisions
104th Congressional Documents
105th Congressional Documents
106th Congressional Documents
107th Congressional Documents
108th Congressional Documents
1994 Presidential Documents