The invention of a machine that removes pumpkin seeds from the shell and sorts them is being celebrated in Cameroon as traders hope to boost production of the commodity in the Central African Country. Mariama Diallo reports.
…

Federal investigators are still looking at how CSX railway crews routed an Amtrak train into a parked freight train in Cayce, South Carolina, last weekend. But even if CSX should bear sole responsibility for the accident, Amtrak will likely end up paying crash victims’ legal claims with public money.

Amtrak pays for accidents it didn’t cause because of secretive agreements negotiated between the passenger rail company, which receives more than $1 billion annually in federal subsidies, and the private railroads, which own 97 percent of the tracks on which Amtrak travels.

Both Amtrak and freight railroads that own the tracks fight to keep those contracts secret in legal proceedings. But whatever the precise legal language, plaintiffs’ lawyers and former Amtrak officials say Amtrak generally bears the full cost of damages to its trains, passengers, employees and other crash victims — even in instances where crashes occurred as the result of a freight rail company’s negligence or misconduct.

​No ‘iron in the fire’

Railroad industry advocates say that freight railways have ample incentive to keep their tracks safe for their employees, customers and investors. But the Surface Transportation Board and even some federal courts have long concluded that allowing railroads to escape liability for gross negligence is bad public policy.

“The freight railroads don’t have an iron in the fire when it comes to making the safety improvements necessary to protect members of the public,” said Bob Pottroff, a Manhattan, Kansas, rail injury attorney who has sued CSX on behalf of an injured passenger from the Cayce crash. “They’re not paying the damages.”

Beyond CSX’s specific activities in the hours before the accident, the company’s safety record has deteriorated in recent years, according to a standard metric provided by the Federal Railroad Administration. Since 2013, CSX’s rate of major accidents per million miles traveled has jumped by more than half, from 2 to 3.08 — significantly worse than the industry average. And rail passenger advocates raised concerns after the CSX CEO at the time pushed hard last year to route freight more directly by altering its routes.

CSX denied that safety had slipped at the company, blaming the change in the major accident index on a reduction of total miles traveled combined with changes in its cargo and train length.

“Our goal remains zero accidents,” CSX spokesman Bryan Tucker wrote in a statement provided to The Associated Press. CSX’s new system of train routing “will create a safer, more efficient railroad resulting in a better service product for our customers,” he wrote.

Amtrak’s ability to offer national rail service is governed by separately negotiated track usage agreements with 30 different railroads. All the deals share a common trait: They’re “no fault,” according to a September 2017 presentation delivered by Amtrak executive Jim Blair as part of a Federal Highway Administration seminar.

No fault means Amtrak takes full responsibility for its property and passengers and the injuries of anyone hit by a train. The “host railroad” that operates the tracks must only be responsible for its property and employees. Blair called the decades-long arrangement “a good way for Amtrak and the host partners to work together to get things resolved quickly and not fight over issues of responsibility.”

Amtrak declined to comment on Blair’s presentation. But Amtrak’s history of not pursuing liability claims against freight railroads doesn’t fit well with federal officials and courts’ past declarations that the railroads should be held accountable for gross negligence and willful misconduct.

​Maryland crash, backlash

After a 1987 crash in Chase, Maryland, in which a Conrail train crew smoked marijuana then drove a train with disabled safety features past multiple stop signals and into an Amtrak train — killing 16 — a federal judge ruled that forcing Amtrak to take financial responsibility for “reckless, wanton, willful, or grossly negligent acts by Conrail” was contrary to good public policy.

Conrail paid. But instead of taking on more responsibility going forward, railroads went in the opposite direction, recalls a former Amtrak board member who spoke to the AP. After Conrail was held responsible in the Chase crash, he said, Amtrak got “a lot of threats from the other railroads.”

The former board member requested anonymity because he said that Amtrak’s internal legal discussions were supposed to remain confidential and he did not wish to harm his own business relationships by airing a contentious issue.

Because Amtrak operates on the freight railroads’ tracks and relies on the railroads’ dispatchers to get passenger trains to their destinations on time, Amtrak executives concluded they couldn’t afford to pick a fight, the former Amtrak board member said.

“The law says that Amtrak is guaranteed access” to freights’ tracks, he said. “But it’s up to the goodwill of the railroad as to whether they’ll put you ahead or behind a long freight train.”

A 2004 New York Times series on train crossing safety drew attention to avoidable accidents at railroad crossings and involving passenger trains — and to railroads’ ability to shirk financial responsibility for passenger accidents. In the wake of the reporting, the Surface Transportation Board ruled that railroads “cannot be indemnified for its own gross negligence, recklessness, willful or wanton misconduct,” according to a 2010 letter by then-Surface Transportation Board chairman Dan Elliott to members of Congress.

That ruling gives Amtrak grounds to pursue gross negligence claims against freight railroads — if it wanted to.

“If Amtrak felt that if they didn’t want to pay, they’d have to litigate it,” said Elliott, now an attorney at Conner & Winters.

Same lawyers

The AP was unable to find an instance where the railroad has brought such a claim against a freight railroad since the 1987 Chase, Maryland, disaster. The AP also asked Amtrak, CSX and the Association of American Railroads to identify any example within the last decade of a railroad contributing to a settlement or judgment in a passenger rail accident that occurred on its track. All entities declined to provide such an example.

Even in court cases where establishing gross negligence by a freight railroad is possible, said Potrroff, the plaintiff’s attorney, he has never seen any indication that the railroad and Amtrak are at odds.

“You’ll frequently see Amtrak hire the same lawyers the freight railroads use,” he said.

Ron Goldman, a California plaintiff attorney who has also represented passenger rail accident victims, agreed. While Goldman’s sole duty is to get the best possible settlement for his client, he said he’d long been curious about whether it was Amtrak or freight railroads which ended up paying for settlements and judgments.

“The question of how they share that liability is cloaked in secrecy,” he said, adding: “The money is coming from Amtrak when our clients get the check.”

Pottroff said he has long wanted Amtrak to stand up to the freight railroads on liability matters. Not only would it make safety a bigger financial consideration for railroads, he said, it would simply be fair.

“Amtrak has a beautiful defense — the freight railroad is in control of all the infrastructure,” he said. But he’s not expecting Amtrak to use it during litigation over the Cayce crash.

“Amtrak always pays,” he said.
…

Increasing demand for long-haul truckers in the United States is drawing more African immigrants onto America’s roads. VOA’s Arzouma Kompaoré hitched a ride with African truckers whose routes to success stretch across the United States.
…

There are growing fears that Britain could be headed for a so-called cliff-edge exit from the European Union, as big differences remain between Brussels and London over the shape of any deal. It comes as Japan warns its businesses may pull out of Britain if they face higher costs after Brexit. A leaked government analysis suggests that economic growth in Britain will decline by up to 8 percent after it leaves the bloc. Henry Ridgwell reports from London.
…

OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP said Saturday that it has cut its sales force in half and will stop promoting opioids to physicians, following widespread criticism of the ways that drugmakers market addictive painkillers.

The drugmaker said it will inform doctors Monday that its sales representatives will no longer be visiting physician offices to discuss its opioid products. It will now have about 200 sales representatives, Purdue said.

“We have restructured and significantly reduced our commercial operation and will no longer be promoting opioids to prescribers,” the Stamford, Connecticut-based company said in a statement.

New marketing push

Doctors with opioid-related questions will be directed to its medical affairs department. Its sales representatives will now focus on Symproic, a drug for treating opioid-induced constipation, and other potential non-opioid products, Purdue said.

Opioids were involved in more than 42,000 overdose deaths in 2016, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Amid the opioid epidemic, Purdue and other drugmakers have been fighting a wave of lawsuits by states, counties and cities that have accused them of pushing addictive painkillers through deceptive marketing.

The lawsuits have generally accused Purdue of significantly downplaying the risk of addiction posed by OxyContin and of engaging in misleading marketing that overstated the benefits of opioids for treating chronic, rather than short-term, pain.

Lawsuits in 14 states

At least 14 states have sued the privately held Purdue. Most recently, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed a lawsuit Tuesday accusing Purdue of deceptively marketing prescription opioids to generate billions of dollars in sales.

Purdue is also facing a federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Connecticut.

Purdue has denied the allegations in the various lawsuits.

It has said its drugs are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and account for only 2 percent of all opioid prescriptions.

Purdue and three executives previously pleaded guilty in 2007 to federal charges related to the misbranding of OxyContin and agreed to pay a total of $634.5 million to resolve a U.S. Justice Department probe.

That year, Purdue also reached a $19.5-million settlement with 26 states and the District of Columbia. It agreed in 2015 to pay $24 million to resolve a lawsuit by Kentucky.
…

It’s been a tough week on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial average closed more than 300 points higher Friday, after plunging more than 1,000 points the day before, the second steepest decline in history. The biggest dive happened Monday when the blue chip index fell more than 1,100 points. It’s enough to make even the most experienced investors swoon. But does this mean the end of the nine-year bull market? Is it time to worry? Mil Arcega spoke with economic analysts to get some answers.
…

Politicians and public figures suspected of buying property with corrupt money will be forced to explain their wealth, or face the seizure of their assets under new legislation that has come into force in Britain this month. As Henry Ridgwell reports from London, the so-called Unexplained Wealth Orders have been welcomed by activists, who say the British capital is at the center of a global web of corrupt and embezzled money.
…

Commissions that oversee coastal lands and water pushed the Trump administration to leave California out of plans to expand offshore drilling, saying the state will throw up any barriers possible to prevent pumping and transportation of oil.

The warning came weeks after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he wants to open nearly all U.S. coastlines to offshore oil and gas drilling.

Since then, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has proposed six sales of drilling rights off the California coast and a seventh off Oregon and Washington between 2020 and 2023.

“Given how unpopular oil development in coastal waters is in California, it is certain that the state would not approve new pipelines or allow use of existing pipelines to transport oil from new leases onshore,” the State Lands Commission wrote in a letter Wednesday to federal officials.

The commission controls up to 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) offshore, at which point federal jurisdiction kicks in. It has not allowed drilling in the state-controlled waters since a 1969 oil spill near Santa Barbara.

State and local governments could also block the construction of helipads and other infrastructure on land needed to support offshore operations.

Laws from the 1980s

In the 1980s, many coastal cities passed ordinances to block such infrastructure when President Ronald Reagan looked to expand offshore drilling. Many of those laws remain in place.

Drillers could find ways around state and local restrictions — such as pumping oil directly onto ships for transport — but the process is expensive and may not be profitable if oil prices remain relatively low.

A separate letter from the California Coastal Commission warned that an oil spill would devastate the state’s tourism economy and coastal beauty.

The letter pointed to the Santa Barbara spill, which caused severe environmental damage, hurt the fishing industry and dissuaded tourists from visiting.

The commission has authority to review activities in federally controlled waters. It can’t block drilling but could file a lawsuit contending the move doesn’t meet ocean management plans approved jointly by the state and federal governments in the 1970s.

​’We will fight them again’

“We’ve fought similar efforts before, and we will fight them again,” Coastal Commission Chair Dayna Bochco said.

The state agencies weighed in ahead of a public meeting Thursday in Sacramento, the only opportunity for people to register their opinions in person to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Fishermen, environmentalists, surfers and other critics demonstrated outside the state Capitol before marching to the meeting at a nearby library.

Several demonstrators chanted in opposition at the open-house style meeting, where bureau scientists talked one-on-one with visitors and collected written comments.

“Why do we want to let someone start drilling for more oil when we need to be putting money into resources for green economy and green fuel,” said Jim Wilson, a 71-year-old retired mail carrier from Placerville, outside Sacramento.

California Assembly opposed

Earlier in the day, the California Assembly voted overwhelmingly to oppose renewed drilling.

“We are California and we will fight back to protect our beautiful coast,” said Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi of Torrance.

Republicans Randy Voepel of Santee and Travis Allen of Huntington Beach said California can safely harvest oil and gas. Allen, a GOP candidate for governor, said that could help lower gasoline prices.

Most of California’s outer continental shelf — the area that would be opened to drilling — is in shallow water, where operations are not complicated, said Tim Charters, senior director of government and political affairs for the National Ocean Industries Association, a trade group for the offshore energy industry.

“It’s critical to keep the dollars at home, create the jobs locally instead of sending the money overseas and creating jobs in foreign places,” he said.

Zinke angered critics when he said drilling off Florida’s coast would remain off limits, prompting California Gov. Jerry Brown and others to request a similar exemption. Regulators later said no final decision had been made about Florida.

Oregon, New Jersey protests

On Tuesday, more than 100 demonstrators gathered outside Oregon’s state Capitol in Salem to denounce the proposal. A day later in New Jersey, more than a dozen groups held a rally in the driving rain on the Asbury Park boardwalk to demonstrate their opposition.

Twenty-three meetings are planned nationwide in coastal states. Comments can be submitted online through March 9.
…

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday pitched Canadian globalism and the country’s new fast-track visa as reasons why Silicon Valley companies should consider Canada as a place to do business and spend money.

Trudeau brought his charm offensive to the San Francisco Bay Area amid increasing unease over U.S. immigration policy and while talks continue over the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The heated debate over immigration since the election of President Donald Trump has provided a clear opening for Canada to promote itself to Silicon Valley.

As American employers worry about access to foreign workers, Canada is offering a two-week, fast-track employment permit for certain workers, dubbed the “global skills strategy visa.”

Government-sponsored billboards in Silicon Valley pitch: “H1-B Problems? Pivot to Canada.” Recruiters from cities in Canada attend Canadian university alumni events in the valley, urging graduates to come home “to your next career move in the Great White North.”

Trudeau demurred when asked whether Trump’s immigration efforts are making the sales pitch easier, pointing to the power of globalism.

“We know that bringing in great talent from around the world is an enormous benefit, not just to the companies that want to do that, but to Canadian jobs and to our country as a whole, so we’re going to continue to do that,” he said.

Recruiting successes

His stops Thursday were designed to showcase recruiting successes.

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff announced the online business software company will invest another $2 billion in its Canadian operations.

And San Francisco-based AppDirect, an online management platform whose co-CEO first met Trudeau in political science class at McGill University in Montreal, said it would add another 300 jobs in Canada in the next five years.

Trudeau is also meeting with Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos as Bezos considers the location for its second headquarters. Toronto, which has created a government-sponsored innovation hub for tech companies, was the only one of several Canadian cities that applied to make the shortlist.

The San Francisco Bay Area has become increasingly important to the Canadian government, said Rana Sarkar, the consul general of Canada in San Francisco. He said it fits with the “innovation strategy” the Trudeau government has promoted since its election in 2015.

“It’s the global epicenter for many of these revolutions. We need to be here both offensively to ensure that we’re telling our story. … And we’re also here defensively to ensure that we’re here at the table when the decisions about the next economy are made,” Sarkar said.

Trudeau’s stop in San Francisco also highlights the already strong ties between Canada and California, particularly in research, academia and technology.

NAFTA

While much of the attention on the North American Free Trade Agreement has focused on physical commodities such as vehicle manufacturing, dairy and timber, skilled workers have also become increasingly mobile between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Google built its latest DeepMind artificial intelligence facility at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, after several of its graduates came to work on the project.

The next round of talks over the 24-year-old trade pact in Mexico later this month loomed over Trudeau’s visit. Trump has called the agreement a job-killing “disaster” on the campaign trail and has threatened to withdraw from it if he can’t get what he wants.

The lengthy talks have increased the political pressure and the rhetoric in Canada, where the stakes are high.

Trudeau declined to talk about specifics Thursday, but said Canada wants an agreement that is “win-win-win” for all three countries.

“We’re going to continue to make an argument that it’s not enough to just trade, we have to ensure that the benefits of trade are properly and fairly shared,” he said.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands — no one can say for sure — of Canadians in the tech industry in Northern California, many of them on visas made possible through the trade pact.

Without NAFTA, “those [jobs] go away. That could cause immediate disruption for the tech community” on both sides of the border, said Daniel Ujczo, an international trade lawyer based in Columbus, Ohio, who has been part of the talks, now in their sixth round.

“It’s unfortunately not an area that is up for discussion. Canada and Mexico keep raising worker mobility issues, but the U.S. won’t discuss it,” he said.

Trudeau will meet with Gov. Jerry Brown and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, both Democrats, on Friday before he travels to Southern California to deliver a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

The location is a symbolic choice, referring to the longstanding trade relationship between the U.S. and Canada. In 1988, Reagan and then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney signed the first free trade agreement — a precursor to NAFTA.
…