COMMENTS ON DOCKET # 19482, July 20, 2005
Although the comment period has closed for the OST NPRM
proposing revision of 14 CFR Part 382 to update, reorganize and clarify the
rule, I have been encouraged by a DOT official to submit late comments.
I speak on behalf of myself and as the Director of the
Toxics Information Project (TIP), a non-profit organization based in
Providence, RI. In my work, I encounter
many people who suffer serious health effects from exposure to common household
chemicals, including fragrance, cleaning products and pesticides. I can provide extensive documentation of the
problems experienced by those with asthma and other respiratory disorders,
chemical sensitivities, and other immune system impairment.
The most common and significant barrier to access is the
scented products worn by airline personnel and other passengers. Additional concerns may include diesel fumes
from the engine, deodorizers in airplane bathrooms, and pesticides applied in
the plane before boarding.
Individuals who react to fragrance, which by some estimates
may be as many as 15 or 20 per cent of the population, have a very difficult
time attempting to travel by air. The
asthmatic is at particular risk, since 72 per cent of people with asthma react
to fragrance, and in some cases such an attack may even result in anaphalactic
shock, a life-threatening condition.
QUICK AND
EASY ACCOMMODATIONS
I have three suggestions re: how to quickly and easily help
accommodate this disability that would not be covered by the current
rule. Because a person who reacts to fragrance chemicals wouldn't be able
to tell if an assigned seat was good for her until her seatmates sat down,
she wouldn't be able to specify a seat in advance. However, airlines could take the following actions:
the affected passenger, or in some
cases, moving the person into an open seat either in the main cabin or the
first class section.
I believe all these could be done with minimal effort and no
expense, and would make a real difference to people like myself – the
“canaries”. We are truly like the birds
the miners used to employ to let them know there were toxic fumes in the mine
shaft. Being more vulnerable, we react
to unhealthy air of which others may be unaware. It is entirely possible that the airlines might see at least a
small decrease in sick days among personnel if the policies I propose were
implemented!
I strongly urge you to consider adopting the three “quick
and easy” suggestions above as part of the current rule-making process! Many will thank you for making air travel
accessible to them.
FYI: Below is a
brief log of some of my experiences while trying to visit my
grandchildren. All of them live in
California, and I am in Rhode Island, so the journey is a real challenge.
NOTE: I can neither eat nor drink while wearing either of my masks.
OTHER POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATIONS
There are a couple of other things that could be done to
protect both disabled persons and the general public from toxic chemicals on
airplanes, that would require a bit more effort and time to implement. These would include removing deodorizers
and/or fragranced soap products from lavatories and replacing them with less
toxic alternatives. It would also mean
finding other ways to deal with pest control than routine pesticide
applications on some flights.
Respectfully submitted,
Liberty Goodwin, Director
Toxics Information Project (TIP)
P.O. Box 40441, Providence, RI
02940
Tel. 401-351-9193, E-Mail: liberty@toxicsinfo.org
Website: www.toxicsinfo.org