New York Assembly Bill A06634

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/25
• Refer: 3/6/25
• Report Pass: 5/13/25
• Engrossed: 5/19/25
• Refer: 5/19/25

Caption

Requires the office of parks, recreation and historic preservation to develop and approve operational safety plans prior to the deployment of any employee in hazardous conditions; requires the plan to include a comprehensive risk assessment identifying potential hazards associated with the deployment, mitigation measures to address identified risks, detailed information on team composition, identification of an on-site authorized person responsible for overseeing operations, a clear chain of command, emergency contact information for all team members, and evacuation procedures.

Impact

The enactment of A06634 is expected to significantly impact state legislation related to employee safety standards, particularly within parks and recreational areas. By ensuring that comprehensive safety plans are in place for deployments in dangerous conditions— including natural disasters and extreme weather—it addresses concerns surrounding workforce safety and operational efficiency. This change reflects a proactive approach to managing risks that employees may face during their duties, ensuring they are adequately trained and prepared for emergencies.

Summary

Bill A06634 requires the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to establish and approve operational safety plans prior to deploying employees in environments considered hazardous. This legislation emphasizes the need to conduct thorough risk assessments, identify potential hazards, and outline mitigation strategies. It mandates the inclusion of detailed information regarding team composition, emergency contact protocols, evacuation procedures, and the designation of responsible personnel overseeing operations in such scenarios. The aim is to enhance worker safety and preparedness when faced with hazardous situations.

Contention

During discussions surrounding A06634, some points of contention emerged. Proponents argued that the bill is necessary for safeguarding public employees and improving emergency responses, particularly in the aftermath of recent natural disasters. However, critics raised concerns about the feasibility of implementing such extensive planning while also maintaining operational readiness for routine tasks. The balance between extensive preparation for emergencies and the efficacy of day-to-day operations in parks and recreational facilities was a central theme in the debate, suggesting potential challenges in resource allocation and training.