similar law that's exactly what we have here if you if you take that theory me say ok well it says many of those two but probably two and a half would have been better and so let's make the minimum two and a half what you're doing is you're changing the federal regulation you wouldn't dream of finding right regulation it was drafted bringing to a screeching halt all railroad industry in this country and rosa come from canada and mexico because now everybody would have to comply with that two point five minimum standard the regulations has to pinch said does this comply with the first very process and says yes it does and significantly mr hooper then took no further action so your meeting mr cooper understood at that moment after the accident immediately after the do not inspect the car he did not take any measurements of the car what he did was he relied on mr hooper's testimony that he thinks he remembers it was less than two inches he looked at some photographs that were not drawn to scale and minimum should be two and a half inches and again he's going to end up doing is is changing the entire railroad industry throughout this country and throughout canada and mexico because nobody's going to be able to go through illinois without complying with mr one who took the report he filled out all the all the information in there and the one thing that just doesn't he doesn't recall is the measurement of two point five that the dog is something less than that but i think it's important to know that the two things that mr hooper was clear whether that means it was one in seven eighth's or two and a half inches that's still not a lot of space so i don't know that if that was enough room for patrol clearance so mr hoover just knows that this one had some less facing than the other within stand true is in regulation so he said those are the same thing i am your honor and i believe the report itself says within f r s in standards i don't believe we're in front of me but i'm pretty sure that's what it says when well he said he testifies that he doesn't recall saying that measurement in there and other people could have changed that he saw other means involved in that report so i don't big we can say with certainty that he says that he completely off their side everything it is true he testified that he could not recall if that's what you typed in or not or if you typed something else in there or not he says it a few different tightening aspects of it he's the one who put put those inputs in it was just this measurement that four years later with nothing to refresh his memory other than this report he said well i thought it might be less than that but i'm looking at this report i can't see if that's what i put or not but i guess what i'm wearing asking is where is it in this testimony that they say that design parameters are the same goes back as far as nine hundred seventeen with elan or the u s supreme court piece of illinois central rhesus williams that the railroad safety appliance act is designed to have standard signs in uniformity in character with letters and conductor was going too fast for conditions and common on it which in some cases and the united states supreme court stated that the the negligence queen was preempted by the federal regulations under  the for the say once again we be the evidence here has been that this particular lamb met the minimum federal standards under the regulations furthermore plain agree that in the response brief to our motion for summary judgment that when we all went out to measure who's trying it met two issues at every measurement throughout the latter's there are two different letters attached if you can picture the train car we actually measured the rest of the stories are says he didn't ask that section that they want to rely upon in your opinion here today is that you call it being blessed yes