1,000+ Comments on DOT E-Cig Ban Needed by November 14

[mooreted]

Bedtime bump.

 

[gman1000]

I will work on my comments after I post this.

I was intrigued by the post about the "Exhaler", Although a novel idea, I don't know if that will help or hurt. Suppose this does becomes mainstream, legislators, political glory hounds and the like will want to push this as required for all vapers to use this device out in public. If something like that did happen, they better have anti body odor suits for people who need to improve their personal hygiene too. Sounds Orwellian, but the Patriot Act got enacted didn't it? We left the door open for anyone to sway political perception of any perceived or outlandish thought.

As many here are ex-smokers we have been forced to compromise for the rest when we used analogs. That device seems like we are willing to make another compromise, & another & another to appease those that won't be happy until vapers, smokers, or whoever else they want to single out next on the list are gone.

On another note, we are taxpayers & citizens, we have the right (The first one) to voice our concerns, IMO, we shouldn't have to sound apologetic or plead with our comments, we should be firm but polite. Make it look like a business memo. In the past, speaking nicely to people got the job done, the way the world works now we are nothing but faces in the crowd & a comment number on a page. We don't want to sound like pushovers. This makes us look like we are willing too, I for one have compromised for others but sometimes people just go too far to make you feel uncomfortable for doing your own business.

This is all my opinion & not meant to offend anyone or go a little off topic. Now I better work on that comment.

We are Vapers & we are here & now!!!

Wow I sound like a paranoid extremist....

 

[mooreted]

Morning bump

 

[Placebo Effect]

The docket folder has just been updated and we've now hit 400 submissions.

Take a look at the two comments below -- simple, quick, and effective.

I am 71 years old and have been using using the e-cig for two years. I can not understand why you are making these strict regulations on something that doesn't affect anyone else. There must be some other motive, a tool of big tobacco, pharmacy industry or just people that like to make laws to be making laws. It is ridiculous whatever your motives are. These vaporizers have saved my life and you are trying to make me a criminal for using something that is keeping me off of an oxygen bottle and early death. Please research this matter a little better before you act prematurely making an unneccesary law that will affect me and many others!

The title of the proposed regulation is an oxymoron. A person using an electronic cigarette is not "smoking." There is no combustion and no smoke. The Department is overstepping its authority to regulate smoking on aircraft by trying to ban these devices. The airlines can impose and enforce rules on e-cigarettes as they do on other devices and on passenger behavior.

 

[Vocalek]

In closing, may I suggest, legislation be written in such a way as to afford: 1. Voluntary compliance from Airlines (preserve liberty by leaving an option open) 2. Include wording to accommodate the use of Approved HEPA styled 'Exhalers' for use in these confined shared spaces. Sincerely, M. Daniel Walsh

Anyone who is CEO of a corporation should know the difference between government legislation and government rule-making. Remember learning about the "separation of powers" built into the US Constitution? Only the legislative branch (that would be the Senate and the House of Represenatives) is authorized to write laws. All of the various "Departments" of the government are part of the Executive branch. After a law goes into effect, the Executive branch can create regulations to enforce the law as written. The regulations are not permitted to expand the scope of the law.

All laws are recorded in the United States Code (USC). The law ‘‘Prohibitions Against Smoking on Scheduled Flights’’ 49 U.S.C. 41706 states, “An individual may not smoke in an aircraft.”

All the regulations that are created to enforce laws are stored in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). CFR Part 252 is the regulation that was promulgated to enforce (the law) 49 U.S.C. 41706.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

This NPRM proposes to amend part 252 to define smoking as the smoking of tobacco products or use of electronic cigarettes that are designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user in the form of a vapor.

It is beyond the authorized powers of the Executive branch (in this case, the DOT) to re-define the law.

Here is the full text of the law. 49 U.S.C. § 41706 : US Code - Section 41706: Prohibitions against smoking on scheduled flights

Any terminology used within the law needs to be interpreted within its usual and customary meaning (i.e. the primary dictionary definition) unless the law itself contains a definition for that term. There is no alternative definition of "smoking" in the law. Therefore, the law only authorizes DOT to promolgate regulations that would ban inhaling/exhaling smoke on scheduled flights.

Definition of SMOKE

intransitive verb

1 a: to emit or exhale smoke b: to emit excessive smoke

2 archaic: to undergo punishment : suffer

3 : to spread or rise like smoke

4 : to inhale and exhale the fumes of burning plant material and especially tobacco; especially: to smoke tobacco habitually

 

[chingbo]

My comment was kinda meant to be funny. basically I ended it with " let say I did a number 2, would the person after me rather get a burst of that smell, or have it smell like some sort of fruity vape smell " =)

i dont fly often, but that's my 2 cents

 

[mooreted]

Bump it back to the top.

 

[dmj4]

I did it! Bump

 

[mooreted]

Keep em coming.

Bump

 

[txtumbleweed]

Great to see people taking the time to write a statement! We need to respond to every attempt to limit the use of nicotine vaporizers.

 

[txtumbleweed]

The docket folder has just been updated and we've now hit 400 submissions.

Take a look at the two comments below -- simple, quick, and effective.

Thanks!

 

[Placebo Effect]

Morning bump. Please take a moment to submit a comment.

 

[mooreted]

Morning coffee bump.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Ugh. Apparently a 'Regulatory State Class' at Vanderbilt University School of Law included an assignment where teams had to write public comments on the DOT ban.

Two comments have been published. Both are for the proposal. Apparently their professor didn't bother to teach them statutory interpretation, nor did he or she encourage them to look up the dictionary definition of SMOKING.

Department of Transportation

RIN 2105-AE06

Summary of Our Position on the Department of Transportation’s Ban of Electronic Cigarettes on Aircraft

We support the Department of Transportation’s proposal to amend its existing airline smoking rule to explicitly ban the use of electronic cigarettes on all aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation. The DOT should:
1. Clarify the prohibition in Part 252 to explicitly cover electronic cigarettes
2. Extend the ban on smoking to charter flights of air carriers and foreign air carriers between points in the US and between the US and any foreign point with aircraft that have a designed seating capacity of 19 or more passenger seats

Rationale for supporting this proposal:

1. The current ban covers use of “any product made or derived from tobacco”. Electronic cigarettes are essentially tobacco products, and they deliver the flavor and nicotine content of inhaled tobacco smoke in vapor form. In addition to liquid nicotine these cigarettes contain other chemicals and unknown ingredients. While the released from the cigarettes do not contain carcinogens or tar or produce secondhand smoke, and the chemistry of the vapor is different from tobacco smoke, usage of electronic smoke exposes passengers in the airplane to the potentially toxic chemicals. Until we know for certain what the side effects of electronic cigarette usage are, it would be in everyone’s interest to ban electronic cigarette usage on aircraft.

2. Why not? The more safety precaution, the better.

3. E-cigarettes have not been approved by the FDA yet, nor are they subject to regulation. The research on propylene glycol is conflicting.

4. The proposal is required to further the goals of the original ban.
a. The existing regulatory ban (49 U.S.C. 40102) forbids the smoking of tobacco products on aircrafts in the hopes of improving air quality on the planes, reducing health risks to passengers and employees and improving safety and comfort.
b. The Departments views this ban as sufficiently broad to cover electronic cigarettes. However, the increasing prevalence of electronic cigarettes has brought confusion as to whether the existing ban includes electronic cigarettes. The Department thus thinks it is necessary to amend the ban to explicitly include electronic cigarettes.
c. Thus, in order to continue the goals of the original ban, it is necessary to act now to explicitly ban electronic cigarettes.

5. Safety for flight attendants: Flight attendants are even more at risk than the general population, given that flight attendants would be on airplanes with them the most.

Personal Experience in support of the proposal:
It’s very uncomfortable sitting next to people who smoke. Who would want to submit themselves to second hand smoke in a closed cabin, 3000 feet up in the air, for a 7 hour flight?

Research:
1. Little is known about the health effects of electronic smoking on humans. Some research has shown that non-asthma sufferers have respiratory reactions to the propylene glycol mist present in electronic cigarette smoke. Further research needs to be done to evaluate the safety of using electronic cigarettes and the toxicity of vapors generated by electronic cigarettes.

2. Even though little is known on the effects of electronic cigarettes, I believe Department’s to provide safe and adequate interstate air transportation is sufficient to warrant some level of restriction of electronic cigarette usage until more is known about its safety impacts.

3. The health and safety of passengers and crewmembers is not worth the risk that may result from any confusion. It is much better to address the problem now and explicitly ban electronic cigarettes. This will avoid further confusion and prevent putting any additional people at risk.

4. Although there are few studies that investigate the risks associated with electronic cigarettes, it is much better to be safe than sorry.
a. It the Department waits until there is definitive information about the health risks of electronic cigarettes, it may be too late. This is especially true for the crewmembers, who may be exposed to electronic cigarettes on a regular basis as a result of the confusion and inaction. The Department should act now. The desire for more definite data is not worth putting anyone at risk.
b. The studies should continue even after the ban is amended. If it is discovered that the electronic cigarettes do not pose any health risk, then the amendment can be revisited. However, this is unlikely.

5. Research on propylene glycol is conflicting.
a. Because propylene glycol is approved for use in food, it I possible for some of the positive research to be a result of food manufacturers desiring to protect their use of propylene glycol.
b. Conversely, negative research could stem from cigarette manufacturers desiring to eliminate or reduce competition from e-cigarettes.
c. Propylene glycol is easily absorbed through the skin, so until the amount of chemical release from e-cigarettes can be properly measured, there is question as to whether the amount absorbed through e-cigarette vapor combined with food and drug intake would surpass the recommended limit of propylene glycol intake.

Office of the Secretary
Department of Transportation
DOT-OST-2011-0044

Authors – Team 1

Public Comment - Electronic Cigarette Ban

Upon consideration of the Department of Transportation’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, concerning the banning of electronic cigarettes, we support the Department in their efforts to ban electronic cigarettes. For the reasons enumerated below, we believe that such a ban would both prevent potential health hazards, and contribute to passenger comfort and safety.
When Congress contemplated Section 708 of 49 U.S.C. 41706, one of its primary objectives was to increase passenger comfort. E-cigarettes pose the same threat to passenger comfort as tobacco cigarettes. The displeasure of being forced to inhale noxious vapors simply as a result of the airline’s decision of where to seat certain passengers on their airplanes is an evil that Congress intended to regulate in its initial ban on smoking on airplanes. The presence of e-cigarettes on non-smoking airplanes would induce panic in parents an in those concerned about their own health, as these e-cigarettes sometimes look identical to tobacco cigarettes or cigars. In addition, the similarity in appearance of the products presents major enforcement challenges. Airline crewmembers, who are already entirely occupied with performing their normal duties, would be overly burdened by the difficult task of distinguishing between these virtually identical products.
In addition to alleviating passenger comfort and health concerns that these e-cigarettes pose by banning them from airplanes, this ban will provide across-the-board consistency for all federally regulated transportation. Users of these potentially expensive e-cigarette products should be allowed to know exactly where they can and cannot use these products. Including e-cigarettes in the same category with traditional tobacco cigarettes makes it easier for the consumer, and for non-smokers, to assess whether and where exactly smokers can and cannot smoke their e-cigarette products.
The Department of Transportation already possesses statutory authority to regulate the use of electronic cigarettes on commercial aircraft pursuant to Part 252 of 49 U.S.C. 41706. Still, further clarification is necessary and prudent for the following reasons: The statute in its current state has the potential to engender confusion among the public as to what devices and products are and are not permitted on commercial aircraft. For the sake of clarity and efficiency in the airline industry, airline companies and passengers should be afforded the benefits of a clarified, amended statute that expressly and unambiguously bans electronic cigarettes. The text of the statute should be expanded to include all products that emit non-medical vapors in the aircraft cabin. Non-tobacco products and devices used for beneficial, medicinal purposes should be permitted on aircraft, and the amended statute should make this exemption unambiguously clear in a separate exclusion section. This section should indicate that a prescription is not required to show medical benefit, but that all tobacco-based products remain prohibited.
As of now, there are few studies on the health effects and potential toxicity of electronic cigarettes. What little information is available indicates that the electronic cigarettes are not as healthy as their manufacturers claim. The FDA has performed some preliminary testing that indicates that the nicotine cartridges also contain a number of potentially toxic or carcinogenic chemicals. Additionally, the University of California, Riverside study related to potential harm from cracked nicotine cartridges presents another potential harm to the other occupants of the airplane.
At the moment, the health effects are mostly unknown, similar to the early days of regular cigarette manufacture. As a result, millions became addicted to a substance later discovered to be very harmful. Similarly there should be a broad public policy against the use of electronic cigarettes and similar products until their effects are better understood. Currently the FDA has asserted the right to regulate electronic cigarettes will be able to provide better oversight to the electronic cigarette industry once they develop a regulatory framework.
For these reasons, and in the absence of any clear medical benefits to the users, it is wise at this time to ban electronic cigarettes on airplanes until they are better studied. We note that numerous other countries have banned electronic cigarettes specifically pending further study, and they are currently banned in numerous U.S. States. Further, it is wise to have a common applicable standard. Both Amtrak and numerous branches of the armed services have banned electronic cigarettes and for the sake of consistency the Department should do the same for commercial aircraft.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I fired off this e-mail to the two professors who teach Regulatory State at Vanderbilt.

Professor Bressman and Rubin,

I apologize if you are receiving this e-mail in error, as it is not clear which professor assigned his or her students to submit public comments to the Department of Transportation's docket on banning use of electronic cigarettes on commercial flights in the U.S.

Team 10's comment is available here -- Regulations.gov

The very first line of the students' justification states that '[t]he current ban covers use of “any product made or derived from tobacco.'" This is false.

The law ‘‘Prohibitions Against Smoking on Scheduled Flights’’ 49 U.S.C. 41706 states, “An individual may not smoke in an aircraft.” Your students lazily looked to the definition of 'tobacco product' in the law which imparted regulatory authority to the Food and Drug Administration over 'tobacco products.' If the use of 'any product made or derived from tobacco' was banned on flights, e-cigarettes, as well as smokeless tobacco, nicotine water, nicotine skin gel, etc. would all be banned, and this regulation (which exceeds the authority granted under 41706 because e-cigarette use does not involve combustion, which is central to the common definition of smoking) would be unnecessary.

Your students have given erroneous legal advice to the Department of Transportation, and I hope you start your next class by asking them what a judge's reaction would be to that sort of poorly thought-out legal analysis.

Thank you,

 

[Placebo Effect]

We only had a few comments submitted yesterday.

I know that everyone is probably burnt out with all the bumping and plugging of the White House petition, but please realize that this is even more important than the petition.

 

[keyzygirl]

Just bumping !!

 

[base234]

Done! With Firefox. No problem.

 

[James]

I'm probably being really thick here, but where do you view the comments already made?

 

[txtumbleweed]

I would also like to know.