Terms and Conditions, Privacy Notice, Site Use/Community Guidelines and Statement of Consent
Please read this document carefully. Because The Regulation Room is part of a research program at Cornell University, you will be asked to agree to the following terms and conditions of site use and consent to participate in the research of which this site is a part.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Regulation Room: Technology to Support Citizen Understanding and Participation in Regulatory Policymaking
This site is part of a research study in how citizens can become more effective in helping government craft better regulations. It is being conducted by researchers in the Cornell University Law School, Computing and Information Science program, and Scheinman Institute for Conflict Resolution, in cooperation with the federal agencies whose proposed rules are featured on this site.
What the study is about
This study uses existing and new technologies and methods to help people develop and communicate their preferences about federal regulatory policy. A moderated discussion environment allows users to learn the details of a federal rulemaking, discuss specific parts of the agency’s proposal, and react to what others’ say about it Our goal is to contribute to the existing research on electronic rulemaking by (1) constructing a large scale public participation web environment; (2) observing group and individual behavioral tendencies in that environment; and (3) developing natural language processing methods to assist in analysis of the information submitted.
Content submitted to the site may be extracted, summarized, and analyzed. At the close of the official comment period for the regulation, summaries and analyses, as well as all content submitted to this site, will be offered to the federal agency developing the rule, to assist them in their decision making.
You may read the site without participating in the study. To do this, we require no information from you.
To participate in discussion of proposed rules, endorse, or otherwise add content to the site, we require you to register. This involves picking a username and password, providing an email address, and agreeing to these terms and conditions. We will use your email only for the following purposes, and will in no event provide it to any other person or entity: (1) password recovery; (2) notices relating to comments you submit or to site events that are significant to continued participation in the discussion; (3) request to participate in a survey about your experience using the site. You may opt out of receiving such notices and/or may decline to participate in the survey. If you chose to register, you’ll have the option of including your real name and a brief bio. You’ll also have the option of making your real name and bio publically viewable. Providing your real name, including a bio, and making either of these public are entirely voluntary.
What we will ask you to do
We encourage users to participate in the rulemaking process by discussing issues in rule, raising questions, and responding to other users’ reactions. Our researchers will summarize this discussion and you will be able to suggest changes to that summary. You may also be able to respond to polls about the rule. The final summary of discussion will be submitted by our researchers to the federal agency for inclusion in its decision-making process. You may have the opportunity to join with other users in drafting joint comments in addition to this summary. You will have the opportunity to “sign on” to such comments drafted by other users. These joint comments will also be submitted to the agency by our researchers. We will not report to the agency any individually identifying information that is not publicly available on the site.
Short web-based questionnaires will appear when you submit content to our site. When you initially register, you be asked about your experience in participating in federal rulemakings and about the nature of your interest in that rule. This information will help us determine the effectiveness of the site and may be used in summarizing and analyzing the discussion for the agency. We may contact you using the email address you provide to ask you about your experiences using Regulation Room and how these experiences relate to your usage of the internet for other purposes and your other experiences with government participation. Response to any questions for this purpose is completely voluntary.
Risks and benefits
The goal of the project is to improve communication between government regulators and the public for the purposes of creating regulation that better meets the needs of the public at reduced cost. Individuals would generally participate because they are interested in more effective regulation, reduced cost, or both.
The principle risk of participation is that an individual might choose to provide sensitive personal information even though we do not require such information and warn users against including such information. The Profile page allows users to provide their real name and a brief bio, and to make both publically viewable. Users might include other personal data, such as address, telephone number, employer, and social security number. This information could then be viewed and used by others.
We will attempt to keep web site server log data and optional web survey data protected against public disclosure.
Compensation
There is no compensation for participating.
Taking part is voluntary
Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You do not have to reply to any emails, and your participation or withdrawal will not affect your current or future relationship with Cornell University. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time.
Modification of Terms and Conditions of Use
Cornell University reserves the right to revise these Terms and Conditions of Use at any time by updating this page. Your continued use of the site constitutes your agreement to comply with such revisions, so you should visit this page from time to time.
PRIVACY NOTICE
In any sort of report we make public and/or provide to the Federal agency we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you unless you have elected to make such information publicly visible on the site.
Please note that material you post on Regulation Room is provided voluntarily; it will be publicly visible on the web site and might be publicly disclosed in a rulemaking docket.
SITEUSE/COMMUNITY GUIDELINES
We welcome your use of our site and participation in our research. To keep the experience a positive one for all our users, we ask that you follow the rules outlined below. By submitting content to this site, you are agreeing to the following rules:
You are fully responsible for the content you post. You may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates someone else’s right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, or that is otherwise inappropriate. Furthermore, you may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Language intended to intimidate or to incite violence will not be tolerated.
We may monitor user-generated content and we reserve the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that, in our sole judgment, violates these rules. Repeated violation of these rules may result in your being banned from the site.
By posting material to this site, you represent that you have the legal right to reproduce, adapt, display, and distribute this material to others. Neither Cornell University nor any other person or entity responsible for this site will be responsible for posted information that may infringe on a third party’s copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights.
We may summarize and/or republish the content of your comments. By posting you agree that your comments may be summarized, analyzed, and republished online and in print.
You may use this site only for non-commercial purposes. This site prohibits any actions to solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity.
You may not interrupt, or attempt to interrupt, the operation of the site in any way. Unauthorized use or modification of any information stored on the site may result in criminal and/or civil prosecution under federal, state and local law. You may not to use the site to carry out any unauthorized alteration of any data or information on the site or to conduct any activity that infringes on the copyright, patent, trademark, service mark or other rights of any person or entity. You may not restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying any service conducted on the site.
Cornell University reserves the right to limit or deny your access to the site or take other appropriate action if you violate any provision of these Guidelines, or if you conduct any activity that violates the rights of any person or entity or that we in our sole discretion deem unlawful, offensive, threatening, abusive, or potentially harmful or malicious.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS
If you have questions about these provisions, this site or the research program it is part of, you can contact Mary Newhart, Executive Director, Cornell e-Regulatory Research Initiative, mjn3@cornell.edu, 607-255-3660.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 607-255-5138 or access their website at http://www.irb.cornell.edu/. You may also report your concerns or complaints anonymously through the Ethicspoint website or by calling toll free at 1-866-293-3077. Ethicspoint is an independent organization that serves as a liaison between the University and the person bringing the complaint so that anonymity can be ensured.
If you agree to these terms and conditions, we will e-mail you a link to a copy of this consent form for your records.
This form will be kept by the researchers for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB September 30, 2009; revisions on February 19, 2010, April 12 2010, February 16, 2011, and August 18, 2011.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT
I have read the above information, I am at least 18 years of age, I agree to these Terms and Conditions and Site Use/Community Guidelines, and I consent to participate in the research program of which Regulation Room is a part.
Why is the SIZE of the plane of any import? The problems with passenger experience are not dependant on aircraft size!
ANY airline that operates into or out of a US airport should be bound by the same rules, whether flights are regularly scheduled or charter. Otherwise, there is unfair competition.
When in US airspace, DOT rules should apply to all carriers, regardless of the number of aircraft seats or nationality.
Is the intention here to include flights which originate and terminate outside of the US but that fly in US airspace?
Also, what do others think? Ideally, when should this rule apply?
I think it should apply to all foreign and US airlines with flights to and from the US equally. Citizens should be protected regardless of which airline they choose and airlines that operate in the US should be required to operate under equal rules.
I think that the rules should apply to all carriers – domestic and international carriers included. I recommend reviewing the FAA flight regulations that a carrier flys under e.g. FAA FAR Part 135/136. etc. rather than the size of aircraft. Perhaps these rules should only apply to Part 121 and 125 carriers.
All air carriers, US or foriegn registerd, should be held to the same DOT standards. US carriers already have to comply with EU compensation directives on flights leaving the EU, for example.
Foreign carriers must be made to abide by the same rules & regulations as a domestic airlines. There should NO EXCEPTION to this requirement.
Size has no relevancy as far as I am concerned. All foreign airlines flying into or out of the US airspace should be bound by the same rules.
When in the US airspace…all planes need to abide to the rules of the land. When you visit a country you are expected to follow the rules governing the land…this should not be any different.
I thought the question wasn’t about foreign carriers, but about international flights on all carriers.
We must understand that other governments may not view these rules as being benign and could very well impose restrictions on US carriers. Beware the law of unforeseen consequences.
The tarmac delay problem is not caused by airlines, and in particular foreign airlines. To submit them to significant operational or financial consequences because of something outside of their control doesn’t seem appropriate.
Lets not forget the tarmac delay problem is the fault of the FAA and airports, allowing over scheduling and not restricting slots. Eurocontrol (the FAA’s equivalent) directs European airports to implement flow-control restrictions whenever an airport (or airspace) cannot provide it’s expected capacity. When this happens airlines have to reduce their flights in proportion to the total number of slots they ‘own’ at that airport. In the US when ‘stuff’ happens it becomes the airlines problem and they have to sort it out themselves. (competition law prohibits them from discussing solutions with their competitors).
Let’s fix the problem, not the symptoms.
Thank you for your comment. You mentioned Eurocontrol – do you think a similar agency should replace the FAA in the United States or do you have other recommendations for solving some of the problems you have highlighted?
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Eurocontrol perform similar functions as the FAA (but Europe is complicated with overlapping ATC responsibilities). What should be done is a review of how slots are determined and how they are allocated. Additionally clear and transparent rules need to be in effect and applied when ‘stuff’ happens. For example we often know 24-48 hours before a major snow events happens. A committee made of the incumbent airlines, the airport and the FAA should be empowered (and immunised) to discuss the situation and to make decisions. For example if it is determined that the airport can only handle 75% of the schedule then the airlines can get on with it, rebooking / rerouting their customers long before they get the airport. The way it works today the each airline does their own thing, waiving rebooking fees etc. But this is done with a shotgun approach. Passengers booked on flights that will operate will change, when they don’t have to – and others will ‘hope-for-the-best’ and show up anyway.
Let’s be honest here. Free market principles don’t work when two of three industry components are monopolies and really have little incentive to fix the problem.
Foreign airlines flying to this country should submit to our regulations in the same manner that our airlines must submit to the regulations of the countries they fly to. Better still, why not have all countries agree to the same rules and regulations by having an international governmental body overseeing airlines?
Foreign carriers should abide by the same rules as US carriers.
Any foreign carrier that operates in the U.S. should be subject to U.S. rules with respect to U.S. flights.
Those carriers are making money off U.S. travelers, consequently they should be required to follow the rules here.
Whatever protects us is ok with me. I just don’t want more fees added for whatever the changes are. I fly international a lot, and I am not really sure what you are asking of us.. Can you be more specific?
Do you think there are any reasons foreign air carriers should not be held to the same rules as domestic air carriers? Are there any added benefits to travelers that you do not see mentioned here? Do you agree with the cutoff of 30 seats for these rules to apply to foreign air carriers?