Slashdot Mirror

"no apparent risk to consumers was identified"
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5263

"The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures. Several carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats are available. The Meeting concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses. In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet. The Meeting reaffirmed the group ADI for the sum of glyphosate and its metabolites of 0–1 mg/kg body weight on the basis of effects on the salivary gland. The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity."
https://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1

"the Agency reevaluated the human carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, which
included a weight-of-evidence evaluation of data from animal toxicity, genotoxicity, and
epidemiological studies. This evaluation was presented to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) and was subsequently updated based on their
review. The Agency concluded that glyphosate should be classified as “not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.”
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361-0068&contentType=pdf

Look at the data for yourself, for crying out loud.

The first four pages are the likelyhood of injury in each of the four categories. These are combined into an overall safety score on the 5th page (Comb VSS+Overall Ratings). VSS is the probability of injury. Look at it, and get out of denial.

Anything with a lower VSS than 0,67 is declared as "five stars". But that doesn't change the fact that the probability of injury itself is VSS, and at the Model 3's value of 0,38 is the lowest ever tested by the NHTSA.

Again: I'm sorry facts appear to bug the hell out of you, but they remain facts.

You're right that it CAN be used safely, as can most dangerous things. The problem, as was stated in the article, is that the EPA will now only review 15* specific uses of asbestos. If someone wants to use it in something NOT on that list, the EPA will take a hands-off approach with regards to reviewing the shiny new product.

* I found the proposed new rule and I only see 14 items on that list.

The 20 states are CA, CT, DC, DE, lL, IN, KY, MA, ME, MD, MO, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, PA. RI, TN, VT, and WY. (from the document at https://www.regulations.gov/do...)

Eh, the real action is submitting comments at regulations.gov.

e.g. https://www.regulations.gov/do...

Don't post here.
Post here

The number is actually $47,892, not 50K - big difference when you are on the bubble.

From Regulations.gov, you know, the source...

"The proposed increase to the standard salary level is also intended to address the Department's conclusion that the salary level set in 2004 was too low to efficiently screen out from the exemption overtime-protected white collar employees when paired with the standard duties test. The Department believes that a standard salary level at the 40th percentile of all full-time salaried employees ($921 per week, or $47,892 for a full-year worker, in 2013) will accomplish the goal of setting a salary threshold that adequately distinguishes between employees who may meet the duties requirements of the EAP exemption and those who likely do not, without necessitating a return to the more detailed long duties test. (2) The Department believes that the proposed salary compensates for the absence of a long test, which would have allowed employers to claim the exemption at a lower salary level, but only if they could satisfy a more restrictive duties test; moreover, it does so without setting the salary at a level that excludes from exemption an unacceptably high number of employees who meet the duties test."

I read that as - what you do, how you do it and for how long, no longer has any bearing on whether you are classified as "exempt," only your salary level.
Great, so now I'll have to work 90 hrs/ week and make half as much as the "nonexempt" guy working 40+ overtime.
AWESOME!!

Likely if the standard for Industrial Safety Instrumented Systems was used in automobiles the costs would unaffordable
Wikipedia on Safety Instrumented Systems
An automotive functional safety standard has been published ISO 26262 Road vehicles -- Functional safety. Is this enough? This issue is at least on the radar at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Automotive Electronic Control Systems Safety and Security

I believe you should submit comments here : http://www.regulations.gov/?_e...

I know I did.

If you feel strongly enough about this, you can read the actual proposals and comment on them here.

Meh, they're keeping "see and avoid."

Currently, 14 CFR 91.113(b) imposes a requirement on all aircraft operations that, during flight, “vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.” This see-and-avoid requirement is at the heart of the FAA's regulatory structure mitigating the risk of aircraft colliding in midair. As such, in crafting this proposed rule, the FAA sought a standard under which the small UAS operator would have the ability to see and avoid other aircraft similar to that of a manned-aircraft pilot.

This really strikes me as the wrong way to go about this. Sure, changing this principle would require completely rewriting the rules for ALL forms of air travel. However, I think that see and avoid already works poorly in practice and will become even more untenable once drone technology really takes off. There are far better ways for aircraft to avoid each other, and sooner or later we'll need to come to grips with the fact that you can build a device capable of broadcasting its position to nearby aircraft for the cost of a smartphone (you need a GPS and a radio, which virtually every phone in the US has had for over a decade due to 911 compliance rules - they had them long before they had touchscreens). There is no reason that clearances shouldn't be communicated via modems talking to computers and followed by computers to ensure that airways remain free of conflicts. Humans just mess things up. If you want to have them so that when they get disoriented they can override the computer and crash the plane to give the investigators more work, just find someplace else to fly. :)

But the FAA isn't a business licensing entity.

Of course it is. Just look at that list and tell me they're not involved in business licensing. You still seem to have a problem understanding that the exact same activity is considered very differently depending on whether it's used for commercial or non-commercial purposes. It's no different than how anyone can cook for their family, but it's illegal to serve that same food to strangers and charge for it without a proper license.

You should also note that these are experimental certificates. The summary should really have pointed to the actual proposed rules for commercial drones. Here's an especially relevant paragraph:

Under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. A small UAS operator would not need any further private pilot certifications (i.e., a private pilot license or medical rating)

In other words, a commercial drone operator is not going to need a regular pilot's license in the future. It's just that these rules and regulations are all still being developed, so in the meantime, a pilot's license is the next best thing to nothing, since at least pilots are guaranteed to know the basic rules of air safety. The FAA is just erring on the conservative side, which shouldn't be all that much of a shock.

If you feel strongly enough about this, you can read the actual proposals and comment on them here. That undoubtedly have more of an effect than arguing about it here on Slashdot. :)

Since the author of the post didn't bother to link to the public comment request site, here it is.

You can visit the FAA comment site to comment on proposed rule changes that address this issue. The comment period ends on July 25. The proposed rules will cripple drone use by civilians and also cripple most RC aircraft operations in the USA. The proposal is simply draconian. Check it out:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!d...

The FAA is about to outlaw flying within 5 miles of an airport (up from 3 miles) and above 400ft, and all commercial uses.

Tell them what you think...

http://www.regulations.gov/#!d...

You have until 7/25...

Then why is it that the EPA is regulating carbon dioxide emissions for wood burning stoves and furnaces?

There's nothing about CO2 in there. Those regulations are about dirty and poisonous emissions. Carbon monoxide and particulate emissions; black smoke. Nothing to do with global warming. All about keeping the air breathable in densely populated areas.

An ideal wood burner would emit just water and CO2.

Wood burners can be made very efficient nowadays; by channelling the air flow in clever ways, you can get more complete combustion meaning more heat, cleaner emissions and less ash. These regulations just make sure that the wood burners you'll be able to buy do that.

Then why is it that the EPA is regulating carbon dioxide emissions for wood burning stoves and furnaces?

Indeed, this is in the pre-rule stage. The NHTSA will soon publish a report and submit it for public comment. We won't know if they have the authority under existing law until they publish their proposed rule. They may have to go to Congress and request additional authority. It will be years before any regulations actually change.

Here is is an overview of how the regulatory process works in US federal agencies.

Here's an excerpt from the NHTSA announcement:

NHTSA is currently finalizing its analysis of the data gathered as part of its year-long pilot program and will publish a research report on V2V communication technology for public comment in the coming weeks. The report will include analysis of the Department's research findings in several key areas including technical feasibility, privacy and security, and preliminary estimates on costs and safety benefits. NHTSA will then begin working on a regulatory proposal that would require V2V devices in new vehicles in a future year, consistent with applicable legal requirements, Executive Orders, and guidance. DOT believes that the signal this announcement sends to the market will significantly enhance development of this technology and pave the way for market penetration of V2V safety applications.

If you take a look at THIS http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648147d799&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf page, you'll see OVER AND OVER again that the FAA is NOT going to invoke privacy into the drone test program, and they are NOT invoking authority over privacy matters. They're leaving it up to local jurisdictions to have privacy laws. However, it appears from the regulations mentioned above that if you file charges they'll CONSIDER revoking that site's authorizations to fly.

Sorry, the link I gave before was to the list of comments received. Here's the link to the main summary with all documents and information.

Publicizing these type of stories is good, but how can we best see their powers reigned in and actually enforce respecting our rights?

One thing to consider: just in the past few days, the TSA has finally complied with a court ruling from July 2011 that said they had illegally implemented new scanning policies without requesting public comment. EPIC has finally managed to get the TSA to set up the comment system.

Some people might consider submitting comments. The TSA probably won't listen directly. But they will become part of public record, and if a court case ever does manage to really challenge some of the TSA policies, it will be harder for courts to say, "Well, nobody seems bothered very much by all the enhanced scanning and patdowns."

By the way, from the summary:

they are over a month beyond the statutory mandate for issuing a written determination

That's NOTHING. After illegally failing to take public comments before implementing a massive change to the accepted norms for searches, federal courts directly ordered the TSA to comply with taking comments. You can still read all the news stories from July 2011, when people thought we finally had some sort of victory for privacy -- maybe the TSA would finally listen. But they did NOTHING. Presumably, they were just waiting, hoping that Americans would get used to the new searches, and they wouldn't have to deal with the problem. After a full year had passed, EPIC finally got a hearing to consider a writ of mandamus to force the order to be adhered to. (Seriously -- a federal agency refusing to implement a simple court order?? After a year of dragging their feet, the courts, if they were at all honest, should have implemented an emergency stay right then and there and shut down the scanners until the TSA complied... at a minimum. If your average citizen did something like this, they'd be tossed in jail for contempt of court.)

Months more passed, and finally the writ of mandamus was denied, because the TSA said it would finally get around to dealing with this issue by Feb.-Mar. 2013. And it seems they waited until the last few days possible to finally implement the comment system.

If you have something serious to say about this, here's your chance. It may or may not make a difference, but I think it's certainly more likely to be effective than complaining on Slashdot every week or two when a new TSA story comes along.

As announced in the Federal Register, this is actually a proposed rule which is open for public comments.

I was rather bothered that www.regulations.gov itself is heavily dependent on .swf files to convey its information. It also appears nearly blank if scripts are not allowed.

I sent a complaint to the web master. This is just effing wrong.

A federal law compelling websites to be redesigned for defectives raises First Amendment issues. It's "forced speech".

In general, "forced speech" can be required in commercial contexts only. This has been litigated a few times with regard to the Internet and the ADA. OKBridge won on summary judgement; they don't have to make their online bridge site "accessible". (They did put in a large-type option, but you still have to be able to see the cards to play.) AOL settled with the National Federation for the Blind, and AOL made the next version of their client program more compatible with screen reader programs.

The Department of Justice recognizes this. In their notice of proposed rulemaking, they write "It is the Department's intention to regulate only governmental entities and public accommodations covered by the ADA that provide goods, services, programs, or activities to the public via Web sites on the Internet. Although some litigants have asserted that ``the Internet'' itself should be considered a place of public accommodation, the Department does not address this issue here. The Department believes that title III reaches the Web sites of entities that provide goods or services that fall within the 12 categories of ``public accommodations,'' as defined by the statute and regulations. Because the Department is focused on the goods and services of public accommodations that operate exclusively or through some type of presence on the Web--whether hosting their own Web site or participating in a host's Web site--the Department wishes to make clear the limited scope of its regulations. For example, the Department is considering proposing explicit regulatory language that makes clear that Web content created or posted by Web site users for personal, noncommercial use is not covered, even if that content is posted on the Web site of a public accommodation or a public entity."

Incidentally, the site doesn't give you the link to the docket for the proposed rule.

I'm not big on government interference with many parts of our lives, but they are addressing a very real problem and they're doing it with kid gloves. They did not pass regulations requiring hospitals to comply, they just tied federal funding to that compliance and gave the hospitals many years in which to get their shit together. If medical providers have not done so and are rushing about now, that is absolutely not the fault of the feds.

Actually...one of the dirty little secrets here is that the final rule for meeting "meaningful use" still isn't actually final. The "interim final rule" wasn't even available to view until Jan, 2010 (link), comments are accepted through March 15th, and we should have a final rule that we can (hopefully) comply with by the end of this month.

And: We don't have "many years" to do the install. We have a few years...very few, if we want to actually participate in the government incentives. Have to be installed and in production by late 2011 to qualify for the full incentive. Any delay, and the incentives go down drastically.

In our case, this whole thing really bites. We have an EMR, fully deployed, and we haven't maintained a paper chart in years. But, because of the definition of "Certified EMR" (which at this point basically means "Must be certified by CCHIT"), we can't qualify for "Meaningful Use" under these proposed rules. So, we have an EMR, we produce escripts, we do online order entry, we can even exchange imaging information (something that this round of certification doesn't require), but because we can't fill in all of the check-boxes in a CCHIT audit, we have to scrap our homegrown EMR and pay millions to replace it with a "certified" alternative. And the government will give us some of that money back if we cram it in fast enough *and* if we are able to show that we meet whatever standards the final rule eventually mandates...all within the next 18-30 months.

Nice.

It may not be the fault of the Feds that some providers haven't transitioned to digital records, but the Feds certainly aren't making things very easy, either.

No, you can't comment on the proposed rule-making there, because that's the wrong rule-making. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "do[ing] your research first."

If you read the damn thing, you'd see where it said "ACTION: Final rule; corrections." You'd see that they already accepted comments, and that this final rule responds to those comments. The rule you've linked to is already effective, and mostly has been effective for over a year now.

The proposed rule that you can comment on is PHMSA 2009-0095, not PHMSA 2007-0065.

People are misreading the WRONG government document.

The regulation link in the main article is a regulation that already took effect in January. The new regulation under discussion is the one referenced by parent. And that regulation ONLY discusses Li-ion batteries. Nothing about NiMH or Alkaline except to contrast their relative safety with the fire risks of lithium.

        Don't fall for scare-mongering industry whores that masquerade as journalists.

        "Sec. 171.12 North American shipments.

                                        (a) * * *
                                        (6) Lithium cells and batteries. Lithium cells and batteries must
        be offered for transport and transported in accordance with the
        provisions of this subchapter. Lithium metal cells and batteries
        (UN3090) are forbidden for transport aboard passenger-carrying
        aircraft.
                                        (i) The provisions of this paragraph (a)(6) do not apply to
        packages that contain 5 kg (11 pounds) net weight or less lithium metal
        cells or batteries that are contained in or packed with equipment
        (UN3091).
        "

        There are similar provisions for international travel, but citing a different regulation.

-- bwcbwc

As KiahZero noted, the correct document is PHMSA-2009-0095.

It's probably too late to stop the avalanche of fail created by a few idiots who can't read the links they're providing. As I said a few times in the other post, the proper cite is PHMSA-2009-0095.

For what it's worth, you can comment on the proposed legislation here:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a75fb2

Of course, do your research first.

I'm not 100% certain that is the correct link. It could just as easily be this one:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a7bbba

If you follow the directions in the PDF it will give you both links.

By the way, that PDF indicates they prefer comments be uploaded as a file. In particular they prefer MS Word and Adobe Acrobat format.

On a side note that has got to be the worst web site I have seen in years. Parts of it render incorrectly in Internet Explorer leaving you unable to read text in the document details page. The site is completely unusable with Konqueror on Linux and I was unable to successfully submit a comment with FireFox on Linux.

I would be willing to bet the site does not even come close to being section 508 compliant. While they do thoughtfully include alt attributes, someone who wants to submit a comment about books in Braille is not going to be able to.

I'm not 100% certain that is the correct link. It could just as easily be this one:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a7bbba

If you follow the directions in the PDF it will give you both links.

By the way, that PDF indicates they prefer comments be uploaded as a file. In particular they prefer MS Word and Adobe Acrobat format.

On a side note that has got to be the worst web site I have seen in years. Parts of it render incorrectly in Internet Explorer leaving you unable to read text in the document details page. The site is completely unusable with Konqueror on Linux and I was unable to successfully submit a comment with FireFox on Linux.

I would be willing to bet the site does not even come close to being section 508 compliant. While they do thoughtfully include alt attributes, someone who wants to submit a comment about books in Braille is not going to be able to.

I'm sure a lot of people will cynically disregard the opportunity to comment as pointless; ignore this urge! While this comment period touches a fairly narrow area, if you care about this issue PLEASE COMMENT. Bring yourself up to speed on the proposed regulation (summary: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7dc9b), and make your comment as efficient, relevant, and precise as possible.

Commenting on regs is NOT like writing your congressperson! Public comments to proposed regs are reviewed, and are considered; these public comment periods are not just for show. Industries with vested interests in an agency's regulations are aware of this, and are certain to have their say in the matter. Have yours!

There's more context in the linked summary, but here's basically what they're asking for input on:

USTR requests that interested persons identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. USTR requests that, where relevant, submissions mention particular regions, provinces, states, or other subdivisions of a country in which an act, policy, or practice is believed to warrant special attention. Submissions may report positive or negative developments with respect to these sub-national entities.

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a7dc9b

In the rule-making actually at issue (PHMSA-2009-0095), rather than the one incorrectly linked by this page and others, the following paragraph is added to 49 C.F.R Section175.10:

Sec. 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air
operators.

        (a) * * *
        (17) Except as provided in Sec. 173.21 of this subchapter,
portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating
machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,
camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including
lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these
devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.
Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to
meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and
Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as
to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or
by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed
terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or
protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition,
each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
        (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than
2 grams per battery; or
        (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,
except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than
100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.

As someone fluent in Regulatese, I can tell you that you're entirely correct. The correct rule-making is at PHMSA-2009-0095. I'm wondering if I should write the editor to see if a correction can be made, but I'm thinking that Slashdot apathy will prevent too many people from submitting comments to the wrong docket entry.

As anyone who can read could tell you, the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule. The final rule isn't open for comment anymore - it's already published, already effective, and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.

The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at PHMSA-2009-0095. PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above, because that docket is closed. Therefore, if you want your comments to be read, you should use the above link.

Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue, much of what's been posted in this thread is 100% wrong. For instance, many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.

Sec. 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air
operators.

        (a) * * *
        (17) Except as provided in Sec. 173.21 of this subchapter,
portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating
machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,
camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including
lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these
devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.
Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to
meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and
Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as
to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or
by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed
terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or
protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition,
each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
        (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than
2 grams per battery; or
        (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,
except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than
100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.

Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane, you can bring spares for the devices as well, so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals.

Yep.

That's how we got the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, how we got the "PATRIOT" Act, how we got several DRM acts and are looking at another one, and how we're likely to wind up with Obamacare.

It's not just that, though. Federal law is so crappily written and so laden with "based on a statute/commissioner to be named later" that it's impossible for anyone to figure out how many actual federal crimes there are these days, let alone state/local crimes as well. Most of the bills I refer to above (especially Obamacare, or at least the HR3200 version rather than the HR3400 Republican version) are the same way. We find out only long after the bill passes what it "really" said, when an unelected bureaucrat (FCC, EPA, "Health Choices Commissioner", FTC, or whatever the hell else pops up) decides what the "regulations" will be and gets to give them the force of law with no vote necessary.

today the EPA is starting to go through the public comment phase on increasing the level of ethanol in our gasoline from 10% to 15%

I didn't see anyone else post this. Here is a link to the page where you can submit comments. Lots of other good items there too for those who want to use their voice. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064809b5a9c

In addition to posting here, also let the EPA know how you feel. They are taking public comments here:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-0713

Commenting seems like a rather complicated (or rather tedious) process.

All filings related to this Notice of Inquiry should refer to GN Docket No. 09-51

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the
ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov./ Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for
submitting comments.

 ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for GN Docket No. 09-51. In
completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service
mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic
comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to
ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, âoeget form.â A
sample form and directions will be sent in response

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each
filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier,
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the
Commissionâ(TM)s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. ...

asusming the rate of inclusion is augmented at an average of one more person every couple days; this "no-fly" database began on day one with something like 1000 individuals (maybe more, but let's use that for the sake of numbers). this database could be working like this: Year added daily total in DB 0 1 1001 1 183.5 34763.5 2 366 135138.5 3 548.5 302126 4 731 535726 5 913.5 835938.5 6 1096 1202763.5 7 1278.5 1636201 8 1461 2136251 9 1643.5 2702913.5 10 1826 3336188.5 11 2008.5 4036076 slow and steady one addition every minute for 9 hours each day (today)... what is that database all about? how does that correlate with this: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?Reload=1193334149568&__dmfFrameId=Login_dialog document ID TSA-2007-28572-0003 maybe i'm just paranoid, but that doesn't mean this isn't a genuine and current proposal...

The US Mint published an interim rule blocking the melting of coins in the Federal Register, which is valid for 120 days. During the next 30 days, the Director of the Mint is required to accept public comments on the proposed rule. After 120 days, the Director will make a final decision. Anyone who has something to say that is more literate than "OMFGROFLBBQ! The US MINT is suxx0rzzzz!!1!11" is invited to comment at the website the government has set up just for that purpose, or submit comments in writing to:

Office of Chief Counsel
United States Mint
801 9th Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20220

As was discussed in detail in the comments I wrote for the Identity Project, the summary in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) very seriously misstates what the actual proposed rule would do. I won't repeat all the details here, but the key language in the proposed rule is, "A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a 'not-cleared' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP." Further answers to your questions aboout the specific language of the proposal, and its implications, are in our formal comments filed with the DHS. The Identity Project and I have done our best to call attention to this proposal. It's not _our_ fault if more people didn't pay more attention to it sooner. We welcome everyone's help in spreading the word about this and related proposals to restrict freedom of travel. It's not too late: Contrary to some secondary and tertiary sources reporting this story, the NPRM does not state when the _proposed_ rule would be effective Keep watching the Federal Register for a notice of a final rule with an effective date. As was explained in my original blog post, the Regulations.gov Web site does not permit persistent direct links to individual documents. I explained in my blog post how to search for and retrieve the original notice of proposed rulemaking (published at 71 Federal Register 40035-40048, 14 July 2006). I've also provided a local copy of the notice on my Web site, for those who are having trouble finding it on the .gov site.

...read the actual proposed rules at

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewe r?objectId=090000648019da96&disposition=attachment &contentType=pdf

The submitted link goes to a reaction to a submitted comment regarding the proposal instead of the actual proposal itself.

No, I haven't read it in its entirety yet, but might as well read the proposal and draw your OWN conclusions instead of relying on somebody else's reaction to an interpretation.

"I will say this, though - If I'm wrong, and you find some nuance in the document I missed, please post and inform me."

Fair enough.Consider this a lesson, next time you want to post an inflammatory comment on something which you obviously haven't taken the time to read, be certain it's got a modicum of objectivity.In point of fact the title of the article is irrefutably accurate to the nth degree.However absurd the notion may seem to you or me the fact remains that it is true.Had you bothered to read in full the government document in question you would have realized this.

The following phrase appears four times in the government document in question (see page 12 page 13 and page 14 of USCBP-2005-0003-0003.pdf available at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewe r?objectId=090000648019da96&disposition=attachment &contentType=pdf ).

"A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a ''not-cleared'' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP."

Take the time to let the phrases "or any other passenger" and "unless cleared by CBP" sink in and realize what that actually means.It means that before I or anyone else is to board a mode of commercial transport destined for another nation we must be granted permission to do so by a government agency.It also means in essence that everyones rights are being trampled on in the name of security.No checks or balances here buddy, just pure unadulterated contempt for the foundation on which our nation was built.The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees us the right to assembly.To assemble requires travel regardless of where the destination is it is our right to do so peaceably.

Did you think they would highlight it for you or perhaps put it in bold italics so it would be easier to spot? This is how it's done, discretely and without fanfare.To those of you who would cry foul and claim this is nothing but politics shame on you.What does it have to do with "The price of tea in China" how this comes to our attention? The fact remains it's an egregious error on the part of our government that needs to be rectified.

Since I posted this as AC I expect that it won't get modded up and no one will pay it any mind but unlike the parent at least I took the time to read the document in question and I am much better off for having done so.

Passenger Manifests for Commercial Aircraft Arriving in and
Departing From the United States; Passenger and Crew Manifests for
Commercial Vessels Departing From the United States

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend existing Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection regulations concerning electronic manifest
transmission requirements relative to passengers, crew members, and
non-crew members traveling onboard international commercial flights and
voyages. Under current regulations, air carriers must transmit to the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), passenger manifest information for aircraft en route to
the United States no later than 15 minutes after the departure of the
aircraft. This proposed rule implements the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requirement that such information be
provided to the government before departure of the aircraft. This
proposed rule provides air carriers a choice between transmitting
complete manifests no later than 60-minutes prior to departure of the
aircraft or transmitting manifest information on passengers as each
passenger checks in for the flight, up to but no later than 15 minutes
prior to departure. The rule also proposes to amend the definition of
"departure'' for aircraft to mean the moment the aircraft is pushed
back from the gate. For vessel departures from the United States, the
rule proposes transmission of passenger and crew manifests no later
than 60 minutes prior to departure of the vessel.

Just for kicks, I decided to look at the proposed rule change as published in the National Register. It is about changing the time that airlines, cruise ship operators, and the like send passenger manifests to the US government (for flights entering or leaving the USA). For example, rather than airplane passenger manifests being sent within 15 minutes of wheels being retracted after takeoff, the rule change says at least 15 or 60 minutes before boarding. It does not mention new requirements for collecting passports or other identification.
So what's the big deal? I understand that Slashdot editors are too busy and/or lazy to fact-check the stories they post, but let bygones by bygones, and let us talk about the actual rule change rather than some interpretation spun up by politically motivated hacks.

A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a ''not-cleared'' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP.

There it is in plain English for anyone to see.That's taken directly from the government pdf file found at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewe r?objectId=090000648019da96&disposition=attachment &contentType=pdf

Actually, the document linked by the other guy isn't the whole story. Unfortunately, the gov site seems to make heavy use of sessions so I can't link to the results page, but go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ma in and search for "All Documents", "Department of Homeland Security - All", "Any Word" and search for Keyword: "USCBP-2005-0003"

Then, click on the Docket ID of USCBP-2005-0003 to switch to the Docket View, you can see the original proposal is
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewe r?objectId=090000648019da96&disposition=attachment &contentType=pdf

The original proposal uses the "clearance" language that seems to have started this.

Actually, the document linked by the other guy isn't the whole story. Unfortunately, the gov site seems to make heavy use of sessions so I can't link to the results page, but go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ma in and search for "All Documents", "Department of Homeland Security - All", "Any Word" and search for Keyword: "USCBP-2005-0003"

Then, click on the Docket ID of USCBP-2005-0003 to switch to the Docket View, you can see the original proposal is
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewe r?objectId=090000648019da96&disposition=attachment &contentType=pdf

The original proposal uses the "clearance" language that seems to have started this.