David Schanoes - Comments

I don't understand the reason for making determinations based on a cost-benefit analysis, whether it's de minimis or not, when considering petitions for alterations in the requirements for PTC. Congress removed, pre-empted the issue of the "business case" when it passed the 2008 law. US courts have long upheld the regulation of railroads, as public utilities. This would seem make it clear that the cost/benefit analysis to be applied is NOT one of or for the "business case" but of and for the benefit to the public. The Staggers Act did a lot in refining, streamlining, removing impediments to the railroad business. That act did not change the case law-- that railroads can be regulated as public utilities. Congress acted well within the established case law with the RSIA of 2008. Positive train control is supposed to be exactly that-- positive.That benefit is meant to serve, "accrue" to the public whether traveling or dwelling along the railroad right-of-way. The law stipulates that PTC must prevent train-to train collisions-- positively. Not most, not almost all, but train to train collisions. That's the public benefit. The law stipulates that where PIH or TIH is transported over the railroad main lines, PTC shall be installed. The law provides a quantitative measure for the definition of main line-- 5,000,000 gross ton miles annually-- except other lines may be included at the discretion of the Secretary. The law does not say 100 car loads, 200 car loads. The law use simple language and has simple meaning: "positive" means positive; "prevent" means prevent.. Congress determined that it was in the public interest, and incumbent upon railroads as public utilities to comply with the requirements of the RSIA of 2008. I think If railroads want to amend the law, they should address their petitions to Congress. De minimis exception to absolute, or positive requirement seems to me to be an oxymoron, but I'm no lawyer.