Pete Buttigieg is apparently "the victim" in the case of the train derailment?

[ThatRobGuy]

Buttigieg world frustrated at GOP attacks over train wreck

“Pete Buttigieg has taken a lot of bullets for the president on this,” one senior Democrat said.

www.politico.com

I thought this was a rather unorthodox take on the whole situation.

Statements like “Pete Buttigieg has taken a lot of bullets for the president on this,” and claiming he's "absorbing the brunt of attacks from the Biden administration’s adversaries."

And things like:
The “effort by Fox News and Republicans” to use the pain of the East Palestine community “as a political weapon is both enraging and demeaning,”


The common narrative from some on the left has been that "It was Trump's deregulation that caused this, but the current administration is taking the blame" is more than a tad misleading.

The single solitary regulation in question (from Obama) that Trump lifted wouldn't haven't prevented this particular incident, and the argument itself doesn't hold water. If the claim is "the previous administration unilaterally removed important regulation XYZ that the previous administration before that unilaterally put in place", then the rebuttal would be "Well, then why hasn't the current administration who's been in power for 2 years unilaterally put it back?"


I think this is one where both progressives and conservatives should be able to find some common ground here.

As someone who consumes media from both sides of the aisle and agrees and disagrees with various points they make on various topics, it seems to be something that some pundits in the independent media on both sides agree on, Pete's neglected his duties and was uniquely unqualified for the job that he was appointed to.

The Young Turks take (it's hard to outflank them on the left)

The Daily Wire take (it's hard to outflank them on the right)

 

[rambot]

Buttigieg world frustrated at GOP attacks over train wreck

“Pete Buttigieg has taken a lot of bullets for the president on this,” one senior Democrat said.

www.politico.com

I thought this was a rather unorthodox take on the whole situation.

Statements like “Pete Buttigieg has taken a lot of bullets for the president on this,” and claiming he's "absorbing the brunt of attacks from the Biden administration’s adversaries."

And things like:
The “effort by Fox News and Republicans” to use the pain of the East Palestine community “as a political weapon is both enraging and demeaning,”


The common narrative from some on the left has been that "It was Trump's deregulation that caused this, but the current administration is taking the blame" is more than a tad misleading.

The single solitary regulation in question (from Obama) that Trump lifted wouldn't haven't prevented this particular incident, and the argument itself doesn't hold water. If the claim is "the previous administration unilaterally removed important regulation XYZ that the previous administration before that unilaterally put in place", then the rebuttal would be "Well, then why hasn't the current administration who's been in power for 2 years unilaterally put it back?"


I think this is one where both progressives and conservatives should be able to find some common ground here.

As someone who consumes media from both sides of the aisle and agrees and disagrees with various points they make on various topics, it seems to be something that some pundits in the independent media on both sides agree on, Pete's neglected his duties and was uniquely unqualified for the job that he was appointed to.

The Young Turks take (it's hard to outflank them on the left)

The Daily Wire take (it's hard to outflank them on the right)

I'd argue that Buttigieg is a punching bag for the entire government that refused to regulate appropriate safety steps because of industry kick backs. BOTH parties did it; don't worry, I'm blaming EVERYONE in this one.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The common narrative from some on the left has been that "It was Trump's deregulation that caused this, but the current administration is taking the blame" is more than a tad misleading.

The single solitary regulation in question (from Obama) that Trump lifted wouldn't haven't prevented this particular incident, and the argument itself doesn't hold water. If the claim is "the previous administration unilaterally removed important regulation XYZ that the previous administration before that unilaterally put in place", then the rebuttal would be "Well, then why hasn't the current administration who's been in power for 2 years unilaterally put it back?"


I think this is one where both progressives and conservatives should be able to find some common ground here.

As someone who consumes media from both sides of the aisle and agrees and disagrees with various points they make on various topics, it seems to be something that some pundits in the independent media on both sides agree on, Pete's neglected his duties and was uniquely unqualified for the job that he was appointed to.

I'd be interested to know exactly what duties it is that Pete has supposedly neglected. I'm happy to levy criticism where it's due, but train derailments are fairly common - even if they don't typically result in massive fires - and I don't recall Elaine Chao ever catching flak for any that happened on her watch, including one in Dupont, Washington in late 2017 despite the fact that 1.) it killed three people, 2.) it was an Amtrak train (i.e. partially under federal control), and 3.) it was on a new route that was being rolled out where procedures should have been locked down even more than usual.

The reality is that right-wingers have had it out for Pete because he's gay. He caught all kinds of grief from the allegedly pro-life, pro-adoption crowd for going on paternity leave at the beginning of his term after adopting a baby. CF staff has promoted claims that he was only appointed because he was gay. For the conservative right, he's an easy target.

 

[Tuur]

I'd argue that Buttigieg is a punching bag for the entire government that refused to regulate appropriate safety steps because of industry kick backs. BOTH parties did it; don't worry, I'm blaming EVERYONE in this one.

That's an interesting assumption. Unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20. Finger pointing is standard politically, but the big question is what can be done to prevent it from happening again.

 

[Pommer]

That's an interesting assumption. Unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20. Finger pointing is standard politically, but the big question is what can be done to prevent it from happening again.

Maybe hold hearings, (laptops aside), about who gets to “decide” if this-or-that chemical should be only on trains with the New Improved Technology that probably will work (but not maybe!). Why isn’t vinyl chloride listed as a more dangerous chemical than it apparently currently is?

Of course this is optimistic, that laptop ain’t going nowhere.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'd argue that Buttigieg is a punching bag for the entire government that refused to regulate appropriate safety steps because of industry kick backs. BOTH parties did it; don't worry, I'm blaming EVERYONE in this one.

I think the punching bag idiom still implies that the "punching" is somehow unwarranted or the result of nothing he could control.

How long does a person have to be in a position of authority before the onus starts to be on them to do something rather than blaming past administration's lack of oversight?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I think the punching bag idiom still implies that the "punching" is somehow unwarranted or the result of nothing he could control.

How long does a person have to be in a position of authority before the onus starts to be on them to do something rather than blaming past administration's lack of oversight?

Such as what, Rob? What should Pete have done?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'd be interested to know exactly what duties it is that Pete has supposedly neglected. I'm happy to levy criticism where it's due, but train derailments are fairly common - even if they don't typically result in massive fires - and I don't recall Elaine Chao ever catching flak for any that happened on her watch, including one in Dupont, Washington in late 2017 despite the fact that 1.) it killed three people, 2.) it was an Amtrak train (i.e. partially under federal control), and 3.) it was on a new route that was being rolled out where procedures should have been locked down even more than usual.

The reality is that right-wingers have had it out for Pete because he's gay. He caught all kinds of grief from the allegedly pro-life, pro-adoption crowd for going on paternity leave at the beginning of his term after adopting a baby. CF staff has promoted claims that he was only appointed because he was gay. For the conservative right, he's an easy target.

That's why I included the take from the Young Turks as well since they're very clearly not on the conservative right (in fact, they outflank most democrats on the left)

As far as the duties he neglected? I would say the duties of the transportation secretary.

As enumerated:

• Highway administration: Via the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the USDOT builds and maintains national highways, funds state highways, and sets safety standards for infrastructure projects.
• Passenger vehicle safety and standards: Via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the department sets safety standards, emissions standards, and public safety codes.
• Commercial vehicle safety and standards: The department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) functions much like the NHTSA, only for commercial vehicles.
• Aviation safety and standards: Within the USDOT, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sets rules, regulations, and safety standards related to the nation's air travel.
• Railroad administration: The DOT operates the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to regulate standards and safety among the nation's railways.
• Maritime administration: The Department of Transportation governs maritime transportation through two agencies, the Maritime Administration office (MARAD) and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), which concerns itself with the Great Lakes, their connecting rivers, and the St. Lawrence River that empties into the Atlantic Ocean.
• Protecting public health: Through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the department seeks to prevent the release of harmful pollutants through oil pipelines and similar infrastructure.
• Granting funds to states: In addition to financing and building federal transportation projects, the USDOT funds state transportation initiatives via the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The two I have highlighted in particular.

Even your statement of "train derailments are fairly common" is indicative of a problem. That would mean that a lot of picks for that position are either A) taking the money from entities to squash regulatory efforts, B) not competent for the position for which they were appointed, or C) a little bit of both.


With regards to the "gay" aspect, I don't think that's why many people raised some concerns about his appointment to that position. Otherwise, they would've been upset with Trump for appointing the first openly gay person to a cabinet position (Richard Grenell). With regards to the assertion that "he was only appointed because he's gay", I think there is good reason why people make that assumption. The combination of his lack of credentials in that particular sector, and Biden's own rhetoric involving how he was planning on making his appointing decisions.

And that sentiment, in no small part, was amplified and touted by media outlets as a good thing. NY Times propped it up as "Biden's campaign pledge to have a diverse cabinet of firsts was a promise kept", NBC ran the headline: 'Cabinet of firsts': Joe Biden touts Pete Buttigieg's historic nomination.

One doesn't need to be a hard right-winger or be consuming right-wing media in order to reach the conclusion that "Biden's picks were about checking certain boxes more than they were about expertise"

Concerns surrounding that type of selection process doesn't automatically mean "hate". For example, I don't hate people who have red hair, but if someone was picking a committee, and specifically said "we need a redhead so I'm going to make sure I pick at least one", I would certainly object to their methodology.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's why I included the take from the Young Turks as well since they're very clearly not on the conservative right (in fact, they outflank most democrats on the left)

As far as the duties he neglected? I would say the duties of the transportation secretary.

As enumerated:

• Highway administration: Via the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the USDOT builds and maintains national highways, funds state highways, and sets safety standards for infrastructure projects.
• Passenger vehicle safety and standards: Via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the department sets safety standards, emissions standards, and public safety codes.
• Commercial vehicle safety and standards: The department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) functions much like the NHTSA, only for commercial vehicles.
• Aviation safety and standards: Within the USDOT, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sets rules, regulations, and safety standards related to the nation's air travel.
• Railroad administration: The DOT operates the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to regulate standards and safety among the nation's railways.
• Maritime administration: The Department of Transportation governs maritime transportation through two agencies, the Maritime Administration office (MARAD) and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), which concerns itself with the Great Lakes, their connecting rivers, and the St. Lawrence River that empties into the Atlantic Ocean.
• Protecting public health: Through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the department seeks to prevent the release of harmful pollutants through oil pipelines and similar infrastructure.
• Granting funds to states: In addition to financing and building federal transportation projects, the USDOT funds state transportation initiatives via the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The two I have highlighted in particular.

Even your statement of "train derailments are fairly common" is indicative of a problem. That would mean that a lot of picks for that position are either A) taking the money from entities to squash regulatory efforts, B) not competent for the position for which they were appointed, or C) a little bit of both.

I’m familiar with the scope of the department. What I asked was what duties he’s neglected. Even if rail safety had been his #1 priority and there had been zero industry pushback on any of his proposals, the process of creating and implementing new rules for something like railroads takes years. Just writing and publishing the rules takes a couple years, then you have to actually give the railroads time to install whatever systems it is you’ve required. Two years isn’t long enough.

But to put things in some more real world context: the law requiring Positive Train Control systems was signed in 2008 and the final regulations were published in 2010, with an installation deadline in 2015. Installation was actually completed late 2020/early 2021.

With regards to the "gay" aspect, I don't think that's why many people raised some concerns about his appointment to that position. Otherwise, they would've been upset with Trump for appointing the first openly gay person to a cabinet position (Richard Grenell).

That assumes that conservative griping is made in good faith and not hypocritical.

 

[rambot]

I think the punching bag idiom still implies that the "punching" is somehow unwarranted or the result of nothing he could control.

How long does a person have to be in a position of authority before the onus starts to be on them to do something rather than blaming past administration's lack of oversight?

I'd argue:
1) Buttigieg bears little responsibility for it OCCURRING.

2) I do think he should be putting more pressure on NS to get the mess cleaned up...fines and such or whatever may be possible.

Honestly though, why get angry at the GOVERNMENT for not cleaning up the mess of a PRIVATE CORPORATION? Shouldn't they be cleaning it up?

 

[rambot]

That's why I included the take from the Young Turks as well since they're very clearly not on the conservative right (in fact, they outflank most democrats on the left)

As far as the duties he neglected? I would say the duties of the transportation secretary.

As enumerated:

• Highway administration: Via the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the USDOT builds and maintains national highways, funds state highways, and sets safety standards for infrastructure projects.
• Passenger vehicle safety and standards: Via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the department sets safety standards, emissions standards, and public safety codes.
• Commercial vehicle safety and standards: The department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) functions much like the NHTSA, only for commercial vehicles.
• Aviation safety and standards: Within the USDOT, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sets rules, regulations, and safety standards related to the nation's air travel.
• Railroad administration: The DOT operates the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to regulate standards and safety among the nation's railways.
• Maritime administration: The Department of Transportation governs maritime transportation through two agencies, the Maritime Administration office (MARAD) and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), which concerns itself with the Great Lakes, their connecting rivers, and the St. Lawrence River that empties into the Atlantic Ocean.
• Protecting public health: Through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the department seeks to prevent the release of harmful pollutants through oil pipelines and similar infrastructure.
• Granting funds to states: In addition to financing and building federal transportation projects, the USDOT funds state transportation initiatives via the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The two I have highlighted in particular.

Even your statement of "train derailments are fairly common" is indicative of a problem. That would mean that a lot of picks for that position are either A) taking the money from entities to squash regulatory efforts, B) not competent for the position for which they were appointed, or C) a little bit of both.


With regards to the "gay" aspect, I don't think that's why many people raised some concerns about his appointment to that position. Otherwise, they would've been upset with Trump for appointing the first openly gay person to a cabinet position (Richard Grenell). With regards to the assertion that "he was only appointed because he's gay", I think there is good reason why people make that assumption. The combination of his lack of credentials in that particular sector, and Biden's own rhetoric involving how he was planning on making his appointing decisions.

And that sentiment, in no small part, was amplified and touted by media outlets as a good thing. NY Times propped it up as "Biden's campaign pledge to have a diverse cabinet of firsts was a promise kept", NBC ran the headline: 'Cabinet of firsts': Joe Biden touts Pete Buttigieg's historic nomination.

One doesn't need to be a hard right-winger or be consuming right-wing media in order to reach the conclusion that "Biden's picks were about checking certain boxes more than they were about expertise"

Concerns surrounding that type of selection process doesn't automatically mean "hate". For example, I don't hate people who have red hair, but if someone was picking a committee, and specifically said "we need a redhead so I'm going to make sure I pick at least one", I would certainly object to their methodology.

To be clear: It seems that most of his work is regulatory and PREVENTATIVE, as opposed to responding to emergencies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That assumes that conservative griping is made in good faith and not hypocritical.

In this context.

The gripe of "he was only appointed because he was gay" isn't necessarily hypocritical.

A person, who happens to be gay, getting appointed for a job their qualified for
vs.
A person getting appointed, because rhetoric leading up to the appointment sounded a lot like "we need to make sure we have a gay guy"

...are going to draw very different reactions.

I’m familiar with the scope of the department. What I asked was what duties he’s neglected. Even if rail safety had been his #1 priority and there had been zero industry pushback on any of his proposals, the process of creating and implementing new rules for something like railroads takes years. Just writing and publishing the rules takes a couple years, then you have to actually give the railroads time to install whatever systems it is you’ve required. Two years isn’t long enough.

But to put things in some more real world context: the law requiring Positive Train Control systems was signed in 2008 and the final regulations were published in 2010, with an installation deadline in 2015. Installation was actually completed late 2020/early 2021.

Not all regulations would require years to implement, and not all of them would even require physical modification of the trains themselves or installation of new equipment.

Industry workers have been saying for years that there needs to be a lower limit on how many train cars (and total weight) that can be on a train, and certain staffing requirements that should be met that need to be scalable based on the train's length.

The train that derailed in Ohio was nearly 10,000 feet long (with 150 train cars) and weighing almost 18,000 tons. Per Pete's own statements, there are thousands of derailments per year

As just a point of comparison to Europe.
For operational purposes, the total allowed length of a freight train in Europe is 700 meters (~2,300 feet) and the maximum length of a train including its locomotive and lengthening can be 750 meters (~2,460 feet).

In the US environment, the train crew generally cannot directly observe more that the first 40 cars, which is about the average length of European freight trains. Beyond that distance, the train crew relies on wayside equipment detectors, telemetry from end-of-train devices and distributed power locomotives, in-cab brake pipe pressure gauges, and train handling characteristics (such as sudden changes in train speed, higher throttle settings needed to maintain speed, changes in ride quality, etc.) to monitor train integrity.

Now, obviously the rail systems have some slight differences between the US in Europe, and part of their very strict limits are based on the fact that their rail system was largely built around the concepts of passenger trains instead of cargo trains, so our could safely handle a little more.


However, something as simple as a reasonable upper limit on how many train cars can be in a single train would make them easier to monitor for a limited crew, and put less stress on the braking systems and cause fewer incidents like this one, and wouldn't involve having to install anything on the trains.


And the railway workers and the crew involved in this train seem to agree (and have been asking for something like this for some time now)

Excess size caused train to break down in days before it derailed in Ohio, employees say

The train experienced mechanical issues earlier on its route, according to employees familiar with the matter.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To be clear: It seems that most of his work is regulatory and PREVENTATIVE, as opposed to responding to emergencies.

One could argue that putting limits on overall train length and maximum numbers of cars (like railway workers have been asking for, even before this happened) would be a simple regulation he could've done sometime in the past 2 years. Especially if derailments are as common as he acknowledged they were.

But even if we want to look at it as preventative, moving forward... Do you think he'll impose a regulation saying that trains can't exceed 90 cars? Or will he just continue to "urge them" to self regulate? (which was the general tone of his statements thus far)

This has been a major gripe for some time now. In an article from a few years years ago titled
"The Trains Are Getting Longer and the Job Is Getting Worse"

"Falling employee headcount has encouraged long trains, because it takes just two workers to run a train, whatever its length. Between 2008 and 2017, the average train length grew by 25 percent

When something goes wrong, conductors need to walk for miles to inspect, and the more cars there are, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. “The rail bosses figured that they could just make the trains longer with their PSR scheme and furlough workers"

Possible that some political donations (almost equally to both sides including some money to Pete himself) could be why there's been more lipservice than action over the past 2 years?

Norfolk Southern Profile: Recipients

Norfolk Southern organization profile: candidate recipients for the 2020 cycle and top recipients of all types for the 2020 cycle.

www.opensecrets.org

Union Pacific Corp Profile: Recipients

Union Pacific Corp organization profile: candidate recipients for the 2022 cycle and top recipients of all types for the 2020 cycle.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[Landon Caeli]

One could argue that putting limits on overall train length and maximum numbers of cars (like railway workers have been asking for, even before this happened) would be a simple regulation he could've done sometime in the past 2 years. Especially if derailments are as common as he acknowledged they were.

But even if we want to look at it as preventative, moving forward... Do you think he'll impose a regulation saying that trains can't exceed 90 cars? Or will he just continue to "urge them" to self regulate? (which was the general tone of his statements thus far)

This has been a major gripe for some time now. In an article from a few years years ago titled
"The Trains Are Getting Longer and the Job Is Getting Worse"

"Falling employee headcount has encouraged long trains, because it takes just two workers to run a train, whatever its length. Between 2008 and 2017, the average train length grew by 25 percent

When something goes wrong, conductors need to walk for miles to inspect, and the more cars there are, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. “The rail bosses figured that they could just make the trains longer with their PSR scheme and furlough workers"

Possible that some political donations (almost equally to both sides including some money to Pete himself) could be why there's been more lipservice than action over the past 2 years?

Norfolk Southern Profile: Recipients

Norfolk Southern organization profile: candidate recipients for the 2020 cycle and top recipients of all types for the 2020 cycle.

www.opensecrets.org

Union Pacific Corp Profile: Recipients

Union Pacific Corp organization profile: candidate recipients for the 2022 cycle and top recipients of all types for the 2020 cycle.

www.opensecrets.org

Just because a few people argue that trains exceeding 90 cars are unsafe, doesn't mean it's actually true.

I would need someone to explain how a broken axle on a 60-car train is less likely to derail than on a 160-car train... Clearly we are talking hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, pushing the cars off-track in either case.

 

[rambot]

One could argue that putting limits on overall train length and maximum numbers of cars (like railway workers have been asking for, even before this happened) would be a simple regulation he could've done sometime in the past 2 years. Especially if derailments are as common as he acknowledged they were.

Sure. I wonder if train transportation companies would be infavour of that or if, I don't know, they have actively lobbied against such things for decades to make more money.

But even if we want to look at it as preventative, moving forward... Do you think he'll impose a regulation saying that trains can't exceed 90 cars? Or will he just continue to "urge them" to self regulate? (which was the general tone of his statements thus far)

I don't know. I hope he does something. Honestly, I would have thought that all regulations would need to go through Congress....is that not the case?

 

[iluvatar5150]

In this context.

The gripe of "he was only appointed because he was gay" isn't necessarily hypocritical.

A person, who happens to be gay, getting appointed for a job their qualified for
vs.
A person getting appointed, because rhetoric leading up to the appointment sounded a lot like "we need to make sure we have a gay guy"

Did it sound like that? I wouldn't be surprised if it had, but I don't recall it in his case (though I do recall something of the sort for the VP spot).

Either way, there's no shortage of LGBTQ people on the left, so picking him "because he was gay" seems rather odd. More likely, he was chosen for political reasons. He: was one of the more successful challengers to Biden's presidential nomination; has a fair (albeit not staggering) amount of administrative experience; is well-educated and well-spoken and can appeal to the educated-upper-middle-class; and is still kind of dorky and able to appeal to the midwestern white bread set. He's one of the sharper politicians I've witnessed, able to trade barbs without coming off as nasty or antagonistic. I'm not surprised at all that he was invited into Team Biden for a job that's typically of sufficiently low-profile to not allow him to overshadow Biden, while still being high enough profile that he can build his national cred to launch another run in the future, and helping the administration by interacting with a wide array of constituencies among whom he typically fares well despite their not being overly sympathetic to the left.

...are going to draw very different reactions.

Not all regulations would require years to implement,

AFAIK, most any agency rule takes a couple years to actually come into effect. It's a long process.

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/Regmap/regmap.pdf

I looked at the rule that the Federal Register uses as an example and it appears to have taken about 3 years to go into effect:

Federal Register :: Request Access

Federal Register :: Request Access

View Rule

 

[ThatRobGuy]

AFAIK, most any agency rule takes a couple years to actually come into effect. It's a long process.
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/Regmap/regmap.pdf
I looked at the rule that the Federal Register uses as an example and it appears to have taken about 3 years to go into effect:
Federal Register :: Request Access Federal Register :: Request Access View Rule

But would the rule I mentioned above involve the same level of red tape? The examples you provided about veteran's affairs, and is, in essence, major procedural changes that involve the government internally reallocating resources and funding for a service they're providing, not rules for the private sector to follow.

While the example you provided was 3 years...there are others that have gone much quicker. The ACA (and subsequent health insurance mandates associated with it were first proposed in July 2009. and were law by March of 2010. (and one could argue that was a much more complicated process than capping the number of train cars)

When a regulatory body or government imposes a rule on private sector businesses, the procedural time is much quicker.

I would point to any number of states that have recently raised their legal tobacco age from 18 to 21. For my own state of Ohio, the rule was issued in July 2019, and vendors had until Oct 1st to start complying.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But would the rule I mentioned above involve the same level of red tape? The examples you provided about veteran's affairs, and is, in essence, major procedural changes that involve the government internally reallocating resources and funding for a service they're providing, not rules for the private sector to follow.

While the example you provided was 3 years...there are others that have gone much quicker. The ACA (and subsequent health insurance mandates associated with it were first proposed in July 2009. and were law by March of 2010. (and one could argue that was a much more complicated process than capping the number of train cars)

When a regulatory body or government imposes a rule on private sector businesses, the procedural time is much quicker.

I would point to any number of states that have recently raised their legal tobacco age from 18 to 21. For my own state of Ohio, the rule was issued in July 2019, and vendors had until Oct 1st to start complying.

Laws != Rules. Laws can be idiotic and take effect immediately, but regs require input from interested parties, time for public comments, and AFAIK, some non-capricious basis for imposing them. A lot of Trump administration rules got shot down in court because they took shortcuts when rolling them out.

Regarding a rule capping the length of trains, I would expect the industry to fight that tooth and nail because it would require more staffing and cut again the very profit maximizing measures they’ve been taking for the last several years.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sure. I wonder if train transportation companies would be infavour of that or if, I don't know, they have actively lobbied against such things for decades to make more money.

That's exactly the problem... The whole reason for oversight agencies (that are created in the interest of public safety) were to try to mitigate the fact that elected legislators A) aren't necessarily well educated on certain subjects and B) are susceptible to lobbying efforts.

I don't know. I hope he does something. Honestly, I would have thought that all regulations would need to go through Congress....is that not the case?

I wouldn't think so given that it'd be oversight over what private companies do and not relating to some sort of government actor's conduct.
(except for an intentionally vague interpretation of the interstate commerce clause)

Much like the CDC didn't need congressional approval to issue certain rules pertaining to the covid, and the EPA doesn't need congressional approval to forbid a company from dumping battery acid in a town's water supply.

Federal Register :: Request Access

My reading of this would be that for things that could have a "significant economic impact", congress has to be notified, and be given 60 days to review, from there, the house and senate would both have to pass a "resolution of disapproval" in order to squash it (which has only happened once since 1996)

At the very least, he could issue the rule, and if both congress and the senate "disapprove", then the burden would be on them to provide reasons to their constituents for why they shot it down (thus making them the bad guys instead of him)


However, I suspect he'll hesitate to issue such a rule/proposal...because he's someone with further political aspirations (which makes for a lousy agency-head), and the rail lobby has already proven itself to be a reliable donor to both democrats and republicans. Meaning, anyone with any hopes of holding higher elected offices in the future will likely walk on eggshells around them as to not ruffle any feathers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Regarding a rule capping the length of trains, I would expect the industry to fight that tooth and nail because it would require more staffing and cut again the very profit maximizing measures they’ve been taking for the last several years.

Right, but isn't it Pete's job to at least try to make that happen?

As I outlined in my previous post, my reading of the rule making process was:
Things that could have a "significant economic impact", congress has to be notified, and be given 60 days to review, from there, the house and senate would both have to pass a "resolution of disapproval" in order to squash it (which has only happened once since 1996)

Which I said, would at least put the onus on the legislative branch to explain why they don't think the rule should be in place.

Now, it's possible I'm misinterpreting the meaning in the doc...in which case, I'll humbly stand corrected.

But it seems like, at the very least, he could do something more than "urge them to self-regulate" and if he makes a policy, and congress shoots it down, then they're the bad guy and not him...either way, he's out of the woods and the true culprits are exposed.

But like I also said, I don't think he will, I see him as a guy who has future political aspirations, and the rail lobby is a reliable donor for both parties and not one that an aspiring candidate can afford to make an enemy of