"The railroad industry provides efficient, safe and environmentally beneficial transportation services," said AAR Senior Vice President Safety and Operations, Robert VanderClute. "By proposing substantial expenditures beyond what Congress is requiring, the proposed regulations would undermine the ability of the railroads to continue to provide the public benefits of rail."
In his testimony, VanderClute noted several elements of the FRA proposed rule that pose significant technical, operational and financial challenges to the industry. Specifically, AAR objected to FRA's proposal to:
• base PTC implementation on 2008 traffic patterns;
• require dual displays in locomotives, and
• allow Class II and Class III railroads to operate locomotives unequipped with PTC technology over PTC equipped tracks.
"It does not make any sense that Congress would mandate PTC for TIH routes that existed in 2008, knowing that those routes would be subject to change in the years to come," VanderClute said. He also noted that FRA is aware these routes would change after 2008 due to implementation of other federal rules requiring risk assessment of the routes used for TIH.
"Given FRA's cost-benefit analysis, and the adverse consequences of extending the mandate beyond what Congress required, FRA should use Dec. 31, 2015 as the date governing the extent of the railroads' mandatory PTC obligation," he said.
AAR also said FRA's proposed requirement for dual-displays in the locomotive could cost the industry as much as $200 million for equipment that would serve no additional safety purpose.
"Simply put, the engineer operates the locomotive, and the presence or absence of a second display will have no effect on how the engineer carries out his or her responsibilities," VanderClute said. "All a second display would accomplish is to require the industry to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a screen serving no useful purpose."
Finally, AAR questioned FRA's logic surrounding its proposal to allow Class II and Class III railroads to use locomotives not equipped with PTC technology on PTC-equipped routes. FRA was basing this proposed part of the rule on the assertion that the financial burden on Class II and III railroads outweighs the safety benefits.
"Surely Congress did not require Class I railroads to spend billions of dollars on PTC systems only to allow Class II and III railroads to operate trains without the technology on our tracks equipped with PTC," VanderClute said.