TOP STORY
Taking the Federal NPRM Discussion
to a New Level Public given new option to discuss, research recent proposed texting rule before commenting
By Stephane Babcock All but a dozen states have already enacted some kind of
anti-cell phone or anti-texting law to keep their highways and byways safer, but now the feds stepped up to bat. And the government, in conjunction with Cornell University, are piloting a new way to keep the public informed and the rulemaking process open. On April 1, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-
tion released a notice of proposed rulemaking that would outlaw the practice of text messaging by commercial bus and truck drivers who travel across state lines. According to an FMCSA study of commercial drivers performed last fall, a crash is 23 times more likely if a driver is texting while behind the wheel. But some worry about the broad definitions included in
the NPRM and the lack of an overall ban. “I am against the texting-while-driving ban as it now
exists,” commented Danny Schnautz, a commercial truck driver from Texas. “It is not universally applied to all motorists for all distractions, but is simply a convenient regulation to pass.”
ADDING TO THE DISCUSSION Historically, individuals have always had the option to send in any questions, comments or complaints to any NPRM, sometimes in- fluencing the final rule, as was the case with the school bus seat belt NPRM a few years ago. As part of President Obama’s Open Government Initia- tive, agencies have been called on to make their decision- making
processes more
transparent, participatory and collaborative. In re- sponse, the U.S. Department
of Transportation teamed up with Cornell University to create the Cornell E-Rulemaking Initiative (CeRI), an open forum that informs the public about the proposed rule, helps foster discussion and keeps everyone updated on the process. “Hopefully, it will engage a broader spectrum of the
public, who would not otherwise participate in the formal comment process,” said Cynthia Farina, professor of law and faculty director for CeRI, adding that a summary of the discussion on “Regulation Room” would be submitted as a formal comment on
Regulations.gov after participants were given the chance to comment on the draft summary before it was submitted. While most of those involved in the discussion sup-
ported the ban, one person in particular disagreed, citing crashes caused by drivers distracted by spilling their coffee or trying to light a cigarette. “Te bottom line is that any distraction while driving a
car can cause an accident,” wrote user “philk.” “Where do we draw the line? Also, there are millions of people out there who are completely capable of using their cell phone and driving, at the same time. Are we proposing that they should be punished, for the inabilities of others?”
CONVERSATION CONTINUES ONLINE Some supporters and detractors of the NPRM took the
“old-fashioned” route and sent their comments directly to the DOT via the Federal Register. And some were a little more critical than others. “You people are just plain out of your tree!” wrote Irvin
Halter, a truck driver from Virginia Beach. “You say you have public polls in favor of federal regulations on this subject. But yet you have admitted not having any studies implicat- ing CMV drivers and crash causation with testing. Exactly where do your facts and figures come from?” Even some of the supporters are looking for more
details in the definition and are worried the rule could restrict them from utilizing GPS navigation devices or communicating in other ways. But, according to a sum- mary on CeRI’s Regulation Room, the rule would not affect talking on cell phones, or using devices like GPS or two-way radios. Some supporters are hoping it will help rules that are al-
ready in place in local operations. “I think the ban is great,” said Dianne Moore, a contract
manager for First Student in Crete, Neb. “It gives our com- pany rule of not using cell phones while driving much more credibility. It also elevates the awareness of any kind of sec- ondary activity while driving because it takes too much of the driver’s complete attention to the road and possible dangers and road hazards.” Te comment period ended on May 3 and included a final submission from CeRI as well as 56 public submissions. ■
18 School Transportation News Magazine June 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60