 |
Re: You're missing the point
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 07-07-2013 - 09:49
>There's only two parties involved in developing the performance metrics: Amtrak and the FRA.
It comes down to this: I say eight parties, the Court and you say two. I don't for one minute think Congress's intent was what the Court and you say. It's merely a case of poor phraseology, had 207 said "The FRA in consultation with Amtrak, etc." it would probably have been a non-issue.
Keep in mind that the freight RRs, particularly the UP, want Amtrak gone.
>Merely consulting with other persons or entities does not make them parties in a legal proceeding, nor does it make them involved in developing the metrics.
It most certainly does, and the Court's decision speaks to this point.
>Your interpretation of who's a party and thus eligible for arbitration makes no sense from a practical standpoint either.
"Any party involved" = the FRA, Amtrak, and the rest on that list of 6. Another thing the Court didn't like was that there was no specification that the arbitrator had to be a Government one.
>On the list of persons and entities Amtrak and the FRA must consult with is "Amtrak Employees". Do you really think they wrote this to enable all of Amtrak's 20,000 employees to individually petition the STB to appoint an arbitrator to settle differences in opinion? Of course not.
Anyone (i.e. an individual) can sign up as a "registered commenter" in the RSAC process used for developing CFR regs, but he/she has to demonstrate that he/she is legitimately one of the included classes of parties (I've done this myself, and I know commenters whose pronouncements have wound up being included in the regs subsequently promulgated). The same process applies to regs for other things like FTA, FHA, FAA, etc. This is no different.
It comes down to this: I say eight parties, the Court and you say two. I don't for one minute think Congress's intent was what the Court and you say. It's merely a case of poor phraseology, had 207 said "The FRA in consultation with Amtrak, etc." it would probably have been a non-issue.
Keep in mind that the freight RRs, particularly the UP, want Amtrak gone.
>Merely consulting with other persons or entities does not make them parties in a legal proceeding, nor does it make them involved in developing the metrics.
It most certainly does, and the Court's decision speaks to this point.
>Your interpretation of who's a party and thus eligible for arbitration makes no sense from a practical standpoint either.
"Any party involved" = the FRA, Amtrak, and the rest on that list of 6. Another thing the Court didn't like was that there was no specification that the arbitrator had to be a Government one.
>On the list of persons and entities Amtrak and the FRA must consult with is "Amtrak Employees". Do you really think they wrote this to enable all of Amtrak's 20,000 employees to individually petition the STB to appoint an arbitrator to settle differences in opinion? Of course not.
Anyone (i.e. an individual) can sign up as a "registered commenter" in the RSAC process used for developing CFR regs, but he/she has to demonstrate that he/she is legitimately one of the included classes of parties (I've done this myself, and I know commenters whose pronouncements have wound up being included in the regs subsequently promulgated). The same process applies to regs for other things like FTA, FHA, FAA, etc. This is no different.
