2 ms·

Unlikely they would have been cut under Clinton. And I don't think the required review you are talking about is concerned with safety. It's money. The review th

by jjeaff 4y ago

Unlikely they would have been cut under Clinton. And I don't think the required review you are talking about is concerned with safety. It's money. The review that is required is actually a financial review that decides if the cost of the safety regs in question exceed the cost of potential accidents. This analysis had already been done. However, the Trump admin had the calculation done again, I would assume after putting their own people in place and they found that the regulation was too costly. Big errors were made in their calculation but they claimed that even after fixing the errors, it was too costly. So they rolled back the regs. That being said, the regs in question only applied to certain hazard levels and the train that crashed did not meet that level because it didn't have enough cars with hazardous materials.

tzs 4y ago
I'm talking about the report that was required under Section 7311(b) of the FAST Act, Public Law 114-94 [1]: (b) Emergency Braking Application Testing.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to-- (A) complete testing of ECP brake systems during emergency braking application, including more than 1 scenario involving the uncoupling of a train with 70 or more DOT-117 specification or DOT-117R specification tank cars; and (B) transmit, not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the testing. and the review required under 7311(c): (c) Evidence-Based Approach.-- (1) Analysis.--The Secretary shall-- (A) not later than 90 days after the report date, fully incorporate the results of the evaluation under subsection (a) and the testing under subsection (b) and update the regulatory impact analysis of the final rule described in subsection (b)(2)(A) of the costs, benefits, and effects of the applicable ECP brake system requirements; (B) as soon as practicable after completion of the updated analysis under subparagraph (A), solicit public comment in the Federal Register on the analysis for a period of not more than 30 days; and (C) not later than 60 days after the end of the public comment period under subparagraph (B), post the final updated regulatory impact analysis on the Department of Transportation's Internet Web site. (2) Determination.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (A) determine, based on whether the final regulatory impact analysis described in paragraph (1)(C) demonstrates that the benefits, including safety benefits, of the applicable ECP brake system requirements exceed the costs of such requirements, whether the applicable ECP brake system requirements are justified; (B) if the applicable ECP brake system requirements are justified, publish in the Federal Register the determination and reasons for such determination; and (C) if the Secretary does not publish the determination under subparagraph (B), repeal the applicable ECP brake system requirements. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/html/PLAW-114publ94.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/html/PLAW...

by jjeaff 4y ago

tzs 4y ago

I'm talking about the report that was required under Section 7311(b) of the FAST Act, Public Law 114-94 [1]: (b) Emergency Braking Application Testing.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to-- (A) complete testing of ECP brake systems during emergency braking application, including more than 1 scenario involving the uncoupling of a train with 70 or more DOT-117 specification or DOT-117R specification tank cars; and (B) transmit, not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the testing. and the review required under 7311(c): (c) Evidence-Based Approach.-- (1) Analysis.--The Secretary shall-- (A) not later than 90 days after the report date, fully incorporate the results of the evaluation under subsection (a) and the testing under subsection (b) and update the regulatory impact analysis of the final rule described in subsection (b)(2)(A) of the costs, benefits, and effects of the applicable ECP brake system requirements; (B) as soon as practicable after completion of the updated analysis under subparagraph (A), solicit public comment in the Federal Register on the analysis for a period of not more than 30 days; and (C) not later than 60 days after the end of the public comment period under subparagraph (B), post the final updated regulatory impact analysis on the Department of Transportation's Internet Web site. (2) Determination.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (A) determine, based on whether the final regulatory impact analysis described in paragraph (1)(C) demonstrates that the benefits, including safety benefits, of the applicable ECP brake system requirements exceed the costs of such requirements, whether the applicable ECP brake system requirements are justified; (B) if the applicable ECP brake system requirements are justified, publish in the Federal Register the determination and reasons for such determination; and (C) if the Secretary does not publish the determination under subparagraph (B), repeal the applicable ECP brake system requirements. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/html/PLAW-114publ94.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/html/PLAW...