U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–647 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–499 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION: 

EXAMINING THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS 

OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 3, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN E. WALSH, Montana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT 

MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, 

Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN E. WALSH, Montana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Ranking Member 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 3, 2014 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Blunt .................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 39 

Statement of Senator Fischer ................................................................................. 44 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 47 

Statement of Senator Rubio .................................................................................... 51 

WITNESSES

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation ............................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ........................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Hon. Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, 

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV to: 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro ........................................................................................... 65 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to: 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo ....................................................................................... 65 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro ........................................................................................... 71 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman .......................................................................... 71 

Hon. Gregory D. Winfree ................................................................................. 74 

Response to written question submitted by Hon. John Thune to: 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo ....................................................................................... 76 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro ........................................................................................... 76 

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to: 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro ........................................................................................... 79 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman by: 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 80 

Hon. Roy Blunt ................................................................................................. 80 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Thune to: 

Hon. Gregory D. Winfree ................................................................................. 81 

(1) 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

REAUTHORIZATION: EXAMINING THE 

SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF 

OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND

MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Blumenthal, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Good morning. Welcome, everyone. We 

were—we’re just waiting for Senator Blunt, and I’m going to begin 

with an opening statement, and, when he gets here, he can make 

his. And I welcome Senator Klobuchar, and thank her for her leadership on these issues. 

We are here at a moment of tremendous promise and peril for 

our Nation’s transportation system. Literally, the funding for that 

system expires at the end of September, and there’s a need to reauthorize the Nation’s surface transportation law, known as MAP–21, 

which expires at the end of September. Even before then, the Highway Trust Fund will go broke in July, just next month. And, fortunately, the appropriate Senate committees are moving ahead with 

those funding proposals. But, the transit funding must include rail 

and must include safety. And that brings us, today, to these issues 

and to hearing from the representatives of some of our most important Federal oversight agencies when it comes to safety and reliability. 

We’re here at a moment of enormous peril and promise. Promise, 

because we have an opportunity to invest in the future of our 

transportation system, grow the economy, expand job creation, and 

achieve a larger vison for our Nation’s transportation system. But, 

at the same time, there’s tremendous peril in the decaying and 

crumbling infrastructure that faces us, literally, every day on our 

roads, bridges, railroads, and other public facilities. 

So, we’re here to examine how well the agencies are doing, as 

well as our transportation systems. We need to look at what our 

agencies are doing in their watchdog and oversight roles, as well 

2 

as what our public transportation systems are doing to protect 

safety and reliability. 

For the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 

protecting safety and reliability means ensuring that transportation of many products and materials is done in a way that 

assures protection of the people who live in their environs, as well 

as the workers who operate them. 

For the Federal Railroad Administration, our hearing today 

means ensuring the safe movement of people and freight on our 

Nation’s massive railroad system. The ability to properly ensure 

this mission requires resources as well as rules. 

And that’s really true of all of your agencies. Resources and 

rules, and effective enforcement of those rules, is a prerequisite to 

safety and reliability. There are indications that some of these 

agencies have, very simply, been absent from what they should be 

doing, not on the job. I want to make sure that we are as rigorous 

and vigilant as need be to protect people who use our railroads as 

well as other transportation systems. 

There are red flags. For example, there have been red flags, with 

Metro-North, which is a railroad much in need of attention as well 

as investment. And I want to make sure that both Metro-North 

and the FRA have learned from the incidents that have occurred 

there. 

And, of course, the agencies include the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, which is essential to assuring the safe commercial driving workforce that drives our economy, as well as the 

individuals who ride it. 

So, this hearing is about resources and rules. Our job is to assure 

that there are sufficient resources as well as rules, but really the 

rules have meaning only if they’re enforced and only if scrutiny and 

oversight works to protect people who rely on those rules. And part 

of our job, in addition to making the rules and the laws—the rules 

of the road and the laws that govern those rules—is to assure that 

they are realistic and practical, but also that they’re properly funded. 

And I want to hear from all of you, and I look forward to hearing 

from our colleagues on these issues, and turn now to the Ranking 

Member, Senator Blunt. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BLUNT. Well, thank you, Chairman. 

I want to say, Chairman, that as—in the brief time you’ve been 

Chairman of this committee, you’ve really brought focus on a number of issues. We’ve had a number of hearings, including the one 

we’re going to have today, that I think are very important, and 

your leadership here has made a difference. 

You know, the Commerce Committee does work on all modes of 

transportation, not just highways—railroads, waterways, even 

pipelines. And, you know, from a State like mine, this is critical 

work. If you look at a railroad map of America, or a highway map 

of America, or a river map of America, as I told the General Assembly in Missouri the other day, and begin to focus on where all three 

of those things come together, we’re right in the middle of that. All 

3 

these things matter dramatically to our future, to our economic future, and our ability to compete. 

Obviously, there’s a lot of discussion going on about the highway 

bill, for a couple of reasons. One is, the one we are currently under 

expires in September, and another one is that that funds run dry 

even before that. What our committee can do, and what this subcommittee can do, to get ready for our part of that bill is important, 

the things we can do to draw attention to sustainable funding and 

to additional and innovative funding sources, I think, can make a 

difference here. 

We’re now examining how we maintain this system. I’m going to 

be interested today to hear from the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on how things are going in the crude-by-rail discussion. Obviously, there has been a lot of testing data shared recently involving 

Bakken crude and how we’re reacting to that. I’ll also be interested 

to hear how this is being utilized as we line up the collection that 

PHMSA is doing and how we’re going to be ready for that. 

Also, ongoing concerns regarding regulations and enforcement 

programs with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

are topics that I hope we hear discussed today. And I’ll have some 

questions on that. 

I’ve heard, from motor carriers of all sizes, that the agency really 

isn’t adequately considering the impact of its rules and programs. 

I asked the Secretary, at a hearing we had not too long ago, for 

a response on a couple of specific questions that I haven’t gotten 

yet. And hopefully, we’ll get those covered today. 

I, finally, look forward to hearing from the Office of Research and 

Technology on how research funding might be accessible to local 

communities who are trying to come up with innovative and locally 

driven solutions to their transportation problems. 

I’ll close by stressing the need to focus on our long-term transportation planning, which includes a stable funding source, something 

that every member of the Senate and the Congress should be interested in. Great opportunities are out there, with the expansion of 

the Panama Canal, with how we collect all of our transportation 

modes together, how we connect them together in the best possible 

way. 

And I’m pleased we’re having this hearing today. And again, 

thanks for your leadership, Chairman. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Blunt. And thank you 

for your leadership and for your being here today. 

I’m not going to provide lengthy backgrounds as to each of your 

credentials. In the interest of time, I think we’ll just turn to the 

testimony. But, we’re very pleased to have, today, individuals who 

not only lead significant agencies, but also have extraordinary 

backgrounds and expertise in the areas of transportation. So, we 

thank you for your public service as well as for your being here 

today. 

Perhaps we can begin with Joseph Szabo, who is the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. 

4 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. SZABO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking 

Member Blunt and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this 

opportunity to testify today. 

By 2050, our surface transportation system must be ready to 

move an additional 100 million more people, which equals the combined population of our four most populous States: California, 

Texas, New York, and Florida. Our freight system, meanwhile, will 

have to annually move an additional 4 billion tons of freight, the 

weight, roughly, of 10,000 Empire State buildings. So, imagine if 

we fail to move all these people and all that freight safely, reliably, 

and efficiently. Imagine the negative impact that that could have 

on business growth, on commute times, and on quality of life. 

If we return to a decades-long pattern of under-investing in our 

rail system, there will be negative consequences. Just look at the 

cost of highway and airport congestion, more than $140 billion in 

2012. And this was driven by current demand, not future. 

We have an opportunity, through the GROW AMERICA Act, to 

chart a more sustainable course. We have an opportunity, as the 

title implies, to grow our rail network and grow America’s transportation capacity to meet future challenges. And the GROW 

AMERICA Act will enable us to do this while driving continuous 

improvement in safety. 

Since Fiscal Year 2004, our rail safety program has reduced train 

accidents by nearly 50 percent, to record low numbers. But, we also 

know from our data that our most vulnerable safety area is human 

error. Today, it accounts for nearly 40 percent of train accidents. 

And GROW AMERICA, in several ways, supports our efforts to 

drive continuous safety improvement. For one, the $19 billion it 

would invest in rail safety and rail development programs includes 

$2.3 billion to support commuter rail lines in their efforts to install 

positive train control, the technology that is designed to reduce 

human-error accidents. And it would provide us the tools to manage the implementation process effectively, including the authority 

for provisional certifications. GROW AMERICA would also give us 

the authority to establish new hours of service regulations based on 

sound fatigue science, a key step towards reducing accidents 

caused by fatigue. And it calls for a national—nationwide rollout 

of confidential close-call reporting systems, allowing us to gather 

data before an accident occurs and develop risk mitigation strategies well in advance. 

But, sustained Federal investment in rail network enhancements 

and in research and development has to also be a part of the mix. 

On the rail development side, our bill would fund needed repairs, 

improve existing services, and build new corridors. It would invest 

in the rail passenger connections that a record number of Amtrak 

riders deserve. And it would invest in short-line rail infrastructure, 

safety upgrades to bridges, tracks, and signal systems. And it 

would invest in grade crossing improvements and the sealing off of 

corridors, improving network efficiency, reducing the negative impacts of rail operations on communities, and enhancing the safe 

transportation of hazardous materials. 

5 

But, our proposal really does even more than that. It provides 

rail, for the first time ever, with predictable, dedicated funding to 

put it on par with other surface transportation modes. If you go 

back to 2009 and 2010, when Federal funding for our Passenger 

Rail Program was made available—those years, we received applications requesting seven times the available funding. GROW 

AMERICA will keep us moving forward, and not just for 1 or 2 

years, but over the long term. 

And so, we look forward to working with all of you to reverse this 

pattern of Federal under-investment in our rail system, to working 

together to foster public-private partnerships, to incentivize State 

and local planning, and to tackle the backlog of good rail projects, 

all across the country, in need of a Federal funding partner. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Szabo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s ideas 

for the next phase of rail policy and investment programs. 

The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods for a strong America, now and in 

the future. The Administration’s groundbreaking legislative proposal, the GROW 

AMERICA Act, sets policies in place that will enhance safety, maintain current rail 

services and infrastructure, and expand and improve the rail network to accommodate growing passenger and freight demand—all while providing new national and 

regional system planning and development. 

The GROW AMERICA Act creates a new rail account within the transportation 

trust fund to provide predictable, dedicated funding for rail and forges new partnerships and better planning through Regional Rail Development Authorities. This critical shift will give States and localities the certainty they have long required to effectively plan and execute projects that will improve transportation infrastructure, 

allow regions and States to achieve their long-term visions for rail transportation, 

and to support economic growth. GROW AMERICA authorizes $19 billion over four 

years to improve rail safety and invest in a National High-Performance Rail System. 

This funding is allocated to two new programs aimed at promoting market-based investments to enhance and grow rail: 

• Current Passenger Rail Service Program—Over four years, the Act will provide 

$9.5 billion to meet current passenger rail service needs, which includes: 

» $2.6 billion to bring Northeast Corridor infrastructure and equipment into a 

state of good repair, thus enabling future growth and service improvements; 

» $600 million to replace obsolete equipment on State-supported corridors and 

to facilitate efficient transition to financial control for these corridors to 

States; 

» $3.1 billion to continue operations of the Nation’s important long-distance 

routes, which provide a vital transportation alternative to both urban and 

rural communities; 

» $1.8 billion improve efficiency of the Nation’s ‘‘backbone’’ rail facilities, make 

payments on Amtrak’s legacy debt, and implement Positive Train Control 

(PTC) on Amtrak routes; and 

» $1.4 billion to bring stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

• Rail Service Improvement Program—The Act provides an additional $9.5 billion 

to address future rail service improvements, which includes: 

» $6.4 billion to develop high-performance passenger rail networks through construction of new corridors, substantial improvements to existing corridors, 

and mitigation of passenger train congestion at critical chokepoints; 

» $2.4 billion to assist commuter rail lines in implementing PTC systems; 

6 

» $500 million to help mitigate the negative impacts of rail in local communities 

through rail line relocation, grade crossing enhancements, and investments in 

short line railroad infrastructure; and 

» $300 million to develop comprehensive plans that will guide future investments in the Nation’s rail system and to develop the workforce and technology necessary for advancing America’s rail industry. 

Before I dive into the details of the GROW AMERICA Act, it is important to 

quickly look back on the building blocks of the Rail Title for this legislative proposal—the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) and 

the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA)—and the reasons why it is critical 

we continue to invest in rail and develop policies to improve rail safety, efficiency, 

and reliability. 

Building on PRIIA and RSIA 

PRIIA and RSIA were bipartisan, seminal pieces of legislation that broke new 

ground on rail safety. This Committee did important work in a collaborative and forward-thinking way that has had far-reaching effects in the rail industry. The rail 

industry has changed dramatically since these two landmark acts were passed in 

2008. Preliminary data indicates that Fiscal Year 2013 was the safest for the rail 

industry on record. It also saw record ridership, reliability, and financial performance for Amtrak across its network. The freight rail industry has never been stronger. Historic levels of public and private investment have been made in passenger 

rail equipment, corridor upgrades, freight capacity, and safety improvements. Dozens of planning studies, environmental reviews, and engineering analyses are underway, creating a strong pipeline for future projects. 

FRA is proud of its accomplishments in implementing RSIA and PRIIA, particularly in light of the laws’ sweeping provisions and FRA’s simultaneous need to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The 

$10 billion provided under the Recovery Act and subsequent Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 

appropriation far exceeded the $3.4 billion authorization envisioned under PRIIA. 

In addition to this funding authorization, PRIIA served as the impetus for several 

other key passenger rail initiatives underway, including improving stakeholder collaboration and the methods for appropriately allocating costs on the Northeast Corridor and State-supported routes, developing standards for the next-generation of 

passenger locomotives and rail cars, furthering cooperative research programs for 

passenger and freight rail, and providing States with consistent guidance for planning their future passenger and freight rail services. 

Today, FRA is a very different agency than when PRIIA was passed, managing 

an approximately $20 billion investment portfolio of grants and loans. These investments make up more than 200 active projects improving the rail network across the 

country: 

• California—Over $3.8 billion to construct the first segment of the California 

high-speed rail network. 

• Illinois—Over $1.3 billion in improvements to track, signal systems, stations, 

and rolling stock to reduce trip times and increase performance, passenger comfort, and safety on the Chicago to St. Louis service. 

• New Jersey/New York—Over $775 million in improvements to the Northeast 

Corridor in New Jersey and New York, including: upgrades or replacement of 

catenary, power, track, and signal systems between Trenton and New York; construction of a conflict-free, grade-separated route through the heavily-congested 

Harold Interlocking railroad junction in Queens, New York; and developing the 

new Moynihan Station transportation facility to increase capacity and relieve 

congestion at Penn Station. 

• Washington—Over $750 million to increase frequencies, reduce travel time, and 

improve performance on the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor. 

• Connecticut—Over $190 million to increase capacity and improve performance 

on the New Haven—Hartford—Springfield line. 

• Missouri—Over $22 million to construct a second railroad bridge over the Osage 

River (the existing bridge is single tracked), which will eliminate a significant 

passenger and freight bottleneck on the route between St. Louis and Jefferson 

City. 

This portfolio of investments is having a substantial impact on the Nation’s rail 

system: 6,000 corridor miles are being improved, 30 stations are being upgraded, 

and hundreds of new passenger cars and locomotives are being procured. These 

projects will improve the customer experience by reducing trip times, improving reliVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
7 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Commodity Flow Survey. 

2Texas Transportation Institute, 2012 Urban Mobility Report, December 2012. 

3 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook: United States, August 1, 2012. 

4 U.S. Energy Information Administration, AEO2012 Early Release Overview, January 23, 

2012. 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990–2010, April 2012. 

ability, adding additional frequencies, and making stations and equipment more 

comfortable and accessible. Collectively, these projects represent the foundational 

elements to fulfill the long-term vision for sustainable rail improvements envisioned 

by the States and Amtrak. Yet these projects only represent a small portion of the 

investments needed for a 21st century passenger and freight rail network that will 

meet growing market demand. 

Good Federal policymaking contributed greatly to these recent accomplishments, 

and FRA is proud of the job we have done implementing the policies laid out by 

Congress. However, these achievements do not mean we can declare victory–much 

more needs to be done if we are to meet the transportation challenges facing our 

country in the 21st century, which include: 

• Population growth—By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that an additional 100 million people will reside in the United States. The vast majority of 

this growth will be concentrated in a small number of ‘‘megaregions.’’ The U.S. 

DOT and Department of Commerce have found that 40 tons of freight is moved 

through the U.S. for each resident. Thus, this population increase will mean an 

extra 4 billion tons of freight moved each year, an increase of 35 percent over 

2010 levels.1

• Congestion and Mobility—Highway and aviation congestion continues to rise, 

with an estimated economic impact growing from $24 billion in 1982 to $121 

billion in 2011 in lost time, productivity, and fuel.2 In many places with the 

worst congestion, expanding airports and highways is difficult, as land is limited and environmental/community impacts are significant. 

• Energy consumption—In 2010, the United States used more than 13 million 

barrels of oil every day for transportation. U.S. citizens consume nearly twice 

the oil per capita as citizens of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations, and approximately 55 percent of this oil is 

imported.3

• Energy costs—The inflation-adjusted cost of oil increased 129 percent from 1990 

to 2010. As a result, Americans spent $630 million more per day on oil for 

transportation than they did 20 years earlier—an average annual increase of 

nearly $750 for every American. The Energy Information Administration expects crude oil prices to rise an additional 50 percent between 2011 and 2035.4

• Environmental protection—The 2012 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks found that the U.S. emitted 10.5 percent more greenhouse 

gases in 2010 than it did in 1990.5 Thirty-two percent of all greenhouse gas 

emissions are now from the transportation sector. 

In addition to helping address these transportation challenges, it is clear that the 

American people want rail as a viable transportation choice: 

• Ridership—Demand for passenger rail is surging across the United States. Ridership levels have set new records in ten of the past eleven years. In FY 2013, 

Amtrak carried a record 31.6 million passengers, including 15.4 million passengers on its State-supported routes (another record). These ridership levels 

are being achieved even before the substantial service improvements funded in 

recent years begin to come online. Once new trains are added and trip times 

and delays are reduced, the system will attract even higher levels of ridership. 

• Changing Travel Habits—Reports show that since 2005, Americans have been 

driving fewer miles each year. In 2011, the average American drove six percent 

fewer miles than they did in 2004. What’s even more significant is that studies 

show the trend away from driving is being led by youth. Between 2001 and 

2009, Americans ages 16 to 34 decreased their average number of vehicle-miles 

traveled by 23 percent and increased their passenger miles traveled on trains 

and buses by 40 percent. Factors causing these changes may include new communication technology, shifts in driving laws, and higher fuel prices. And while 

the Great Recession had some role in influencing habits, research indicates that 

8 

6 U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Frontier Group, Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy. 

April 5, 2012 7 Amtrak, ‘‘State-Supported Corridor Trains, FY2011–12,’’ April 2012. 

travelers will continue to look for transportation alternatives even as the economy recovers.6

• Funding Demand—Nearly every region in the U.S. has demonstrated demand 

for investments in passenger rail services. Between August 2009 and April 

2011, FRA evaluated nearly 500 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

applications submitted by 39 States, the District of Columbia, and Amtrak, requesting more than $75 billion for rail projects. In the absence of recent HSIPR 

appropriations, prospective applicants have also turned to the Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program, which has awarded more than $800 million for rail projects through the first five rounds of funding. 

• Proven Public Benefits—Strengthening passenger rail services can help balance 

the Nation’s transportation network, as demonstrated on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). Since the introduction of the Acela service 10 years ago, Amtrak 

has almost tripled its air/rail market share on the NEC, carrying 75 percent of 

travelers between New York and Washington.7 These changing travel patterns 

can free airport capacity for more cost-efficient long-distance flights. 

The rail industry is growing and safety is improving. The GROW AMERICA Act 

includes policies and predictable, dedicated funding that will encourage economic 

growth, improve safety, mitigate negative impacts on communities, and build the 

rail network America deserves. The GROW AMERICA Act sets five key priorities 

for rail, which I will discuss in detail: 

1. Enhancing America’s world-class rail safety. 

2. Modernizing our rail infrastructure. 

3. Meeting the growing market demand. 

4. Promoting innovation. 

5. Ensuring transparency and accountability. 

Priority 1: Enhancing World Class Safety 

FRA’s top priority is safety, and FY 2012 was the safest year on record, with preliminary data from FY 2013 indicating it will be even better than FY 2012’s record. 

Since FY 2004: 

• Total train accidents have declined by nearly 47 percent. 

• Total derailments have declined by 46 percent. 

• Total highway-rail grade crossing accidents have declined by 35 percent. 

These safety improvements resulted in 15-percent fewer fatalities overall (895 fatalities to 759 fatalities—96 percent of which are trespassing or grade crossing related), 59-percent fewer employee fatalities (22 fatalities to 9 fatalities), and 7-percent fewer total injuries (9,367 injuries to 8,675 injuries) over 10 years. 

The table below also illustrates a decade of safety improvement. 

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 

Total Accidents/ 

Incidents 19.039 18.093 17.525 17.298 16.908 16.874 16.697 16.072 15.194 15.028 

Human Factor 

Caused Train 

Accidents 1.721 1.648 1.380 1.297 1.230 1.041 0.949 0.995 0.921 0.900 

Track-Caused Train 

Accidents 1.314 1.398 1.318 1.258 1.094 1.039 0.974 0.955 0.851 0.744 

Equipment-Caused 

Train Accidents 0.548 0.499 0.433 0.418 0.435 0.368 0.370 0.342 0.291 0.276 

Total Signal/Misc.- 

Caused Train 

Accidents 0.692 0.707 0.641 0.506 0.497 0.483 0.494 0.467 0.427 0.432 

Rate per million 

train miles 4.024 3.8 3.797 3.523 3.24 2.986 2.9 2.881 2.773 2.697 

9 

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 

Non-Accident 

Hazmat Releases 1.387 1.398 1.147 1.221 1.227 1.149 1.063 1.079 0.933 0.933 

* Accident/Incident, Train Accident, and Highway-Rail Incident Numbers Normalized by Million Train-Miles for Fiscal Year, NonAccident Hazmat Releases Normalized by 200 Million Hazmat Ton-Miles for Fiscal Year. 

These improvements are impressive in their own right, but especially if you consider the regulatory workload that FRA received from RSIA and passenger and 

freight rail’s growth during this same time. RSIA mandated that FRA, as the Secretary’s designee, complete an unprecedented 42 tasks, including final rules, guidance documents, model State laws, studies, and reports as well three types of annual reports and hundreds of periodic accident reporting audits. 

Thirty-one of the 42 tasks are complete, and the rest are in the pipeline progressing towards completion. Appendix 1 lists the rulemakings, non-periodic reports 

and studies, guidance, and model State laws that FRA has completed as of the time 

of this writing. FRA’s regulatory program improves safety by developing rules based 

on facts, incident and accident causation analysis, comparison of alternative mitigation measures, and cost-beneficial solutions. FRA rulemaking considers current and 

future industry capabilities, compliance burden and cost, and other economic and social realities. Within this context, FRA will continue to attempt to meet statutory 

milestones with its available resources. 

The GROW AMERICA Act charts the course for continuous safety improvement throughout the industry. The proposal contains $2.3 billion over four years to help 

commuter rail lines deploy and implement RSIA-mandated PTC systems, a type of 

technology designed to prevent: (1) over-speed derailments, (2) train-to-train collisions, (3) incursions into established roadway work zones, and (4) movement of a 

train through an improperly aligned switch. The proposal also enables FRA to grant 

merit-based extension of the PTC implementation deadline and to authorize provisional certification of PTC systems on individual railroads. The proposal also allows 

alternative methods of improving rail safety in lieu of PTC, where the alternatives 

provide an appropriate level of risk mitigation with respect to the functions of a 

PTC system. This permits FRA to focus the burden of PTC system implementation 

on the most dangerous mainlines and allow a more appropriately-tailored reduction 

of risk on mainlines covered by the current statutory mandate to implement PTC 

systems. Additionally, the proposal promotes uniform operating rules for the industry by authorizing the Secretary to require harmonization of railroad operating rules 

in certain small geographic areas with joint operations governed by two or more 

host railroads. The proposal also addresses the persistent challenge of fatigue by enabling FRA to replace current inadequate statutory requirements on hours of service 

with regulations grounded with scientific evidence. 

Improving the Safety of Hazardous Materials Transported by Rail 

The GROW AMERICA Act will improve the safety of hazardous materials transported by rail. There are three key components to that success: PTC implementation, rail development and investment, and research and development. 

1. PTC 

a. Advances PTC implementation as quickly and safely as possible 

i. More detail is provided in the following section. 

2. Rail Development 

a. Investments in safety—Contains grant programs for rail safety improvements, and to mitigate negative impacts of increased freight traffic on communities through projects such as: 

i. Rail line relocation projects 

ii. Grade crossing improvements (which reduce risk for train/vehicle collisions) 

iii. Sealed corridors—overpasses/underpasses (The safest grade crossing is 

one that doesn’t exist.) 

b. Short Lines—Invests in short line infrastructure through projects such as: 

i. Bridge upgrades 

ii. Track integrity (286,000-pound loads) 

iii. Signal upgrades 

c. Improves RRIF—(1) authorizes appropriations to pay for the Credit Risk Premium 

i. PTC is an eligible expense for RRIF. 

10 

3. Research and Development (R&D) 

a. Next Generation of Rail Safety Technology—Advances the next generation of 

rail safety through imperative investments in R&D, including automatic 

track inspection technology 

b. Improves Transportation Technology Center (TTC)—The planning section includes improvements to TTC, including help to train first responders and 

conduct imperative R&D projects to improve rail safety. 

Current Status of PTC Implementation 

A critical element of RSIA is the mandate to implement PTC systems, which 

would mitigate or prevent many types of future train accidents caused by human 

factors. Past train accidents caused by human factors that would have been prevented by PTC include: (1) the over-speed derailment of a commuter train in 2013 

at Spuyten Duyvil Station, Bronx, New York; (2) the head-on collision of a commuter train with a freight train in 2008 at Chatsworth, California; and (3) the collision of a freight train with standing on-track equipment, due to a misaligned switch, 

and the resulting chlorine release in 2005 at Graniteville, South Carolina. These 

three PTC-preventable accidents killed 38 people and injured many more. Under the 

RSIA mandate, briefly stated, each Class I railroad must install a PTC system governing train operations on its mainline routes carrying toxic by inhalation material, 

and each railroad providing regularly scheduled intercity passenger or commuter 

service must install a PTC system on its mainlines. 

FRA strongly believes in the deployment of PTC by each individual railroad at 

the earliest practical date consistent with schedule delays arising from resolution 

of the individual railroad’s unique technical and programmatic issues, in order to 

gain the safety benefits that PTC can offer. However, the current, statutorily mandated deadline of December 31, 2015, for completion of PTC installation will not be 

reached by many railroads subject to the mandate for a number of reasons. In addition to the technical and programmatic challenges outlined in FRA’s August 2012 

Report to Congress ‘‘Positive Train Control: Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts,’’ another issue has arisen regarding PTC communications towers deployment, 

a matter under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 

Deployment of PTC before these issues have been fully addressed could both adversely affect safety and have a negative impact on system efficiency. Given the dependence of the Nation on rail to move goods and services (40 percent by ton-miles 

of all U.S. freight moves are by rail), either of the preceding prospects is unacceptable. DOT’s surface transportation bill would grant FRA the tools needed to advance 

implementation in timely manner. 

We will continue to act as a technical resource to the FCC as that commission 

weighs and evaluates the complex, and often conflicting demands, of the railroads, 

as well as other licensed stakeholders, entities seeking licenses, the general public, 

communication system manufacturers, and local, State, and Tribal Governments. 

While FRA can act as a technical resource for the FCC on PTC technologies, ultimately, the programmatic and policy decisions associated with spectrum allocation 

and communications tower construction are solely in the purview of the FCC. 

It is important to note that there is only a limited number of qualified technical 

staff available to the railroads, system suppliers, and FRA to support the design, 

manufacture, deployment, and certification of PTC systems. FRA has little or no 

ability to control the procurement of engineering services and equipment or its 

price. This is driven by the marketplace; for those items that are in short supply, 

the lack of supply has driven up prices. This, in turn, results in higher implementation costs to the railroads. 

To support test oversight and certification, which is the only element over which 

FRA can exercise control, FRA has created a dedicated PTC staff, the PTC Branch. 

Even with that staff in place, FRA nonetheless depends heavily on the vendors and 

railroads in the certification process. As a matter of practicality, the proactive participation and good faith efforts of the vendors and railroads to ensure system safety 

through the entire design, implementation, and operation of the system are necessary not only for timely certification of a system, but also to ensure that the level 

of safety oversight is adequate relative to the system complexity. FRA staffing needs 

are therefore heavily dependent on the technology deployed, the capabilities of individual inspectors, as well as the level of effort and degree of objective safety oversight being expended by the vendors and railroads. The PTC Branch consists of 

eight regional specialists (one per region), two senior specialists, and a supervisor 

dedicated to PTC system certification and safety oversight. This group is augmented 

by a senior scientist and senior electronics engineer, two senior signal engineers, 

and contract engineering support as required. 

11 

Commuter rail operation implementation efforts are further complicated by their 

financial positions. Commuter railroads are generally cash-strapped and unable to 

attain certain necessities for implementation, such as communications spectrum. 

For example, system procurement and deployment costs just for Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), operating in the Los Angeles basin, are exceeding $210 million. These costs are representative of the more than 30 intercity passenger and commuter railroads required to implement PTC. 

The GROW AMERICA Act addresses critical PTC funding issues by establishing 

predictable and dedicated Federal funding for rail programs, similar to other modes 

of transportation. Congress has for decades funded highway infrastructure and safety, transit, and aviation programs through multi-year authorizations that provide 

guaranteed funding; this enables States, local governments, and other stakeholders 

to plan and make large-scale infrastructure investments on a year-to-year basis. 

The GROW AMERICA Act advances PTC implementation as quickly and safely 

as possible by: 

• Authorizing $2.4 billion over the four-year life of the bill to implement PTC on 

passenger railroads, which will also benefit freight transportation on shared corridors. 

• Requiring establishment of revised implementation schedules for PTC systems 

that reflect the technical and programmatic issues facing individual railroads, 

a mechanism for making railroads accountable for implementation. 

• Allowing provisional operation of PTC systems in full revenue service prior to 

full PTC system certification. 

• Allowing alternative methods of protection in lieu of PTC systems where the alternative methods will not decrease safety and will provide appropriate risk 

mitigation against PTC-preventable accidents. 

• Advancing coordination between DOT and FCC to assess spectrum needs and 

availability for implementing PTC systems. 

FRA will prioritize funding provided under GROW AMERICA based on levels of 

risk to the traveling public so commuter railroads that have the greatest risk exposure will be able to install and obtain PTC system protection first. 

FRA, in selecting the recipients of grants for eligible projects, will consider the 

following factors: 

• The scope of PTC system components necessary including the number of locomotives owned by the eligible recipient, the number of wayside miles owned by 

the eligible recipient, the number of PTC systems with which the eligible recipient’s PTC system must be interoperable; the scale of the communications infrastructure the eligible recipient requires to support PTC system operations; and 

the number of modifications to dispatching and back office systems required to 

support PTC system operations. 

• The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a clear need for Federal financial assistance. 

• The overall completeness and quality of the application, including the comprehensiveness of its supporting documentation. 

• The extent of prior PTC implementation activities. 

Nationwide Rollout of C3RS 

FRA is implementing a voluntary, Confidential Close Call Reporting System program (C3RS) for railroads and their employees to report close calls without receiving 

disciplinary action. The GROW AMERICA Act proposes expanding the C3RS from 

a limited pilot project to a nation-wide rollout. Data from C3RS pilot sites show 

promising results. Rigorous evaluation of one of the most mature pilot sites demonstrated that C3RS contributed to a 70-percent reduction in certain accidents. 

These results demonstrate the potential this program has to significantly improve 

safety. Reductions in accidents come from a proactive culture of safety that uses real 

data far beyond that which can be pulled from accident investigations on a reactive 

basis. Effective safety oversight is helped by having accurate data. The magnitude 

of the information provided from proactive programs like C3RS in comparison to traditional data from accidents and injuries is illustrated below: 

12 

Priority 2: Modernizing Rail Infrastructure 

Past generations of Americans invested heavily to build the infrastructure we rely 

on today. For example, most segments of the Northeast Corridor were initially built 

over a century ago. Maintaining and modernizing these assets will reduce long-term 

costs and result in safer, more reliable, and more efficient rail transportation. The 

GROW AMERICA Act will build upon previous investments made under the HSIPR 

Program, the Department’s TIGER Program, and other Federal and State funding 

to modernize America’s rail infrastructure. Approximately 40 percent of the funding 

authorized for rail under the GROW AMERICA Act is dedicated for one-time investments to address the substantial backlog of deferred infrastructure projects across 

our rail system. A few of these key rail infrastructure priorities include: 

• ADA Compliance—The GROW AMERICA Act authorizes $1.4 billion to bring all 

Amtrak-served rail stations into compliance with the ADA. The Obama Administration is strongly committed to rectifying this issue—it is imperative that the 

Nation’s rail system be accessible and comfortable for all Americans. 

• Infrastructure Backlog—The GROW AMERICA Act authorizes funding to significantly reduce the backlog of state of good repair needs on the Northeast Corridor. Addressing this backlog is critical to maintaining and improving current 

passenger rail services. 

• Obsolete Equipment—The GROW AMERICA Act authorizes funding to replace 

aging and obsolete equipment on the Northeast Corridor, State-supported 

routes, and long distance services. Many of the rail cars and locomotives in 

service across the country are operating at or past their useful lives, leading to 

higher maintenance costs and reduced performance levels. FRA and Amtrak 

have started to replace this aging equipment through HSIPR grants and RRIF 

loans, however, a significant need still remains. New rolling stock will not only 

lower operating and maintenance costs, but also result in better reliability, improved passenger comfort and amenities, and ultimately better position rail 

services for long-term economic success. 

• Platforms – The GROW AMERICA Act would standardize passenger equipment 

and platform heights to increase interoperability of services and equipment, as 

well as better provide for safe boarding and alighting. 

Priority 3: Meeting Growing Market Demand 

Since 2009, FRA and its State and private partners have invested nearly $60 million in planning studies to establish a pipeline of future rail projects. These studies 

and independent planning efforts led by the States have resulted in a pipeline of 

more than $20 billion worth of projects that are already underway or ready for conVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE

603SZAB1.eps
13 

struction. The GROW AMERICA Act authorizes the funding required to make market-based investments to turn these studies into improved and new services. 

The Nation requires seamless, intermodal transportation networks in order to 

move people and goods efficiently and effectively—and achieving that goal requires 

improved transportation-related coordination among Federal, State, and local entities. To achieve these goals, the GROW AMERICA Act will authorize DOT to establish Regional Rail Development Authorities (RRDAs) in consultation with state governors. RRDAs will have the power to plan for and undertake regional corridor development activities and be an eligible recipient of certain grants. 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program 

makes additional financing available to stakeholders to: acquire, improve, and rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment and facilities; refinance outstanding debt; and 

develop or establish new intermodal or railroad facilities. In an effort to make RRIF 

more accessible to short line railroads, the GROW AMERICA Act enhances the program by authorizing grants under the Local Rail Facilities and Safety program to 

fund credit risk premiums (CRP) for capital short line railroad improvements. The 

Act also authorizes appropriations to pay for the CRP, and caps maximum RRIF 

share at 80 percent of total project costs for projects greater than $100 million that 

received a subsidized CRP. 

Meeting market demand also means meeting communities’ needs as they see increased rail traffic. The GROW AMERICA Act authorizes a grant program under 

the Rail Service Improvement Program that would competitively award grants for 

projects that mitigate the negative impacts of increased rail traffic on communities 

through: (1) the relocation of rail lines from busy or populated downtown areas; (2) 

grade crossing improvements that could lead to quiet zones; and (3) grade separations that protect trains and vehicular traffic while preventing trespassing deaths. 

Priority 4: Promoting Innovation 

FRA has consistently made gains in safety using advanced research and development. For example, in 2013, the Track Safety Standards for high-speed rail were 

substantially updated by adding innovations for combinations of track geometry 

irregularities and high cant deficiency operation. The procedures for qualifying track 

and equipment were changed extensively. FRA may also at some future date revise 

track safety standards for conventional speed operations of both freight and passenger equipment through similar use of computer modeling of track and equipment 

performance, service operation and test data, and other research. 


603SZAB2.eps
14 

Building on previous successes in safety risk reduction and improved safety culture, the GROW AMERICA Act authorizes additional funding for research and development to improve safety and develop new technologies. FRA plans to continue 

its innovative research into railroad employee fatigue, distraction and situational 

awareness. The outcomes will be used to improve hours of service regulations, reduce stop signal violations, and ensure new technology does not have a negative effect on safe operations. 

FRA plans to investigate the technical challenges related to shared corridors for 

passenger and railroad freight operations. Areas that will be researched include 

evaluation of deterioration rates of special track work and other track structure 

components due to various types of impact and dynamic loads on shared corridors, 

accounting for axle load, train speed, and tonnage. 

FRA, in coordination with PHMSA, plans to improve the safety of hazardous materials transportation. New approaches to be pursued include developing acceptance 

criteria for damage of thermal protection systems, assessing the effects of in-train 

forces and fatigue life of tank cars of single commodity trains, studying the effects 

of repair procedures on the reliability and fatigue life of tank cars, and developing 

a risk-based approach to evaluating defective conditions of tank cars. FRA is 

uniquely equipped with a test center in Pueblo, Colorado to conduct this research 

in conjunction with PHMSA. 

These are just a few examples of research in the pipeline for FRA. There are 

many more examples, including the next generation of automated track inspection 

technology, which would be funded through the GROW AMERICA Act. 

The GROW AMERICA Act will also expand research programs at universities, including rail-based University Transportation Centers (UTCs). Dedicated rail research at UTCs will serve two purposes that provide benefits by: (1) conducting 

basic research that FRA can apply to improve railroad safety and performance; and 

(2) producing qualified professionals who can lead implementation of high-performance rail. 

The GROW AMERICA Act also authorizes funding for the National Cooperative 

Rail Research Program. This program, established under section 306 of PRIIA and 

managed by the National Academy of Sciences, provides a rail research program 

similar to those for aviation, highways, and transit. FRA launched the program in 

2012 to develop the intellectual infrastructure needed to advance effective rail policy, and a number of research proposals are currently underway, including research 

on the topics of building and retaining workforce, alternative financing, modal energy consumption, and developing multi-state institutions to implement rail programs. 

The GROW AMERICA Act will strengthen the ‘‘Buy America’’ requirements in 

current law by ensuring uniform applicability to all of FRA’s financial assistance 

programs. In the little more than five years in which the HSIPR Program has been 

in existence, Buy America has already had a measurable effect on the domestic rail 

manufacturing and supply industries. The highest profile example is the new 

Nippon Sharyo manufacturing plant in Rochelle, IL, which opened in 2012 and will 

produce the next generation of American-built railcars for corridor services in California and the Midwest. However, there are dozens more domestic manufacturers 

and suppliers at work as we speak thanks to the HSIPR Program and our Buy 

America requirements. 

Priority 5: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability 

The GROW AMERICA Act aligns funding for current passenger rail service programs by lines of business, and it streamlines FRA’s financial programs into four 

coordinated accounts: 

15 

The Act also requires standards for national and regional rail planning, which is 

necessary to provide a long-range blueprint for proceeding with passenger and 

freight rail investments in a market-based, cost-effective manner. These reforms 

provide American taxpayers with the transparency and accountability they require 

and deserve. 

Over many years, existing capital and operating programs have focused on maintaining the legacy rail system on an annual basis. The GROW AMERICA Act will 

establish the Current Passenger Rail Service grant program to provide a longerterm view toward ensuring existing passenger rail assets and services are maintained in good, working condition. The grants will be oriented around Amtrak’s 

main business lines: the Northeast Corridor, State Corridors, Long-Distance Routes, 

and National Assets. 

In addition to restructuring Amtrak funding around lines of business, the GROW 

AMERICA Act requires Amtrak to engage in annual five-year operating and capital 

planning to focus on the long-term needs of its business lines. These plans will be 

developed with close FRA coordination, and will directly inform annual budget requests. Capital asset plans will describe investment priorities and implementation 

strategies and identify specific projects to address the backlog of state-of-good-repair 

needs, recapitalization/ongoing maintenance needs, upgrades to support service enhancements, and business initiatives with a defined return on investment. 

The GROW AMERICA Act supports this mission with predictable, dedicated funding that enhances safety and modernize our rail infrastructure to meet growing 

market demand, while promoting innovation and ensuring transparency and accountability. The Act will invest $19 billion over four years to improve rail safety 

and invest in a National High-Performance Rail System, as States and local communities need the certainty of sustained funding to make the transportation investments necessary to improve our infrastructure and support our economic growth. 

The Act also builds on current investments to vastly improve the system in areas 

ranging from PTC implementation to enhancing flexibility in financing programs 

that will better enable the rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to participate in a dialogue 

on the future of rail in America. The GROW AMERICA Act charts a bold new 

course for transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. We look 

forward to working with Congress to put people back to work building a balanced 

transportation system that is safe, reliable, efficient, and able to meet the growing 

demand and changing travel habits of America’s population. I will be happy to respond to your questions. 


603SZAB3.eps
16 

8 In addition, FRA commenced a rulemaking to define ‘‘critical incident’’ for purposes of the 

mandated rulemaking on critical incident stress plans as specifically required by Sec. 410(c)). 9 In addition, FRA has issued two final rules on PTC, and another final rule on PTC is in 

clearance in the Executive Branch. 10 In addition, FRA has published three guidance documents on the hours of service laws as 

amended by RSIA in the Federal Register. 

APPENDIX 1 

Completed FRA Rulemakings that Were Mandated, Explicitly or Implicitly, 

by RSIA 8

1. To specify the essential functionalities of mandated PTC systems, define related statutory terms, and identify additional lines for implementation. (Sec. 

104).9

2. To establish substantive hours of service requirements for passenger train 

employees. (Sec. 108(d)). 

3. To update existing hours of service recordkeeping regulations. (Sec.108(f)). 

4. To require State-specific action plans from certain States to improve safety at 

highway-rail grade crossings. (Sec. 202). 

5. To require toll-free telephone emergency notification numbers for reporting 

problems at public and private highway-rail grade crossings. (Sec. 205). 

6. Increase the ordinary maximum and aggravated maximum civil penalties per 

violation for rail safety violations to $25,000 and $100,000, respectively. (Sec. 

302). 

7. On prohibition of individuals from performing safety-sensitive functions in the 

railroad industry for a violation of hazardous materials transportation law. 

(Sec. 305). 

8. On procedures for emergency waivers. (Sec. 308). 

9. To require the certification of conductors. (Sec. 402). 

10. On the results of FRA’s study of track inspection intervals and other track 

issues. (Sec. 403(c)). 

11. On concrete ties. (Sec. 403(d)). 

12. To require certain railroads to develop and submit for FRA approval their 

plans for providing appropriate support services to employees affected by a 

‘‘critical incident’’ as defined by FRA. (Sec. 410(a)) 

13. To require owners of railroad bridges to implement programs for inspection, 

maintenance, and management of those structures. (Sec. 417). 

14. On camp cars used as railroad employee sleeping quarters. (Sec. 420). 

15. Amending regulations of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to provide that the Secretary delegates to the Administrator of FRA the responsibility to carry out the Secretary’s responsibilities under RSIA. 

Completed RSIA-Mandated Guidance and Model State Laws 10

1. Guidance on pedestrian safety at or near rail passenger stations. (Sec. 201). 

2. Guidance for the administration of the authority to buy items of nominal 

value and distribute them to the public as part of a crossing safety or railroad 

trespass prevention program. (Sec. 208(c)). 

3. Model State law on highway users’ sight distances at passively signed highway-rail grade crossings. (Sec. 203). 

4. Model State law on motorists’ violations of grade crossing warning devices. 

(Sec. 208(a)). 

Completed RSIA-Mandated Non-periodic Reports or Studies 

1. Report to Congress on DOT’s long-term (minimum 5-year) strategy for improving rail safety, including annual plans and schedules for achieving specified statutory goals, to be submitted with the President’s annual budget. (Sec. 

102). 

2. Report to Congress on the progress of railroads’ implementation of PTC. (Sec. 

104). 

3. Conduct study to evaluate whether it is in the public interest to withhold 

from discovery or admission, in certain judicial proceedings for damages, the 

reports and data compiled to implement, etc., a required risk reduction program. (Sec. 109). 

4. Evaluate and review current local, State, and Federal laws regarding trespassing on railroad property, vandalism affecting railroad safety, and violations of highway-rail grade crossing warning devices. (Sec. 208(a)). 

5. Report to Congress on the results of DOT research about track inspection intervals, etc. (Sec. 403(a)-(b)). 

17 

6. Conduct study of methods to improve or correct passenger station platform 

gaps (Sec. 404). 

7. Report to Congress detailing the results of DOT research about use of personal electronic devices in the locomotive cab by safety-related railroad employees. (Sec. 405). 

8. Report to Congress on DOT research about the effects of repealing a provision 

exempting Consolidated Rail Corporation, etc., from certain labor-related laws 

(45 U.S.C. § 797j). (Sec. 408). 

9. Report to Congress on the results of DOT research about exposure of railroad 

employees and others to radiation. (Sec. 411). 

10. Report to Congress on DOT study on the expected safety effects of reducing 

inspection frequency of diesel-electric locomotives in limited service by railroad museums. (Sec. 415). 

11. Report to Congress on model plans and recommendations, to be developed 

through a task force to be established by DOT, to help railroads respond to 

passenger rail accidents. (Sec. 503). 

APPENDIX 2 

FRA’s Completed PRIIA Requirements 

1. Establish a grant process for Amtrak and submit a letter to Congress. (Sec. 

206). 

2. Establish metrics and standards for performance and service quality of intercity passenger train operations. (Sec. 207). 

3. Report quarterly on performance and service quality of intercity passenger 

train operations. (Sec. 207). 

4. Review and approve Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Plan. 

(Sec. 211). 

5. Establish a Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. (Sec. 212). 

6. Establish a Northeast Corridor Safety Committee. (Sec. 212). 

7. Complete a rulemaking to develop a pilot program for alternate passenger rail 

service (Sec. 214). 

8. Establish a grant program and make grants to implement or improve intercity passenger rail service. (Sec. 301). 

9. Make grants to reduce congestion or for facilitation of ridership growth. (Sec. 

302). 

10. Establish requirements for State rail plan development and review. (Sec. 303). 

11. Establish and carry out a rail cooperative research program. (Sec. 306). 

12. Complete a preliminary National Rail Plan. (Sec. 307). 

13. Establish procedures for preclearance of passengers traveling from the U.S. 

to Canada. (Sec. 406). 

14. Report to Congress on the results of a study and actions to streamline compliance with historic preservation requirements. (Sec. 407). 

15. Establish a grant program and make grants for high-speed rail corridor development. (Sec. 501). 

16. Issue a request for proposals for projects on designated high-speed rail corridors. (Sec. 502). 

17. Evaluate high-speed rail corridor proposals. (Sec. 502). 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much, Administrator 

Szabo. 

And now to Administrator Ferro. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE S. FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blunt, 

and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify today on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

progress in implementing both our MAP–21 requirements as well 

as the opportunity to lay out the safety provisions in the GROW 

AMERICA Act. 

18 

Safety is FMCSA’s top priority. And yet, since 2009, with the advent of our continued economic recovery, which is very, very good, 

the downside is, there has been an 18 percent increase in crashes 

involving commercial motor vehicles and in the number of people 

killed in those crashes. We can do better than that. And working 

together with Congress, enforcement, advocates, and our industry 

partners, using research, public dialogue, and sensible policies, we 

can raise the safety bar for truck and bus operations. 

MAP–21 has been part of the strategy, and FMCSA is pressing 

forward to meet all of the requirements. To date, we’ve completed 

more than half of the rulemakings required under MAP–21. For example, at the outset, we implemented agricultural exemptions and 

new financial security requirements for brokers and freight forwarders, as required under the law. And we are well on our way 

to establish the first national drug and alcohol clearinghouse, 

which will, in fact, help employers determine whether a driver is 

complying with Federal drug and alcohol regulations, including 

mandatory testing. The notice of proposed rulemaking and the 90- 

day comment period closed, just last month. 

In March, we issued a supplemental notice to create an electronic 

logging device requirement across the industry. This proposal will 

improve hours of service compliance; and hence, the uniform use of 

those logs will actually improve and mitigate the impacts of fatigue-related driving and fatigue-related crashes. In fact, the analysis of this proposal shows that it will help prevent approximately 

20 deaths, over 400 injuries each year, and have an annual safety 

benefit of almost $400 million. Comments on that proposal are still 

able to be made, up through the end of this month. 

MAP–21 is helping us reach our safety goal of getting to one 

level of safety for all passengers, regardless of what type of bus 

company they choose. FMCSA is training all of our special agents 

with new, enhanced investigation tactics to uncover safety deficiencies and remove dangerous buses and operators from the road. 

Some companies take full advantage of the opportunity we give 

them to get better, to use the information we’ve provided, use the 

audits to fix their problems. But, for those that don’t, we will put 

them, and we have put them, out of business. In fact, last year we 

shut down over 100 unsafe bus operations. 

Looking at the long term, President Obama has laid out a vision 

in the GROW AMERICA Act that enhances our safety work. 

GROW AMERICA focuses on three key areas to improve commercial motor vehicle safety. On motorcoach safety, GROW AMERICA 

will expand our opportunities to inspect motorcoaches at additional 

sites, and it’ll give FMCSA jurisdiction over passenger ticket brokers, folks who really do defraud customers as to what kind of company they’re about to use. It takes strong steps to improve our effectiveness under GROW AMERICA by allowing criminal prosecution of companies that deliberately violate Federal out-of-service requirements. 

Another provision calls for requiring companies to pay drivers for 

uncompensated time. It’s not news to know that when drivers are 

held up at the loading dock, waiting for shipments to be loaded or 

unloaded, they are often—more often than not—unpaid, uncompensated. And hence, they face pressure to make up that lost uncomVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
19 

pensated time by pushing both their physical limits as well as the 

legal driving limits. This proposal will ease the economic stress on 

long-distance drivers by ensuring that they receive fair compensation for the hours they work. 

And finally, GROW AMERICA streamlines and consolidates our 

Safety Grants Program; hence, improving and providing better efficiencies both for the agency, but, more importantly, for our State 

enforcement and licensing partners. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share a bit about 

what FMCSA is focused on and the opportunity to answer questions today. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ferro follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE S. FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR

CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blunt, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) progress in implementing the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP–21) and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) reauthorization proposal—the Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated 

Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout 

America Act (GROW AMERICA). 

Since FMCSA’s establishment in 2000, the number of lives lost in large truck-and 

bus-related crashes has decreased 26 percent, from 5,620 in 2000 to 4,183 in 2012. 

While this represents significant progress, more must be done. We are committed 

to reducing the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities involving commercial 

motor vehicles (CMV). 

MAP–21 

Overall, FMCSA is working hard to implement many of the commercial motor vehicle safety provisions of MAP–21. To date, the Agency has implemented twenty 

provisions of MAP–21 and has issued three Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM); including proposals to mandate Electronic Logging Devices and to establish a Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. MAP–21 gave the Agency important tools 

to improve CMV safety and remove unsafe operators from the Nation’s highways. 

The Agency’s plan aligns with three core principles: raise the bar to enter the motor 

carrier industry; require high safety standards to remain in the industry; and remove 

high-risk carriers, drivers, and service providers from operation. MAP–21 supports 

these core principles and our Agency’s important safety initiatives. 

Electronic Logging Devices 

MAP–21 included a provision mandating the use of electronic logging devices 

(ELD) for any driver required to keep a record of duty status (RODS) under the 

HOS regulations. The Agency published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on March 18 that would establish: (1) minimum performance 

standards for ELDs; (2) mandatory requirements for use of the devices by drivers 

required to prepare RODS; (3) requirements concerning HOS supporting documents; 

and (4) measures to ensure that the mandatory use of ELDs will not result in harassment of drivers by motor carriers or enforcement officials. The ELD requirements 

will improve HOS compliance by reducing the likelihood of falsification of drivers’ 

duty status records, thereby decreasing the risk of fatigue-related crashes attributable to HOS non-compliance. The public comment period runs through June 26. 

Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse 

MAP–21 provided explicit authority for the Secretary to create an electronic repository for positive alcohol and controlled substances test results. In response, on 

February 20, FMCSA published a NPRM to establish the Commercial Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse for all CDL holders. The proposed rule would 

require employers of CDL drivers and service agents to report positive test results 

and refusals to test to the Clearinghouse and thus will improve both driver and employer compliance with DOT’s alcohol and controlled substance testing program. 

Employers would be required to check the Clearinghouse to make sure current and 

prospective employees do not have drug and alcohol violations that would prohibit 

them from performing safety sensitive functions, such as driving CMVs. We solicited 

20 

comments on this rule through May 21. Ultimately, the Clearinghouse will improve 

roadway safety by making it easier to determine whether a truck or bus driver is 

prohibited from operating a CMV for failing to comply with Federal drug and alcohol regulations, including mandatory testing. 

Coercion 

On May 13, FMCSA published NPRM to adopt regulations that prohibit motor 

carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries from coercing drivers 

to operate CMVs in violation of certain provisions of the FMCSRs—including drivers’ hours of service limits and the CDL regulations and associated drug and alcohol 

testing rules—or the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). In addition, the 

NPRM would prohibit anyone who operates a CMV in interstate commerce from coercing a driver to violate the commercial regulations. This NPRM includes procedures for drivers to report incidents of coercion to FMCSA and rules of practice the 

Agency would follow in response to allegations of coercion and describes penalties 

that may be imposed on entities found to have coerced drivers. This proposed rulemaking is authorized by section 32911 of MAP–21, amending the Motor Carrier 

Safety Act of 1984. 

Compliance, Safety, Accountability 

The Compliance, Safety, Accountability program, or CSA, is FMCSA’s compliance 

model to improve CMV safety and reduce large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and 

fatalities on our Nation’s highways. MAP–21 included statutory revisions and additional authorities needed to improve the CSA model. For example, MAP–21 provided 

the Agency with flexibility to allow an investigator to display credentials in writing 

rather than in person. This clarifies FMCSA’s authority to conduct off-site enforcement interventions—to formally demand that a motor carrier provide records without having to travel to the motor carrier’s business location. This has been vital to 

expanding FMCSA’s and our State partners’ enforcement efforts to include off-site 

reviews and investigations, increasing our ability to provide effective safety oversight on a larger portion of the industry than before. 

Household Goods Provisions 

With regard to household goods transportation, MAP–21 authorized FMCSA to assign all or a portion of the penalties it receives from noncompliant moving companies to the aggrieved shipper. The Agency formed a working group to examine how 

to implement this new authority. A second provision granted the Agency authority 

to order moving companies to return household goods held hostage. FMCSA is aggressively using this new authority to protect consumers and ensure compliance 

with the Agency’s regulations. Recent enforcement efforts resulted in significant 

civil penalties against moving companies involved in fraudulent activities, and also 

resulted in revocation of the operating authority registration of some of carriers due 

to their egregious violations. 

Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level CMV Operators 

MAP–21 directed the Agency to issue final regulations to require training for 

entry level CDL applicants. The Agency’s rulemaking must address knowledge and 

skills for safe operation and other issues. Last year, the Agency held public listening 

sessions on this issue. These sessions provided the Agency with substantial information about training for entry level CDL applicants. The Agency will soon engage the 

services of a convener to assess the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking 

to implement this important MAP–21 provision. 

Miscellaneous Rule Text Changes in Provisions of MAP–21 

The Agency addressed numerous MAP–21 provisions in an omnibus final rule on 

October 1, 2013. This largely ministerial rulemaking action ensured that the regulations were aligned with the new statutory requirements. Most notable among the 

changes were the new financial security requirements for brokers and freight forwarders. As required by MAP–21, FMCSA amended its regulations to require a 

$75,000 surety bond or trust fund for brokers and extended the surety bond or trust 

fund requirement to freight forwarders for the first time. 

National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners 

In April 2012, FMCSA issued a final rule as required by a previous statutory 

amendment, reaffirmed and modified in MAP–21, to establish a National Registry 

of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry). The National Registry requires 

all Medical Examiners (ME) who conduct physical examinations for interstate CMV 

drivers to: complete training on FMCSA’s physical qualification standards; pass a 

certification test; and demonstrate competence through periodic training and testVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
21 

ing. It requires motor carriers and drivers to use only those MEs listed on the National Registry. On May 21, all CMV drivers whose medical certification has expired 

must use MEs on the National Registry for their exams. To date, there are more 

than 25,000 MEs on the National Registry with more in the pipeline. I emphasize 

that drivers’ medical certificates remain valid until their expiration date, which may 

be up to 2 years following the date of the medical exam. We commend the 

healthcare community for working with the Agency to stand up this program, which 

we believe will significantly improve highway safety. 

Passenger Carrier Safety 

FMCSA continues use of its MAP–21 authorities to strengthen the safety of passengers throughout our Nation who ride buses. In 2013, as part of an overall motorcoach safety initiative, we dispatched more than 50 specially trained investigators 

to conduct in-depth reviews of the safety management practices of the 250 most atrisk motorcoach companies during ‘‘Operation Quick Strike.’’ As a result, we removed 52 unsafe bus companies and 340 vehicles from the road. During the second 

phase of the initiative FMCSA investigators visited more than 1,300 carriers with 

minimal inspection history or data with the Agency. As a result, we identified more 

than 240 for follow-up investigations. Now we train all investigators to use the enhanced investigative techniques employed during Operation Quick Strike, and we 

have conducted evaluations and gap analyses with an eye toward how best to maintain an intensified level of oversight on the passenger carrier industry. 

Registration Requirements 

MAP–21 strengthened the registration requirements for motor carrier operating 

authority registration and included new authority for safety registration, including 

a mandatory USDOT number for anyone operating a CMV in interstate commerce. 

These new authorities have helped, and will help, the Agency to continue its crack 

down on carriers that commit safety violations and then change their company identity, or ‘‘reincarnate.’’ This growing and disturbing practice poses a real enforcement 

challenge to FMCSA’s investigators and commercial law enforcement officers nationwide. Under MAP–21 FMCSA can withhold, suspend, amend or revoke a motor carrier’s registration if the carrier fails to disclose its adverse safety history or if a 

motor carrier, employer, owner or operator does not disclose a relationship involving 

common ownership, management, control, or familial relationship to any other 

motor carrier, employer, or owner operator. 

Additionally, MAP–21 directed the Agency to establish a written proficiency exam 

for new operating authority registration applicants to test their knowledge of the 

safety regulations, applicable commercial regulations, and regulations relating to accessibility for disabled persons. This test will help ensure that companies understand these regulations before beginning operations. This year, we conducted listening sessions across the country to gather input on this issue. 

Agricultural Exemptions 

MAP–21 included two provisions applicable to operating CMVs for agricultural 

purposes. The first exempts CMV drivers from the Federal hours of service (HOS) 

rules when transporting agricultural commodities and farm supplies within a 150 

air-mile radius from the source of the commodities or the distribution point of the 

supplies. The second exempts the operation of ‘‘covered farm vehicles’’ by farm and 

ranch operators, their employees, and certain other specified individuals from most 

of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), including those pertaining to commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) and driver physical qualifications 

(medical) requirements. These self-executing statutory provisions took effect on October 1, 2012. The Agency published a Federal Register notice on October 1, 2012, 

to ensure motor carriers and enforcement officials were aware of the two statutory 

exemptions included in MAP–21. The Agency requested that States immediately 

take action to put into place policies and procedures to provide the regulatory relief 

provided by MAP–21, and to follow up with the appropriate amendments to their 

laws and regulations to reflect the statutory exemptions in MAP–21. In March 2013, 

FMCSA published a final rule to conform the FMCSRs to the statutory provisions 

in MAP–21. States have until March 14, 2016, to adopt compatible regulations to 

maintain eligibility for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants. 

The GROW AMERICA Act 

The GROW AMERICA Act will support millions of American jobs repairing and 

modernizing our roads, bridges, railways, and transit systems. It will ensure that 

American businesses can compete in the global economy and increase access to opportunities for all Americans. The Act builds upon the gains achieved in MAP–21 

for commercial motor vehicle safety and will further empower State and local comVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
22 

munities through more streamlined and efficient grant programs, will build on 

FMCSA’s unprecedented motorcoach safety achievements, and will ease economic 

stress on long-distance truck and bus drivers by ensuring they receive fair compensation for the hours they work. 

Improvements to the Motor Carrier Safety Grants 

GROW AMERICA will streamline and consolidate five FMCSA safety grant programs into a single formula program—a change that will dramatically increase administrative efficiencies for FMCSA and its State partners. The grant programs affected would be the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) Basic and 

Incentive; New Entrant; Border Enforcement; Performance and Registration Information Systems Management Program (PRISM); and Safety Data Improvement. 

The restructuring would allow the use of MCSAP funds to enforce household goods 

regulations. State participation in PRISM, Safety Data Improvement and New Entrant would become mandatory. Additionally, the proposal would restructure the 

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program allowing 

greater flexibility for advanced technology solutions, and it would eliminate core and 

expanded funding caps. 

Motorcoach Safety 

FMCSA is committed to raising the bar for safety in this highly competitive and 

rapidly changing industry by employing more effective investigation methods and 

strengthening the Agency’s oversight authorities. Last year, FMCSA shut down 

more than 100 unsafe bus companies that put passengers at risk, and we significantly increased public education and awareness on safe motorcoach travel. 

GROW AMERICA would expand the locations where States may require motorcoach inspections to include en route locations where food, shelter and sanitation 

for passengers can be provided. The proposal also grants FMCSA jurisdiction over 

passenger carrier brokers, requiring them to register with the Agency. This proposal 

would help prevent unsafe bus companies from reorganizing as unregulated brokers 

and ensure transportation through authorized carriers only. The GROW AMERICA 

Act will also prevent unscrupulous motor carriers from skirting FMCSA enforcement actions by clarifying authority for criminal prosecutions of persons who knowingly and willfully violate imminent hazard out-of-service orders, which are issued 

to prevent the death or serious physical harm to the public. 

Driver Compensation 

Many over-the-road truck and bus drivers are compensated by the mile or on a 

fixed-rate-per-load basis. As a result, drivers often are not paid for extended periods 

of time spent waiting at shipper or receiver facilities for shipments to be loaded or 

unloaded. Similarly, over-the-road motorcoach drivers are often compensated in a 

manner other than an hourly wage. This pay structure may create pressures to exceed HOS limits, risk driver fatigue, and jeopardize highway safety. The proposal 

provides the Secretary of Transportation authority to adopt rules to require motor 

carriers to compensate drivers for detention time and other non-driving work periods at a rate that is at least equal to the Federal minimum wage. The proposal 

would not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); this pay would be in addition to that required under FLSA. 

Conclusion 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Blunt, for the opportunity to discuss the Federal motor carrier safety programs. We look forward to working with 

you to improve safety, reduce crashes, and save lives on our Nation’s highways. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

And now, Administrator Quarterman, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, 

ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Good morning. Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for inviting me here today to testify on the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration’s progress in implementing the 

hazardous materials safety provisions of MAP–21. I’m also deVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
23 

lighted to discuss the ways the GROW AMERICA Act will further 

improve upon the efforts of PHMSA and the Department to enhance the safety of our Nation’s hazardous materials transportation system. Safety is the top priority of Secretary Foxx, the Department of Transportation, PHMSA, and its sister modes. All of 

us at DOT appreciate your dedication and leadership in advancing 

hazardous materials transportation safety. 

For a relatively small agency with limited resources, the staff at 

PHMSA works diligently to protect the American public and the 

environment from hazardous materials transportation incidents 

and have made great strides in implementing the provisions of 

MAP–21. 

Since MAP–21’s enactment in 2012, PHMSA has met, or will 

meet, more than 90 percent of the established time lines for the 32 

separate provisions assigned to the agency. 

This is significant, given that—the many challenges and emerging issues that PHMSA has faced over the same time period, including efforts to enhance the safe transportation of crude by rail 

and continuing to consistently reduce the number of hazardous materials incidents over the past 25 years. 

A significant contributor to PHMSA’s success has been the strategy and action plan we developed and implemented to take advantage of the additional resources MAP–21 provided to bolster compliance with hazardous materials regulations. 

As the transportation sector continues to evolve and become 

more interconnected with the international community, PHMSA 

has attempted to adopt smarter strategies to adapt to those 

changes. As a part of our enforcement strategy, and through the 

authority of MAP–21, PHMSA raised its maximum civil penalty 

amount for violations resulting in death, injury, or illness. We believe that clear and appropriate civil penalties can improve transportation safety by acting as a deterrent for noncompliance. That’s 

why the GROW AMERICA Act submitted to Congress by Secretary 

Foxx proposes to further increase the maximum amount PHMSA 

can assess for violators of hazardous materials regulations. The increased civil penalty authority will allow us to address situations 

where a higher penalty is warranted, including those events resulting in death, injury, or illness. 

In addition, the GROW AMERICA Act will further build on 

MAP–21’s successes and support the Department’s safety initiatives by improving PHMSA’s ability to oversee the safe transportation of hazardous materials. GROW AMERICA will give PHMSA 

the authority to issue orders to industry to cease activities, without 

prior notice, in response to emergency situations. Similar authority 

is already held by FRA and FMCSA, and GROW AMERICA will increase DOT’s ability to stop unsafe conditions or practices that may 

threaten life, personal injury, or harm to property or the environment. GROW AMERICA will also enhance communities and improve safety by expanding hazardous registration requirements and 

improve the effectiveness of PHMSA’s Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants Program. 

These are just a few of the many ways MAP–21 and the GROW 

AMERICA Act can, and will, provide further safeguards against 

hazardous materials transportation risks for American commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
24 

1See 78 Fed. Reg. 22798 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-17/pdf/2013-08981.pdf 

nities. As I’ve stated earlier, PHMSA is committed to improving 

transportation safety, and I believe our approach is working. Our 

safety mission is guided by our vision that no harm results from 

hazardous materials transportation. And I truly believe our efforts 

will continue to prevent and mitigate accidents and move us closer 

to our goal of zero deaths and injuries. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. We look forward to continuing to work with this committee and Congress to 

protect people, property, and the environment from hazardous materials transportation risks. And I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Quarterman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Introduction 

Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) progress in implementing the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress 

in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21) and the Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and 

Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and 

Communities throughout America (GROW AMERICA) Act, which would provide important tools to further improve the safe transportation of hazardous materials. 

Safety is PHMSA’s number one priority. PHMSA works diligently to protect the 

American people and the environment from the risks of hazardous materials transportation. PHMSA achieves its safety mission through efforts to prevent and mitigate accidents by developing regulations, taking rigorous enforcement actions, collaborating with stakeholders, and educating emergency responders and the public. 

MAP–21 provides PHMSA with important new tools to improve the safety of transporting hazardous materials and the GROW AMERICA Act will build on the successes of MAP–21 and further support our agency’s safety initiatives. With the positive outcomes already achieved through MAP–21 and the improvements that the 

GROW AMERICA Act will provide, PHMSA will be strategically positioned to meet 

its safety goals and improve the safety of our Nation’s transportation system. 

MAP–21 Overview 

MAP–21 authorized or mandated numerous rulemakings, reports, and programmatic changes to enhance PHMSA’s Hazardous Materials Safety Program. 

PHMSA finalized its strategy to implement the Act on August 31, 2012 and a supporting Action Plan on October 10, 2012. The Action Plan assigned responsible staff 

to 13 areas, covering 32 separate provisions. As a result, PHMSA has met or will 

meet established timelines for more than 90 percent of the 32 provisions. This is 

significant given the many challenges and emerging issues that PHMSA has faced 

over the same period. The MAP–21 mandates are organized below into three categories: (1) Rulemakings; (2) Studies and Reports to Congress; and (3) Other Mandates, and Programmatic Changes. 

Rulemakings 

Update of Published Guidelines on Civil Penalty Amounts 

MAP–21 removed the minimum penalty amount for a violation, except that the 

minimum penalty amount of $450 was retained for a training violation. In addition, 

MAP–21 raised the maximum penalty amount for a knowing violation and a violation resulting in death, serious illness or severe injury to any person, or substantial 

destruction of property to $75,000 and $175,000, respectively. PHSMA adopted these 

changes in an April 17, 2013 final rule.1 PHMSA believes clear and appropriate civil 

penalties can improve transportation safety by acting as a deterrent for those violating the regulations. As I will discuss later, GROW AMERICA builds upon the 

MAP–21 enhancement to the civil penalties program. 

25 

2See 78 Fed. Reg 60755 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-02/pdf/2013-23894.pdf 3See 78 Fed. Reg. 58501 https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-22952 4 Although, MAP–21 limited the review and analysis to SPs with a lifespan of greater than 

10 years, PHMSA decided that an initial review and analysis of all active SPs would be more 

beneficial, as many SPs are interrelated. 

Open Package—Resumption of Transportation 

MAP–21 required PHMSA to implement regulations by October 2013 to provide 

procedures for an agent of the Secretary of Transportation to open packages of perishable hazardous materials and to provide notification to the responsible party that 

an agent has performed a safety inspection or investigation. In addition, MAP–21 

stressed that inspectors be provided appropriate training and equipment to open 

and close a package in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations 

(HMR). PHMSA published a final rule 2 in October 2013 to codify changes to Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law and to ensure transparency and consistency 

for hazardous materials inspectors across all modes of transportation. 

Failure to Pay Civil Penalties 

MAP–21 directed PHMSA to issue regulations by October 2014 to require a person who is delinquent in paying civil penalties for a violation of the hazardous materials transportation law or regulations to cease any activity regulated under the 

Federal hazardous materials transportation law until payment has been made or 

until an acceptable payment plan has been arranged. On September 24, 2013, 

PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)3 addressing the MAP– 

21 mandate to prohibit hazardous materials operations by persons delinquent on 

payment of civil penalties. The comment period for the NPRM closed on November 

25, 2013. The final rule is currently under review. 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Handling Applications for Special Permits (SPs) and Objective Criteria for Evaluating SPs 

MAP–21 required PHMSA to issue regulations that establish (1) SOPs to support 

administration of the SP and approval programs, and (2) objective criteria to support the evaluation of SP and approval applications. MAP–21 mandates a final rule 

by October 2014. Stakeholders have expressed an interest and feedback in resolving 

SP and approval processing concerns through rulemaking and suggested several alternatives. PHMSA’s NPRM is currently under Departmental review. 

Incorporation of SPs into the HMR 

MAP–21 required an initial review and analysis of SPs that have been in continuous effect for a 10-year period to determine which ones may be converted into the 

HMR. MAP–21 mandates a rule by October 2015.4 PHMSA’s NPRM is currently 

under review. 

Continued Incorporation of SPs 

MAP–21 requires an ongoing review, analysis, and incorporation of SPs that are 

over 10 years old. Based on this review and analysis, PHMSA must either institute 

a rulemaking to incorporate the SPs into the HMR or publish in the Federal Register its justification for why the SPs are not appropriate for incorporation into the 

regulations. MAP–21 mandates a rule annually, beginning October 2016. As required by MAP–21, PHMSA plans to conduct future reviews of SPs with a lifespan 

of greater than 10 years on an annual basis. PHMSA’s ongoing review and analysis 

of SPs will use the same methodology and tools as the initial NPRM, outlined above. 

PHMSA anticipates future analysis and review will be more streamlined due to the 

reduced volume of SPs to be evaluated. 

Studies and Reports to Congress 

Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant Report 

The Hazardous Materials Grants Program (HM Grants Program) was a key focus 

area of MAP–21. The program is funded by registration fees collected from hazardous materials shippers and carriers who offer for transportation or transport certain hazmat in intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce in accordance with 49 

CFR Part 107, Subpart G. These fees fund training and planning grants, monitoring 

and technical assistance, curriculum development, and staffing costs. Registration 

fees also fund the publication and distribution of the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG). The HM Grants Program is comprised of three types of grants: 

26 

5See 78 Fed. Reg. 72972 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-04/pdf/2013-29015.pdf 6See 78 FR 43263 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-19/pdf/2013-17363.pdf 7See 78 FR 70399 http://www.federalregister.com/Browse/Document/usa/na/fr/2013/11/ 

25/2013-28168 

Hazardous Materials Grants Program 

Grant Summary Value 

Hazardous Materials 

Emergency 

Preparedness 

(HMEP) Grant 

The purpose of this grant program is to increase 

State, Territorial, Tribal, and local effectiveness in 

safely and efficiently handling hazardous materials 

accidents and incidents, enhance implementation 

of the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), and encourage a 

comprehensive approach to emergency training 

and planning by incorporating the unique challenges of responses to transportation situations..

$21.8 million 

Hazardous Materials 

Instructor Training 

(HMIT) Grant 

The HMIT Grant program is a competitive program 

by which instructors are trained to deliver hazardous materials training to hazmat employees. 

Funding for the program is made available to nonprofit organizations that demonstrate: 1) expertise 

in conducting a training program for hazmat employees and 2) the ability to reach and involve, in a 

training program, a target population of hazmat 

employees..

$4 million 

Supplemental Public 

Sector Training 

(SPST) Grant 

These grants serve the purpose of aiding national 

non-profit organizations with training instructors 

to conduct hazardous materials response training 

programs for individuals with a statutory responsibility to respond to hazardous materials accidents 

and incidents..

$1 million 

MAP–21 required PHMSA to submit a report to Congress by October 2013 providing a detailed accounting and description of the HMEP grant expenditures by 

each grant recipient, including the amount of, and purpose for each expenditure. In 

addition, MAP–21 imposed a biennial reporting requirement on a State, political 

subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe that levies a fee in connection with the transportation of hazardous materials. In order to collect and report this information to 

Congress, PHMSA must receive approval to collect the necessary information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3521). Once 

PHMSA obtains authorization to collect the additional information, grantees will be 

asked to submit quarterly and final reports containing the requisite information. 

PHMSA published a 60-day Federal Register Notice on December 4, 2013.5 PHMSA 

expects to publish the 30-day Federal Register Notice in June of 2014 in order to 

begin collecting the information during Fiscal Year 2015. The information collected 

during Fiscal Year 2015 will be reported on in the 2016 report to Congress. 

Paperless Hazardous Materials Communication Pilot Program 

MAP–21 authorized PHMSA to conduct pilot projects to evaluate the feasibility 

and effectiveness of using paperless hazard communications systems. Upon the completion of the pilot program, a report to Congress is due by October 2014. Here, the 

PRA is also applicable, so PHMSA must receive approval to collect the necessary 

information. Once PHMSA obtains authorization to collect the additional information, it will be authorized to initiate a pilot program. PHMSA published a 60-day 

Federal Register Notice on July 19, 2013.6 PHMSA published the 30-day Federal 

Register Notice on November 25, 2013.7 In preparation for PRA approval, PHMSA 

hosted a roundtable discussion with law enforcement and the emergency response 

community on March 13, 2014. 

In a matter related to the paperless hazardous materials communication initiative, PHMSA issued an SP to UPS, Inc., on December 30, 2013 authorizing the electronic transfer of shipping paper information for certain low hazard shipments within their ground operation. PHMSA has made it a priority to cut red tape and improve efficiency and moved expeditiously with this SP. Further, sharing hazardous 

27 

materials information electronically will improve transportation efficiency without 

sacrificing public safety. 

Improving Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting 

MAP–21 required PHMSA, in consultation with the United States Coast Guard, 

to conduct an assessment to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and use of 

data related to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous 

materials. MAP–21 further required PHMSA to review methods for collecting, analyzing, and reporting accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials. Upon completion of the assessment and review, PHMSA was required to report to Congress on its plan and timeline for improving the collection, 

analysis, reporting, and use of data, including revising PHMSA databases, as appropriate. PHMSA reported its findings to Congress on September 3, 2013. PHMSA 

continues to implement its recommendations based on the availability of resources. 

Other Mandates and Programmatic Changes 

Enhancing Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Training 

As mentioned in the HMEP Grant Report discussion above, MAP–21 provided several provisions related to PHMSA’s HM Grants Program. These changes came after 

PHMSA had already taken steps to enhance the program. Specifically, MAP–21 requires HMIT and SPST grants to be awarded through a competitive process. In addition, under MAP–21, PHMSA must ensure that HMEP and SPST grants are 

awarded to emergency responders that will have the ability to respond to effects of 

accidents or incidents involving the transportation of hazardous material in accordance with existing regulations or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 

standards. Further, SPST grant agreements must specifically state that training 

courses shall comply with Federal regulations and national consensus standards for 

hazardous materials response. 

As a result of its initiatives and the MAP–21 provisions, PHMSA has increased 

its oversight of grantee training programs to ensure that responders and instructors 

trained under PHMSA hazardous materials grant programs will have the ability to 

protect nearby persons, property, and the environment from the effects of accidents 

or incidents involving the transportation of hazardous material in accordance with 

existing regulations or NFPA standards. 

PHMSA is increasing its outreach to ensure that States, Native American Indian 

Tribes, Territories, and eligible non-profit organizations are aware of the MAP–21 

program changes. This outreach will also serve to broaden the pool of applicants and 

ensure that stakeholders are aware that the HMIT and SPST grants are awarded 

competitively. PHMSA has created an online certification program that will require 

HMEP and SPST grantees to certify during the application process that they will 

use the grant funding to train to the NFPA standards. 

Hazardous Material Enforcement Training 

MAP–21 mandated that by April 2014, PHMSA develop uniform performance 

standards for training hazardous materials inspectors and investigators on: (1) how 

to collect, analyze, and publish findings from inspections and investigations of accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials; and (2) 

how to identify noncompliance with the HMR, and take appropriate enforcement action. The legislation also provided several options for how these standards are presented, including: (1) guidelines; (2) best practices and standards; or (3) standard 

protocols to coordinate efforts among Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. PHMSA, 

in collaboration with its modal partners, developed the standards, and the agencies 

have implemented them. Additionally, PHMSA is evaluating the effectiveness of the 

standards in coordination with other modal administrations. 

Hazardous Material Technical Assessment, Research and Development, and Analysis 

Program 

MAP–21 authorized PHMSA to develop and implement a hazardous material 

technical assessment, research and development, and analysis program. On January 

17, 2014, PHMSA hosted a research and development forum to discuss the program 

with regulated entities and its modal partners, and to solicit comments. The forum 

transcript has been posted to PHMSA’s research and development website (http:// 

phmsa.dot.gov/initiatives/r-and-d). The comment period for the research projects discussed at the forum closed on March 21, 2014. PHMSA is currently reviewing 11 

comments received from our stakeholders. Though commenters are very supportive 

of our program, they do recommend changes to research activities involving liquefied petroleum gas odorization, anhydrous ammonia, and explosives. PHMSA will 

post the comments and responses to the research and development website. 

28 

Wetlines 

MAP–21 mandated that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate 

and report on the safety of transporting flammable liquids in the external product 

piping of cargo tank motor vehicles (wetlines) by October 2013. MAP–21 also required that PHMSA not issue a final rule regarding wetlines prior to the completion 

of GAO’s evaluation. Per MAP–21, the GAO completed an audit on wetlines-related 

issues and published the final report on September 11, 2013. This final report recommended that PHMSA re-evaluate its regulatory cost-benefit analysis to address 

uncertainty in the assumptions and data. PHMSA is committed to working with our 

stakeholders to discuss safe solutions to the risks posed by wetlines. 

GROW AMERICA Act Overview 

On April 29, 2014, Secretary Foxx sent a transportation bill, entitled the GROW 

AMERICA Act, to Congress for consideration. This proposal is a $302 billion, fouryear surface transportation reauthorization that provides increased and stable funding for our Nation’s highways, bridges, transit, and rail systems. 

The GROW AMERICA Act will also improve PHMSA’s ability to oversee the safe 

transportation of hazardous materials. Below is an overview of the key hazardous 

materials safety provisions of the GROW AMERICA Act. 

PHMSA Key Provisions of the GROW AMERICA Act to Improve the Safe 

Transportation of Hazardous Materials 

Increases Authority to Stop Unsafe Conditions 

The GROW AMERICA Act will increase DOT’s authority to stop unsafe conditions 

or practices that may cause an emergency situation involving a threat to life, personal injury, or harm to property or the environment. The Act will provide clear authority for PHMSA to issue Orders to industry in response to emergency situations 

without prior notice similar to the authority already available to the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

Reduces Taxpayer Burden to Administer the Special Permit and Approvals Program 

The GROW AMERICA Act will authorize the Secretary to collect a reasonable fee 

for the administration of the special permits and approvals program. This fee will 

offset some of PHMSA’s costs associated with the special permit and approvals process and transfer some of the costs of running the Special Permits and Approvals 

program from taxpayers to the program’s applicants. 

Improves National Emergency and Disaster Response 

Hurricane Sandy is the most recent example of a common problem that impedes 

the transportation of hazardous materials during national emergencies: differing 

opinions between Federal, state, and local officials regarding the types of hazardous 

materials authorized to move in affected areas that can delay or prevent the delivery of critical shipments. The GROW AMERICA Act will remedy this problem by 

clarifying DOT’s authority to facilitate the movement of essential hazardous material during a national emergency or disaster. 

Establishes Hazard Abatement Authority 

The GROW AMERICA Act will combat a growing problem of unscrupulous shippers abandoning hazardous materials in transit by providing DOT with the authority to hold a non-compliant shipper accountable for the remediation or disposal costs 

for the non-compliant shipment. This authority will build upon the improvements 

in hazardous materials enforcement and the civil penalties program that were implemented through MAP–21. Finally, this requirement will act as a deterrent to 

those who knowingly violate the hazardous materials regulations. 

Expands Inspection of Non-Domestic Entities 

There remain instances when a person outside the U.S. seeks to manufacture, requalify, or inspect DOT specification packaging or special permit cylinders or certify 

compliance with U.S. regulations. The GROW AMERICA Act grants broader inspection and investigation authority over non-domestic entities, extending authority to 

those seeking approval from PHMSA to perform these functions outside the U.S. 

Once approved, the applicant must allow hazmat investigators to inspect the applicant’s process and procedures, while bearing the cost of the initial and subsequent 

inspections. This shift in procedure will place the cost of the inspection on the user, 

and not on U.S. taxpayers. 

29 

Enhance Communities and Improve Safety 

Enhances Registration Requirements 

The GROW AMERICA Act will expand the hazmat registration requirements to 

any entity that performs a regulated activity requiring training. This expanded registration requirement will provide more effective oversight of the hazardous materials program and provide a more accurate representation of the population composition of our stakeholders. 

Improves the Effectiveness of the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness 

Grant Program 

The GROW AMERICA Act will improve the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant Program and build upon the improvements in MAP–21. The 

GROW AMERICA Act will reform the grant program by making several changes to 

ensure greater accountability of grantees and maximize the impact of grant funds. 

This proposal includes amendments to improve the effectiveness of the grant program. Some highlights include but are not limited to: 

• Reorganize the criteria and institute comparable requirements for all instructor 

training grants to ensure that all funds are effectively used to the fullest extent 

possible by hazardous materials employees and emergency responders; 

• Broaden grants eligibility to increase competitiveness; 

• Allow states to apply for grants for ‘‘planning and emergency response’’ to give 

grantees the flexibility to direct funds between eligible planning and emergency 

response activities according to need. This will enable states to more fully utilize grants; 

• Eliminate the pass-through requirement to allow grantees to provide funding 

towards training and planning activities as they deem appropriate and to allow 

for more time to utilize HMEP awards; 

• Allow PHMSA to provide supplemental grants to grantees with a proven need 

for supplemental emergency response funding; and 

• Increase administrative cost allowance from 2 percent to 4 percent to permit 

better oversight and performance of the HMEP grants program. 

Increases Penalties for Violations 

The GROW AMERICA Act strengthens PHMSA’s ability to ensure compliance by 

increasing the maximum amount that we can assess for a civil penalty, as well as 

provide us with the ability to address situations where a higher penalty is warranted. The Act will increase the maximum civil penalty amount from $75,000 to 

$250,000; or, for a violation that results in death, serious illness, or severe injury 

to any person or substantial destruction of property, from $175,000 to $500,000. As 

I previously stated, PHMSA believes clear and appropriate civil penalties can improve transportation safety by acting as a deterrent for those violating the regulations. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss PHMSA’s implementation of MAP–21 

and the recently submitted GROW AMERICA Act. We very much appreciate your 

partnership as we work together to safeguard people, property, and the environment 

from hazardous materials transportation risks. I truly believe that the GROW 

AMERICA Act is a logical and important step forward in improving hazardous materials transportation safety. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Assistant Secretary Winfree. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORY D. WINFREE, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. WINFREE. Thank you, Chairman Blumenthal, for the opportunity to visit with you, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of 

the Committee to talk about the Department’s progress in implementing MAP–21 and the administration’s proposal to reauthorize 

surface transportation programs, the GROW AMERICA Act. The 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology conVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
30 

tinues to lead the Department’s research coordination and commercialization efforts, driving cross-modal collaboration to meet our 

challenges. 

Congress has long recognized the value of transportation research by funding research and data programs through the Highway Trust Fund. In my organization, three programs that you authorized under MAP–21 have continued to advance departmental 

goals for American transportation: the Intelligent Transportation 

Systems Research Program, the University Transportation Centers 

Program, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

In ITS research, some of our team’s progress has been attracting 

public attention, most notably through the ITS-funded connected 

vehicle safety pilot in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is the largest 

such test program in the world and conducted—in collaboration 

with the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute. The results led to NHTSA’s decision to proceed with vehicleto-vehicle—V2V—communication technology for light-duty vehicles. 

This technology will improve safety and has the potential to reduce 

non-impaired fatalities by up to 80 percent. The Department continues to work toward connected vehicle applications for heavyduty vehicles. And the Federal Highway Administration is preparing to issue guidance in 2015 for installing vehicle-to-infrastructure—V2I—applications for roadway safety and improved traffic 

operations. I note that all of the success and the standards that 

support it are based upon the availability of the 5.9-gigahertz dedicated short-range communications spectrum. 

Our UTCs continue bringing innovation to the transportation 

system and developing the next generation of transportation leaders. We are extremely pleased with the nationwide consortia of universities selected under the open competition enabled by MAP–21. 

Covering over 120 universities, which bring expertise in multiple 

disciplines, UTCs enable some of the systemic interdisciplinary 

cross-modal research we need to address increasingly complex challenges. We are seeing exciting work in robotic bridge inspections, 

automated vehicles, wireless monitoring of bridge integrity, and 

disaster resilience, with much more to come. 

BTS continues to fulfill its role as one of the Federal Government’s 13 independent statistical agencies producing key information to illuminate decisionmaking. BTS places a priority on making 

data readily available and has improved access to data through 

such applications as the National Transportation Atlas Viewer and 

to all forms of transportation data through the National Transportation Library. BTS products include the commodity flow survey 

and its transborder freight data program, which are the foundations of our understanding of freight transportation. The range of 

BTS’s airline data is widely cited. BTS led the establishment of the 

continually growing SafetyData.gov website and supports MAP– 

21’s performance measurement goals. 

The item with the largest impact on my organization took place 

after the passage of MAP–21. January’s omnibus appropriations 

bill transferred the powers and authorities of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration to the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Research and Technology. This is the culmination of 

an initiative begun in the President’s FY–13 budget request. The 

31 

elevation to the Office of the Secretary will bring more leadership 

insight into transportation research and development and data and 

statistics, and will heighten their influence on policy discussions 

and decisionmaking. The Trust Fund programs of the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary will continue their existing missions and remain key components of the newly elevated office. 

In addition, the elevation returns responsibility for positioning, 

navigation and timing, and spectrum management to the Secretary’s office, appropriate for a critical responsibility which impacts all nonmilitary users of GPS. We will continue to oversee the 

wide-ranging and cross-modal efforts of the Volpe National Transportation System Center and the Transportation Safety Institute. 

The GROW AMERICA Act recognizes that research and data 

play a significant part in improving safety, transportation planning 

and decisionmaking, and preparing the Nation’s workforce. The 

GROW AMERICA Act requests a few changes in research and data 

programs; specifically, implementing the results of the second Strategic Highway Research Program by allowing the allocation of up 

to 25 million per year from the highway account; establishing a national cooperative freight research program in support of departmental freight goals, including a targeted focus on hazardous materials; creating a priority multimodal research program enabling 

cross-agency research and innovation in three priority areas: infrastructure systems resilience and recovery, a zero-emissions transportation system, and a multimodal STEM education and workforce development program. 

Thank you for this opportunity to update you on our progress, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winfree follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY D. WINFREE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Blunt, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you with my colleagues today to talk 

about the Department’s progress in implementing the directions of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), and the Administration’s 

proposal to reauthorize surface transportation programs, called the GROW AMERICA Act. I will also discuss the recent elevation of the former Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) into the Office of the Secretary. 

Transportation research, technology and data are critical tools for improving the 

safety, efficiency, mobility, capacity and state of good repair of America’s transportation systems; and for reducing transportation’s environmental and societal impacts. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology is pleased 

to continue to lead the Department of Transportation’s research coordination efforts, 

driving cross-modal collaboration to meet 21st Century challenges. 

Continual development and adoption of new processes and advanced technologies 

are reducing project delivery times, improving system operations and capacity, extending the life of transportation infrastructure, and providing actionable information to travelers and transportation planners. As Secretary Anthony Foxx noted at 

January’s Transportation Research Board’s Annual Meeting, research and data have 

a significant role to play in addressing America’s infrastructure deficit by improving 

planning and adopting innovative best practices; stretching scarce resources with 

well-researched, data-driven innovation resulting in smarter capital projects which 

are built better and cost less, making more funding available for projects. A good 

example of this is accelerated bridge construction, reducing the time for small bridge 

replacement—saving funds which can then be used for other work. 

32 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21)—Our 

Progress 

The Congress has long recognized the value of transportation research by funding 

research and data programs through the Highway Trust Fund. In my organization, 

three programs that you authorized under MAP–21 have continued to advance our 

common goals for American transportation—the Intelligent Transportation Systems 

(ITS) Research Program; the University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program, 

and the data and information programs of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS). Allow me to take a few moments to describe the progress we have made. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Research 

In ITS research, some of our team’s progress has been attracting public attention—most notably through the ITS-funded Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot, the largest such test program in the world, conducted through the University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Department tested safety applications with everyday drivers under both real-world and 

controlled test conditions. These test results led to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) February decision to move forward with vehicleto-vehicle (V2V) communication technology for light duty vehicles. This technology 

will improve safety and has the potential to reduce non-impaired fatalities by 80 

percent. It would do so by allowing vehicles to ‘‘talk’’ to each other and ultimately 

avoid many crashes altogether by exchanging basic, anonymous safety data, such as 

speed and position, ten times per second. This major decision was based largely on 

the research, technology developments, test deployments, and data collections and 

analyses conducted under the ITS Research Program. Research indicates that safety 

applications using V2V technology can address a large majority of crashes involving 

two or more motor vehicles. With safety data such as speed and location flowing 

from nearby vehicles, vehicles can identify risks and provide drivers with warnings 

to avoid other vehicles in common crash types such as rear-end, lane change, and 

intersection crashes. 

But that’s certainly not all. The Department continues to work collaboratively 

across the Operating Administrations towards connected vehicle applications for 

heavy duty vehicles, and our colleagues at the Federal Highway Administration are 

preparing to issue guidance in 2015 for installing vehicle-to-infrastructure applications for roadway safety and improved traffic operations and maintenance, drawing 

on the connected vehicle data that will be made available. ITS research has enabled 

multimodal Integrated Corridor Management (in part through demonstration 

projects in Dallas and San Diego), and Next Generation-911. Additionally ITS is 

using connected vehicle technology research to reduce congestion, improve road 

weather information and real-time data capture, and reduce emissions. 

In support of these advances, the ITS program continues to assess the legal and 

policy structures needed to make these safety, operational and environmental improvements a daily reality, with an emphasis on ensuring data privacy and on the 

technologies enabling security of cyber-physical systems. And, we continue to work 

actively with our partners in the standards developing organizations (SDOs) to ensure that the many private sector actors involved in ITS deployment—from Original 

Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to suppliers to technology firms to infrastructure 

and construction firms—all produce interoperable equipment and systems that can 

seamlessly share the data that enables safety and other applications. We continue 

to pursue this interoperability with our international partners as well, as transportation equipment and services are a global market. Finally, I note that all of this 

success, and the standards that support it, are based upon the availability of the 

5.9 GHz Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) spectrum. Allocated in the 

U.S. and internationally for transportation safety, the 5.9 GHz band was specifically 

selected to enable the ten-times-per-second exchange of information needed to bring 

to reality the safety improvements that remain the primary goal of ITS research. 

University Transportation Centers (UTC) Program 

Since the late 1980s, Congress has acknowledged the important contributions 

made to transportation research, technology transfer, education and workforce development by America’s universities. While the form and structure of the UTC Program has changed many times over the years, the work of the UTCs in developing 

solutions to the problems faced by the Federal and state departments of transportation, in bringing innovation to the transportation system, and in developing the 

next generation of transportation leaders, has enriched the Nation. 

We are extremely pleased with the consortia of universities selected under the full 

and open competition enabled by MAP–21. Covering over 120 universities which 

bring expertise in multiple disciplines, both traditional (civil engineering) and not 

33 

(public health, psychology and sociology, studying safety culture), UTCs enable the 

systemic, interdisciplinary, cross-modal research we need to address increasingly 

complex challenges that cross traditional boundaries. UTCs do this while educating 

undergraduate and graduate students in the technical and problem-solving skills we 

need moving forward—a ‘‘win –win’’ if I’ve ever heard one. I always enjoy the opportunity to meet with the bright young students at our UTCs, to hear about what exciting new things they are developing in the laboratories and classrooms, and how 

their own lives are changing, even as they add to our transportation knowledge. I 

encourage the members of this Committee to take those opportunities as well. 

In MAP–21, we were directed to expand the transparency of the UTC grant selection process; to include more external reviewers; and to select and fund the selected 

grants by October 1, 2013. I am pleased to report that we met all of these mandates, 

and in doing so selected the most vibrant group of UTCs yet. Starting from a relatively new place for us—with no designated UTCs and with a Secretarially-determined set of strategic research goals—we established robust, thematically-focused 

review teams so that experts in topic areas were aligned with the proposals most 

appropriate to their areas. While my office was ultimately responsible for the process, well-managed by the hardworking UTC program staff, the review teams drew 

from all DOT Operating Administrations and from numerous outside experts, organized by topic area. Together, the teams worked through the 142 applications received for the 35 UTC grants—a record response—to bring out the best fits to meet 

our research goals. As required by MAP–21, each applicant received copies of the 

written reviews used in the evaluation process, so that those not selected know how 

to improve their applications for the next time, and those selected know how to improve upon identified weaknesses as they execute the grants. This enhanced process 

worked so well that we received no complaints about the process or the fairness of 

the selections. In addition, we were able to recompete two grants for which we did 

not receive applications the review teams thought sufficient, instead of being forced 

to select lower quality applications. It is our hope that this demonstrated process 

will be continued under the next authorization. 

It is exciting to me to see the results we are already starting to garner from our 

MAP–21 UTCs. For example, in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, one of our 

UTCs collaborated with a private partner to use mobile Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology to assess storm damage to buildings, roadways, and utilities 

in the devastated coastal communities of New York and New Jersey. This work has 

led directly to commercial availability of equipment and techniques to quantify the 

disastrous effects of a major storm, and to use that data to help communities prepare for and recover from future extreme weather events. 

Work in robotic bridge inspections, automated vehicles, wireless monitoring of the 

structural integrity of bridges, improvements in livability and environmental sustainability, and broad advances in freight movement and capacity, economic competitiveness, passenger safety, and more effective operations and maintenance—all 

are developments we are already starting to see, and we look forward to more innovations in the future as our UTCs partner with state DOTs, local agencies, transit 

agencies, rail companies, and the private sector to deliver solutions and a trained 

workforce for American transportation. 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) 

BTS continues to fulfill its role as one of the Federal Government’s thirteen designated principal statistical agencies, producing key information to illuminate public 

and private decisions on a range of transportation-related topics. BTS places a priority on making data readily available, and has recently taken steps to improve access to geospatial data through the National Transportation Atlas Viewer and to all 

forms of transportation data through BTS’ National Transportation Library (NTL). 

BTS products include the Commodity Flow Survey and its Transborder Freight Data 

Program, which are the foundation of our understanding of freight transportation 

and of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Freight Analysis Framework 

(FAF). BTS data on airline traffic, finance, and on-time performance are widely 

cited. BTS also compiles a wide range of performance data in the National Transportation Statistics and State Transportation Statistics online reports. 

While MAP–21 largely continued existing BTS functions and products, there were 

several new requirements on which we have been making significant progress. 

Asked to establish a program to integrate safety data across modes, and to address 

gaps in safety data programs of the Department, BTS led the establishment of the 

continually-growing Safety.data.gov, and is continuing to drive the multi-Operating 

Administration assessment of safety data gaps. BTS has also expanded its Confidential Close Calls Reporting Program. BTS supports MAP–21’s performance measurement goals by publishing performance data through the National Transportation 

34 

Statistics and the Transportation Statistics Annual Report; and by providing performance data to the annual DOT Performance and Accountability Reports. 

BTS’s National Transportation Library was given a much broader mandate in 

MAP–21, now being required to serve as a central depository for research results 

and technical publications of the Department; to provide a central clearinghouse for 

transportation data and information of the Federal Government; to serve as coordinator and policy lead for transportation information access; and to coordinate efforts 

among, and cooperate with, transportation libraries, information providers, and 

technical assistance centers, with the goal of developing a comprehensive transportation information and knowledge network. Accomplishing this far-reaching mandate within the unchanged BTS authorized funding level has been a significant 

challenge, but we are making progress. The dedicated NTL staff digitized 20,000 

pages of DOT historical documents in FY13, and expects to meet the same target 

for FY14, to make these documents accessible. NTL established the National Transportation Knowledge Network Steering Committee to receive, monitor, and implement coordinated information management projects across the community, and 

plans to launch a National Transportation Data Archive. NTL will serve as the public access repository for USDOT publications as the Department implements the Office of Science and Technology Policy memorandum, ‘‘Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research.’’ 

Elevation of RITA into the Office of the Secretary 

However, the item with the largest impact on my organization took place after 

the passage of MAP–21. As you know, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, 

enacted this past January, transferred ‘‘the powers and duties, functions, authorities 

and personnel of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. . .to the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology in the Office of the 

Secretary.’’ This is the culmination of an initiative begun in the President’s FY13 

Budget, which requested the elevation of RITA: 

To strengthen research functions across the Department by providing a prominent, centralized focus on research and technology. . .The proposed Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology will improve coordination 

and collaboration between operating administrations, resulting in higher quality 

research outcomes. 

The Department has hit the ground running in adopting the changes enacted into 

law, is transitioning to ensure this new office is the focal point for research across 

DOT, and is looking across the research investments made in all of the modes to 

improve the delivery of transportation research and technology programs, and of national statistical programs. I had the privilege of being confirmed by the Senate as 

the RITA Administrator on October 16, 2013, and was sworn in as the Assistant 

Secretary for Research and Technology on January 23, 2014. We continue to pursue 

all of the missions and programs of the former RITA as we transition to the new 

organizational construct. 

The elevation to the Office of the Secretary will bring more leadership insight into 

transportation research and development, and data and statistics, and will heighten 

their influence on policy discussions and decision-making. Organizational change 

does not happen overnight, but I am already seeing how what we do is being drawn 

into leadership discussions as part of the Office of the Secretary, in a way we were 

not when we were an Operating Administration. The elevation also places a new 

emphasis on our research, development and technology coordination and collaboration role, and on our technology transfer functions. In addition, the elevation returns responsibility for Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) to the Secretary’s 

Office, appropriate for a critical responsibility of the Department which impacts all 

non-military users of the Global Positioning System (GPS). We will continue to oversee the wide-ranging and cross-modal efforts of the Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center and the Transportation Safety Institute. 

GROW AMERICA Act 

The Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America Act, 

or GROW AMERICA Act, is a $302 billion, four-year transportation reauthorization 

proposal that provides increased and stable funding for our Nation’s highways, 

bridges, transit, and rail systems, and for the research and data that support them. 

The GROW AMERICA Act recognizes that research and data play a significant part 

in improving safety, transportation planning and decision making, and preparing 

the Nation’s workforce as we move forward into the 21st Century. Altogether, the 

GROW AMERICA Act commits more than $2.6 billion over four years to advance 

35 

research and innovations, ensuring decision makers at all levels will have access to 

enriched data and analysis, advanced research, and cutting-edge technologies. 

The Highway Trust Fund research and statistical programs of the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary will continue their existing missions and remain key components of the newly-elevated office. The GROW AMERICA Act would provide these 

programs with a small inflationary increase in funding levels to address critical priorities in delivering actionable research and statistical results to the Department 

and to our many external partners. However, in coordination with our modal and 

interagency partners, we are proposing a few changes in the research and data programs to support Administration priorities, especially the proposed freight investment program, which I would like to highlight for you. 

New Programs 

• National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program: The GROW 

AMERICA Act establishes the National Cooperative Freight Research Program 

in support of Departmental freight goals, including a specific, targeted focus on 

hazardous materials transportation. (Section 8101) 

• Prioritizing a Multimodal Research Program: The GROW AMERICA Act creates 

a Priority Multimodal Research Program enabling cross-agency research and innovation along three priority areas: infrastructure systems resilience and recovery; advanced research towards a Zero Emissions Transportation System; and 

a multimodal STEM Education and Workforce Development program. (Section 

8103) 

Changes to Existing Programs 

• Advancing Intelligent Transportation Systems: The GROW AMERICA Act will 

improve vehicle and passenger safety by advancing intelligent systems in vehicles and in smarter infrastructure across all modes, and by exploring new ways 

to utilize real-time information to aid the flow of goods along America’s freight 

corridors. 

• Accelerating Deployment of Highway Technologies and Innovations: The GROW 

AMERICA Act allows the allocation of up to $25 million per year from the Highway Account to implement the findings and results of the second Strategic 

Highway Research Program (SHRP2), which promises innovations in highway 

safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity. (Section 2003) 

• Maximizing the Research, Technology and Workforce Results of the UTCs: The 

GROW AMERICA Act enhances the effectiveness of the current University 

Transportation Centers (UTCs) program by enabling funds to flow into crossdisciplinary university transportation research by expanding the sources for 

grant matching funds to include funding from more Federal-Aid accounts and 

funding provided by other DOT operating administrations. (Section 8102) 

• Supporting National Goals in Freight Policy and Planning: The GROW AMERICA Act will improve data and technology support to national freight goals by 

strengthening the Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) ability to require 

responses to freight and intermodal data surveys, and by enabling nationally 

consistent statistics on maritime port performance. In addition, the Act will add 

an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) freight research, demonstration 

and applications focus to the ITS Research Program goals. (Sections 8104, 8105) 

Reflecting Organizational Change 

The GROW AMERICA Act continues the transformation of research offices, as 

laid out by Congress, elevating the former Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) into the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and 

Technology. As is the case with other transportation programs, having multi-year 

certainty of our authorization and funding allows for better planning and decisionmaking about research and data investments. 

Thank you for this opportunity to update you on our progress, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Winfree. 

I’d like to begin my questioning with Mr. Szabo and really pursue a point that Ms. Quarterman raised and I emphasized earlier, 

which is that standards need to be sufficiently high, they need to 

be enforced rigorously, and that penalties have to provide a deterrent to violation of them. And Ms. Quarterman rightly emphasized 

36 

the need for increased penalties when they fail to provide a deterrent to violation-of-safety standards. 

The experience of Metro-North, I think, provides a national poster railroad in culminating years of neglect and systematic and cultural failure in a series of catastrophic incidents costing lives and 

injuries, as well as dollars. And I think that a lot of eyes were 

opened by the series of reports, most significantly in the Connecticut Post, that detailed the absence of significant penalties over 

a period of time, 2004 to 2013, where most of the penalties were 

in the range of $5,000 or $10,000—the total, I think, was around 

$220,000—for a series of defects in procedures and operations that 

were serious and severe. One of them, for example, applied to Robert Luden, a Metro-North worker killed on the tracks near West 

Haven as a result of a senseless and needless neglect of safety by 

Metro-North. The $5,000 was nowhere near a measure of the kind 

of message and penalty that should have been imposed. More recently, a report about Kenneth McGrath, whose death in 2009 resulted in a penalty of $2,000. These relatively minuscule penalties 

of $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000—I think the highest over that period 

of time was $39,000—plainly, I think, provide an inadequate deterrent to violation-of-safety standards. 

My question to you is, What is the reason for these small-to-minuscule penalties? What can be done to increase them? And isn’t it, 

in a sense, a mark of inadequate scrutiny—and it may be that your 

authority needs to be increased—that we have this kind of pattern? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, thank you for the question, Senator. 

First, let me say that, you know, the series of events on MetroNorth were an eye opener for all of us. As you’ve heard me say, 

you know, the goal of my agency is continuous safety improvement. 

It’s what I expect from myself, it’s what I expect from my agency, 

it’s what I expect from the industry that we regulate. And so, even 

though we’ve been able to drive down accidents, injuries, and fatalities over the past decade to record lows, we always look for the 

avenues that we can take to improve, to ensure that we continue 

to achieve new record lows. How do we get to zero? And then, once 

we get there, how do we stay there? 

Certainly, penalties and fines are one piece of the mix. It’s one 

tool in our toolbox. It’s one that we try to use effectively. You know, 

if you’re a carpenter, a hammer is important—you bet—but, it’s not 

the only tool that you use to build a house. 

Certainly, coming out of the ranks, as a railworker that’s been 

out there, and as a union rep that’s written up complaints to the 

agency I now head, there has always been a frustration with the 

level of penalties. So, one of the things that I did when I got here 

was make it a priority to do what I could with the tools that I had 

to increase our level of penalties. In the 5 years I’ve been here, 

Senator, we have, in fact, assessed the highest number, the highest 

dollar amount, of penalties in any 5-year period in the agency’s history. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But, those penalties, in the Metro-North 

incidents, were extraordinarily low, were they not? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, there’s a penalty schedule that we have to follow. And, while certainly we can and will once again take a look 

at reviewing that penalty schedule, our authority is somewhat limVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
37 

ited, I think, to get to the level of penalties that you’re talking 

about. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, that’s—— 

Mr. SZABO. But, Senator—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—where I think the—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—important point is, whether we need to 

increase that authority or provide some other incentives for the 

agency to be more rigorous and vigorous, more aggressive, in its 

enforcement. Because, frankly, Mr. Szabo, a lot of riders have lost 

trust and confidence, not only in the railroad, but also in the enforcement authority of the FRA, and similar of Federal watchdogs 

that are responsible for protecting safety. 

Mr. SZABO. Well, and we certainly owe the public. You know, we 

owe the public better. We always owe the public better. We have 

our work to do as an agency, and certainly Metro-North as a railroad, to regain that trust. 

But, I really think that if you take a look at what has been proposed in the GROW AMERICA Act, it has the package that we 

need to achieve the next generation of safety. And, while penalties 

and enforcement are one piece of that puzzle, I would argue that 

it’s only a piece. What we’ve learned through Metro-North is less 

about the need for more inspection, more enforcement, and, frankly, comes more down to the need to advance proactive risk-based 

programs that identify and mitigate risk in advance, things like 

confidential close calls in the system safety rule that will be final 

later this year that will require all passenger railroads to do an 

analysis and then file a risk mitigation plan with us that we review 

and approve. And this gets refreshed on an annual basis. So, I 

think there are more tools in the package that we have in Buy— 

or, GROW AMERICA—is the appropriate mix of tools. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I’m going to return to this line of questioning. My time is expired for right now, but—— 

Mr. SZABO. Sure. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—we’ll have a second round. And I appreciate your responses to my question. I continue to believe that 

there has to be attention to the penalty provisions to make sure 

that they are commensurate with the kind of neglect and failing 

that we’ve seen at Metro-North on occasion to deter that kind of 

violation of basic standards that the public has a right to expect. 

I’m going to turn to Senator Thune, the Ranking Member of the 

Commerce Committee, now. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Senator Blunt for holding this hearing. I’ve said many times 

that maintaining and improving our Nation’s infrastructure is absolutely vital to our country’s economic prosperity. And it’s also essential that we have a reliable and a safe system of transportation 

in this country. 

You all represent agencies that are key to that mission, and I appreciate you being here and your willingness to answer questions. 

38 

I want to direct the first question, if I might, to Administrator 

Szabo, and that has to do with positive train control. I was pleased 

to see that the GROW AMERICA Act, for the first time, formally 

acknowledged the need for an extension. But, my question has to 

do with why there wasn’t a straightforward extension of the entire 

deadline, as opposed to trying to deal with this, as has been suggested, on a case-by-case basis, knowing full well that none of these 

railroads are going to be able to meet that 2015 deadline. 

Mr. SZABO. Senator, we really believe that the package that 

we’ve put together under GROW AMERICA, particularly relative to 

positive train control, gives us the right tools and provides the 

right balance to most advance and ensure public safety. You know, 

we believe—you’ve got two extremes on this argument. And every 

time I come and testify, I hear it from the different Senators—you 

know, those that are saying that under no circumstances should 

you expand the 2015 deadline, to those that say there should be 

a blanket extension. We believe that, with the proposal that we 

have for provisional certification, that, by working with each carrier to modify their implementation plan in setting up the milestones that fit for each railroad, based on the technical and programmatic challenges that each one has individually, and then 

being able to provisionally certify a piece of the system, that we 

can best advance the benefits—achieve the benefits of as much of 

PTC as possible, as soon as possible. So, we really think that it’s 

the right approach that recognizes the challenges while also having 

that accountability and giving the public what they deserve. 

Senator THUNE. But, doesn’t it make sense if you want to hold 

the railroads’ feet to the fire: there’s no deadline in what you’re 

talking about. Many of us, my colleagues on the Committee here 

and others, have introduced legislation that would provide this 

blanket extension that I referred to, which does have a hard, firm 

deadline. We know that no single railroad, freight or passenger, is 

likely to meet the 2015 deadline, but the proposal that you’re suggesting here doesn’t have any particular sense of urgency attached 

to it, especially, if you’re going to be able to waive this kind of on 

a case-by-case basis. So, it strikes me, at least, that it would make 

a lot more sense if you want to treat the railroads in sort of a fair 

way, you have to push that out there, knowing that they’re not 

going to be able to meet the 2015 deadline, but still keeping that 

sense of urgency and their feet to the fire, if you will. 

Mr. SZABO. The key, though, Senator—it’s still critically important that you give us the authority that we need for provisional 

certification. Because, otherwise, we can’t approve an implementation plan that doesn’t fully meet the deadline. We can’t approve 

partial deployment. And so, the industry needs, as well as my 

agency needs—the industry deserves—the opportunity for us to 

have the appropriate element of flexibility to work with them on 

the challenges that they’re facing while still advancing as much of 

the system as possible, as quickly as possible. The technology will 

save lives. It would have saved lives on Metro-North. You know, so 

it’s critical that we have the tools that we need to properly manage 

deployment. 

Senator THUNE. Well, I think the legislation also has the provisional certification that you talked about, as well. It has some flexiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
39 

bility, but it also has the deadline attached to it. It just seems like 

a better approach. 

Mr. SZABO. Well, we’d certainly be willing to work with you on 

some technical assistance to try and strike the right balance, here. 

Senator THUNE. OK. 

Quickly, because I have a lot of colleagues that have questions. 

I want to direct this to you, Ms. Ferro. This spring, both the DOT 

Inspector General and the GAO reviewed the CSA program, and 

you reportedly concurred with the IG’s six recommendations, but 

two GAO recommendations remain open, and the official FMCSA 

comments were not provided to the GAO. Does FMCSA plan to 

take action on those recommendations? And could you provide us 

an update? And, if not, explain why. 

Ms. FERRO. Certainly. The Compliance Safety Accountability Program, otherwise known as CSA, is, at its heart, a program to improve our overall enforcement and focus on the highest-risk carriers with our limited resources. And the data structure, which 

takes advantage of over 3 million inspections managed each year 

to get at the performance of individual carriers, really does provide 

carriers, as well, an opportunity to look at their own performance 

and improve, before we even need to get there, if, in fact, they’re 

showing high-risk behavior. 

That being said, it is an improvement over the prior system, but 

it’s a program that we can continue to work on. And the GAO report, as well as the Inspector General’s report, identify strategies 

for us to improve both the adequacy of the data, the utilization to 

ensure we’re looking at the highest risk carriers, as well as the access of the data to all—the public that takes advantage of it. 

We did, in fact, reply in full to the GAO. I’m sorry you don’t have 

a copy of that. We’ll make sure you see that. They received our response last month. And there are certainly aspects of the GAO 

analysis that we are making full use of. The core component that 

we disagreed with really relates to a methodology they proposed 

that isolates the CSA analysis to a very small group of carriers, 

only the largest ones. And, while large carriers have a significant 

impact on crash activity across our country, smaller carriers impact 

about half of those fatalities and injury crashes. So, it’s important 

we look at the full spectrum. 

So, to cut to the chase, we are utilizing the recommendations 

from both agencies in continuing to improve the CSA program, the 

underlying data analysis, and accessibility to that data. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 

Blunt. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Senator Thune. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, to you and Senator Blunt, for your good work in this 

area. 

I just want to start off by saying we need to get MAP–21 done, 

and we need to move forward on these rail safety rules and everything else. I was just in southern Minnesota on Highway 14, which 

40 

has received some Federal funding in the past, but now 125 people 

have died in two decades on one highway that’s a two lane highway 

in southern Minnesota, a lot of it because of freight that should be 

on a four lane highway. Some of it because we simply don’t have 

enough rail in this country, and it’s not safe enough. And so, in 

Minnesota, thanks to the good fortune of our neighbors in North 

Dakota, where they’re producing oil and natural gas, it has put a 

strain on our rail system, and a lot of our ag products are having 

a hard time finding rail. And we need to upgrade everything we 

have, as far as I’m concerned, because if we’re going to actually be 

this export economy that we want to be, we need to have a transportation system that’s up to the task. 

Ms. Quarterman, PHMSA recently sent its proposed rule for rail 

tank car standards to OMB for review. I know your agency is working diligently to finalize a rule. It’s a complex task. Can you tell 

me when the final rule will be completed? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I cannot tell you when the final rule will be 

completed. I can tell you what the process is. 

The process is that it goes over to—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, I kind of know the process. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. OK. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I’m just wondering—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I can assure you, Senator, that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR.—if you have any timeline for when it will 

be done? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN.—Senator, we’re working very hard to get the 

rule out as soon as humanly possible. It’s a first priority for Secretary Foxx and for me, so we are working as hard as we can to 

get the rule out as soon as possible. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. There are currently about 228,000 DOT– 

111 rail tank cars which are designed to carry a wide range of 

products, including hazardous and nonhazardous materials. Roughly 92,000 are used to move flammable liquids, yet only about 

14,000 of these are built to the latest industry safety standards. 

Ms. Quarterman, considering the large number of the DOT–111s 

in the fleet, is PHMSA considering different rules on what product 

is being shipped? And would such an approach enable PHMSA and 

the industry to better apply resources and get the quickest safety 

improvements? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, the rule that we discussed earlier includes, not just tank cars, it’s a comprehensive approach to rail 

safety. And included in that rule are issues related to the existing 

and the new tank cars. So, I can’t go into the details of what’s in 

that rule, but we are taking a comprehensive approach to deal both 

with prevention, mitigation, and response to crude-by-rail incidents. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. As you know, we’ve had one in Minnesota and one in North Dakota. Last month, Canada’s Transportation Safety Board announced that all older tank cars used for 

carrying crude must be phased out by May 2017. How is PHMSA 

approaching the issue of whether to phase out older tank cars? And 

has Canada’s action increased pressure to include a phaseout requirement as part of the rulemaking? 

41 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I can tell you that we are working very closely 

with Canada. We are talking to them on a weekly basis about their 

actions, and coordinating, to the extent we can, actions here with 

them, as well. We applaud their movement to remove 111 tank cars 

in three years’ time. Secretary Foxx has already said that those 

cars should be removed from crude oil service, or retrofitted. Canada has the advantage of being able to say, in a public forum, that 

they can remove those cars from service in 3 years. Because we 

have a pending rulemaking under the existing—the requirements 

here in the United States, we cannot say anything comparable on 

the record until it goes through the rulemaking process. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Mr. Szabo, this committee last passed a rail safety bill in 2008. 

Since then, we all know that the landscape of freight rail has 

changed dramatically. A transportation reauthorization bill would 

be an opportunity to update some of the rules and standards that 

govern the freight rail industry. How is the increase in freight rail 

traffic over the past few years changed how this committee should 

view rail safety? And what do you think are the issues we could 

address in that bill? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, thank you, Senator. 

I mean, I think it’s, first, important to note that, by many respects, rail is, in fact, the safest means of moving both people and 

goods. When you compare it to the other transportation modes, 

under most measurements, most circumstances, we’re the safest 

transportation mode. And again, statistically, the industry is at an 

all time best, part of a decades-long continuous improvement in rail 

safety, to record low numbers of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. 

But, there is no question that the change of products being 

hauled, and particularly with these hazardous, flammable materials, that it’s forcing us to really change the way that we view 

safety, you know, take a fresh look, a new look, at everything that 

we think that we have known about safety. Even though we have 

historically been very, very good, and continue to get better, particularly when it comes to these volatile products, we’re going to 

have to be near perfect. And so, as Administrator Quarterman said, 

you know, it’s a matter of taking a look at everything from the 

tank car, to understanding the product, ensuring proper classification. You know, those things that we’ve put into place with the industry through the voluntary agreement are the appropriate steps 

to be taking, using the routing protocol, using the 27 factors to, 

through the computer model, ensure that we’re using the most 

safe, most secure route for moving the products, hardening the assets, additional track inspections, both by the industry as well as 

with my inspector resources, ensuring a higher level of health to 

the equipment, you know, and continuing on. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Szabo, I was confused by your answer on positive train control. Do you have the authority to extend the deadline, or not? 

Mr. SZABO. No, we do not. Only Congress can extend the deadline. 

42 

Senator BLUNT. Well, that’s what I thought. So, you don’t have 

any authority—there are no provisions that you have that allow 

you to do a provisional certification. 

Mr. SZABO. Not at all, Senator. And that’s why we believe it’s so 

critical that we be granted that authority so we can manage this 

in a rational manner. 

Senator BLUNT. And does that mean you don’t want a deadline 

in the—— 

Mr. SZABO. Well, we believe that—— 

Senator BLUNT. The bill that Senator Thune and I are sponsoring with several other people on this committee sets a new 

deadline of 2018 and gives you provisional abilities to implement 

between now and then. What more than that do you want? 

Mr. SZABO. I think the key is ensuring that we have the appropriate flexibility that we need with the provisional certifications, 

the ability to effectively manage the implementation plans on each 

railroad. I would have to take a look at how your legislation does, 

or does not, address that. 

So, like I say, through technical assistance, we’d be happy to 

work with you—— 

Senator BLUNT. Well, since—you don’t think the compliance by 

2015 by the commuter lines is possible, do you? 

Mr. SZABO. I don’t believe there is a railroad in this country that 

will achieve full deployment by 2015. Partial deployment could be 

possible. The one exception might be Metrolink, in California. 

There’s a fighting chance that they can reach their 2015 deadline. 

We’ll see. But, there’s certainly not another railroad in this country 

that can fully deploy by the 2015 deadline. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, since you don’t think that anybody can 

comply with the 2015 deadline, and I don’t think that anybody can 

comply with the 2015 deadline, I’d like you to look at our legislation and give us some advice on how you think it could be improved. We don’t want to just blow by this deadline as if it’s not 

there. That’s not—surely, that’s not the right thing to do. And I’ll 

continue to have some concerns about provisional compliance, for 

the freight lines particularly, that may put them at some competitive disadvantage. 

Mr. SZABO. Right. And it does the opposite, Senator. I think 

that’s a real important point. I saw your question to the Secretary. 

And we’re concerned with that issue, too. Two things. One, I think 

the final rule amendments that are in executive clearance right 

now are going to partially address those concerns. And then the approach for provisional certification would fully address those concerns. We agree that this is about advancing safety, not putting 

somebody who’s been out in front on deployment doing all the right 

things at a competitive disadvantage, where if they have hiccups 

during early deployment, that it ends up gumming up their capacity. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, and I think, also, that early deployment 

can create test cases where we see what the problems are, what 

can be done better. I think—— 

Mr. SZABO. Precisely. 

Senator BLUNT.—it could be a helpful thing. 

Mr. SZABO. Precisely. 

43 

Senator BLUNT. OK. 

Mr. SZABO. And that’s what provisional certification gives us the 

flexibility—— 

Senator BLUNT. And have you had a chance—— 

Mr. SZABO.—to do. 

Senator BLUNT.—to look at the new tower siting agreements that 

appear to be there between the FCC and the Tribal Councils? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. And we think it’s a good first step. There’s clearly more work that needs to be done, but we think there is significant movement. But, I would also note that our proposal in GROW 

AMERICA actually gives FRA a little more formal seat at the table 

in working with the FCC. So, again, we would urge the adoption 

of those provisions that we have. We think that it can actually help 

everybody work through this tower problem with the FCC. 

Senator BLUNT. And of the 10,000 towers that still need to be approved, what’s your estimate of how quickly the first ones may be 

approved by the FCC? 

Mr. SZABO. I’ll have to get back to you for the record on that. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Mr. Szabo’s Response: In May 2014, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) issued a Program Comment pursuant to its regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Program Comment 

provides an alternative method for compliance with Section 106 for certain signal 

antennas that the railroads need to install for Positive Train Control (PTC). The 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also begun to issue guidance to 

provide the railroads and other stakeholders with clarity on the process for the implementation of the Program Comment. Throughout this process FRA has, and will 

continue to be, a technical resource for FCC. However, FCC is the Federal agency 

with oversight responsibility and authority for tower approval and is responsible for 

the implementation of the Program Comment. Therefore, FCC is best able to address specific details and schedules for processing applications received under the 

Program Comment. FRA would encourage the Senator to reach out to FCC as the 

agency best able to answer the Senator’s question. 

Mr. SZABO. But, I think certainly we continue to make sure that 

the FCC is aware of the sense of urgency. I believe they are. I 

know the industry, I think, was at least reasonably pleased with 

the recent movement by FCC. So, we’ll keep pressing on the issue. 

Senator BLUNT. Ms. Ferro, when Senator Warner was the Chairman of this committee—this subcommittee, briefly—he and I introduced legislation regarding sleep apnea. The legislation required 

that any action on obstructive sleep apnea be taken only through 

official rulemaking. That was passed unanimously by Congress, 

signed into law. I’m told that medical trainers are still referring 

doctors to past guidance, even though there’s no rule that has been 

promulgated yet. Do you know if that’s true or not? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, Senator, first and foremost, we absolutely are 

abiding by the mandate of Congress that any change to the current 

medical guidance regarding obstructive sleep apnea would be done 

through a rulemaking. 

That being said, what initiated much of the concern, I think, that 

resulted in that law was that we were working to clarify the information that’s on the long medical form that medical examiners who 

administer the DOT physical for truckdrivers and busdrivers follow, and have followed for years. The same information that they 

have always had is still in the long form. That has not changed. 

And, in fact, the training that medical examiners—the curriculum 

44 

that medical examiners are required to follow, now that we have 

a registry of certified medical examiners in place, follows the same 

provisions that have always been there. So, there has been no 

change, I assure you. 

Senator BLUNT. Let’s follow up on that between your—— 

Ms. FERRO. We will—— 

Senator BLUNT.—office and my office, and maybe the Committee, 

and be sure what—we understand what ‘‘no change’’ means. 

I think the legislation was not very complicated and—— 

Ms. FERRO. That’s right. 

Senator BLUNT.—very specific in what it required. And I’m not 

sure we’re in compliance with what the law now says. So, let’s be 

sure we are. 

Ms. FERRO. We will follow up. And I will tell you, for sure, medical examiners are expected, when they examine a truck or a bus 

driver, to meet—and determine if they meet the physical qualifications for holding a commercial driver’s license, they include a full 

examination of chronic conditions and conditions that could affect 

that driver’s ability to be alert and at all times conscious behind 

the wheel. So, among those conditions that they have always 

looked at have been breathing disorders and pulmonary disorders 

that obstructive sleep disorder falls into. So—— 

Senator BLUNT. Are you in the process of promulgating new rules 

on that—— 

Ms. FERRO. We are not. 

Senator BLUNT.—as the law would anticipate? 

Ms. FERRO. We absolutely are not. The only—but, we will follow 

up and—as you directed, and meet with your staff and make sure 

that there’s a clear sense that we are conforming both with the law 

that you passed last year, as well as a very visible and transparent 

process. 

The requirements haven’t changed one bit. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, let’s be sure we’re—— 

Ms. FERRO. We will. 

Senator BLUNT.—in compliance with the law—— 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUNT.—and follow up on that. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Senator Blunt. 

Senator Fischer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here today. 

Administrator Quarterman, as you know, the rail industry 

worked with a number of agencies in coming to an agreement, and 

it was a voluntary agreement, on the speed reduction standards 

that you recently came up with. Does PHMSA support that voluntary agreement? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Senator Fischer, the Secretary put together a 

very, I think, aggressive plan, an action plan. The Administrators 

who are sitting here with me today—Administrator Szabo, AdminVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
45 

istrator Ferro, and myself—were there with the Secretary and the 

Deputy Secretary when we talked to both petroleum and the railroad industries about what immediate actions could they take 

while we do our comprehensive rulemaking process to improve 

safety. And one of the items that they put on the table was to restrict the speed. And it is a very important element. So, we are 

supportive that they have gone forward to do that with respect to 

certain trains. 

Senator FISCHER. Part of that agreement was community relations, emergency response, but specifically to the speed reductions. 

In working voluntarily with agencies, I think that’s a good way for 

industry to operate. I think it’s a good way for the agencies to operate. So, my question to you again is, do you support that? Do you 

support the agencies coming with industry, with private industry, 

in trying to reach these voluntary agreements instead of a mandate 

from the top down always? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I absolutely support industries coming forward. We think that compliance with regulations is not enough, in 

many instances, that when we’re talking about moving hazardous 

materials across the country, in the backyards, the main streets of 

America, both the railroad and petroleum industries have been 

given a public trust, and complying with the regulations is not necessarily enough. Safety is our ultimate goal. So, absolutely, we 

think it is great when industries come together and agree, on a cooperative, collaborative basis, to take steps that have not yet been 

put into regulations. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you feel that the railroads negotiated in 

good faith during the voluntary negotiations that took place? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I have no reason to view anything otherwise. 

Senator FISCHER. I guess I would ask Administrator Szabo the 

same question. Do you support a voluntary agreement with the 

railroads with regards to the speed reductions? We all want safety. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator FISCHER. That’s the number one concern. We all want 

that. We want to make sure that the tank cars that are being refitted, possibly—and I know there are some railroads that are taking 

the lead on that, in trying to move forward to make sure that we 

move certain materials in the safest way that we possibly can. Do 

you think this voluntary agreement was a good step? 

Mr. SZABO. I think it was very significant, and certainly commend the industry for coming forward with it. But, as I said earlier 

to Senator Klobuchar, we have to rethink everything that we know 

and everything that we’ve been doing relative to safety. And so, 

while I think it’s an exceptionally good agreement that immediately 

provides significant benefits to the public on safety, it doesn’t 

change the fact that, as we look at this entire process, from the 

time the product comes out of the ground until it’s delivered to the 

refinery, that there’s more work to be done. 

Senator FISCHER. OK, thank you. 

I would ask Administrator Ferro—with the new truck driver 

hours of service rules that you put in place in July 2013, do you 

think that they’re having a substantial impact on productivity? I’m 

curious, and I wonder how your department is going to measure 

46 

and confirm whether any health benefits have really been realized 

for these. 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. And so, the hours of service rule that was 

finalized in December 2011, and, as you note, went into full effect 

last July, was identified, with rigorous analysis, to project an impact of saving up to 19 lives per year, or at least 19 lives per year, 

and avoiding at least 500 crashes—injury crashes—and then significantly more crashes and overall net benefit to the Nation. There 

was also clearly in the analysis a recognition of the economic impact on industry, a recognition and an analysis that identified 

about a $500 million economic impact—cost to industry. A small 

portion of that is the cost to—or some portion is a cost to our law 

enforcement partners across the country if they went through the 

retraining. 

So, your question as to the point of, ‘‘Do we think that has happened yet? What do we think has happened yet?’’ So, yes, there has 

been an economic impact on industry. We certainly recognized that 

that would happen. We identified, through an unprecedented level 

of both analysis and solicited public input throughout the rulemaking process, as much fact and information and data as we 

could muster from all parties to be sure that we were analyzing the 

components of the industry that that rule would affect. 

The majority of the impact is on the long-haul, over-the-road, irregular-route driver. What we have seen in recent months—and I 

think you probably have heard from some of these individuals—is 

that carriers whose schedules are not necessarily an irregular 

route, but they are scheduled service to their customers, that still 

exceed a 60 hour, 7 day week are feeling the impact of the rule, 

as well. And I think, early on, the estimate was, overall, about a 

3 percent impact on productivity for some of the sectors. 

Now, with regard to the safety benefits, the way crash and injury 

data is reported, we don’t have the data yet to show, but we certainly do know that it is having an impact, and continue to press 

forward with a rule that’s in place, and will press forward as we 

committed, even the rulemaking, to a very robust analysis of fatigue, of measuring fatigue, of monitoring and measuring the impact of the rule itself, going forward. But, with new technologies, 

we have the ability to do that much better than we could before— 

the electronic logging devices, onboard technologies, monitoring of 

drivers. So, all of that will be part of our analysis, going forward, 

through naturalistic driving studies. 

It’s very important to reflect on a history of hours of service rulemaking, because, much like what Administrator Szabo described, 

where there are—we all agree we want to get to safety. And in the 

motorcarrier industry, no different. We want to drive to zero fatalities. There are different points of view as to how you get there. 

There’s a great deal of agreement in the middle. 

In the case of the hours of service rule, one side of the argument 

felt we didn’t go far enough in regulating the hours, in the modest 

changes we made, and the other side feels as though we may have 

gone too far. Both sides took us to court; and the court, for the first 

time in 15 years of litigation over hours of service—the court actually deemed that the agency, while—and I think the court’s own 

language says, ‘‘We think the agency has acted reasonably, if increVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
47 

mentally, in tailoring the restart to promote driver health and safety.’’ But, we now have a rule that has withstood that challenge. 

And so, it’s very important, in our view, that we continue the analysis. Let’s get through several years of this operation, let’s begin 

the data collection now, and the analysis now, so we can continue 

reporting. 

Senator FISCHER. And, just short answer, do you have a timeframe when you’ll be able to confirm that? 

Ms. FERRO. No, but I’d like to follow up with you on a clearer 

timeline. 

Senator FISCHER. Great, thank you. Thank you—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Senator FISCHER.—for answering the question. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Senator Ayotte. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Ferro, it’s my understanding that your agency is 

planning to move forward on an issue of increasing the minimum 

insurance requirements for the trucking industry. Is that true? 

Ms. FERRO. We have recommended that—we’re moving forward 

with an ANPRM to gather data, so yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. In doing that, will you commit to ensuring that 

you comply with the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 that says that the 

Secretary shall also include an estimate of the impact of the regulations upon the safety of motor vehicle transportation, the economic impact on the motor carrier industry, including, but not limited to, small and minority motorcarriers and independent owner/ 

operators and the ability of the insurance industry to provide the 

designated coverage? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, you absolutely have our—my commitment and 

the agency’s commitment—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Very good. 

Ms. FERRO.—in that regard. 

Senator AYOTTE. And will you make that information public in 

your analysis—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, we will. 

Senator AYOTTE.—when you announce the rule? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, we will—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Excellent. 

Ms. FERRO.—as we do. And we’ll hope that comments—if we 

aren’t going far enough, we hope comments will help us get to 

that—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to follow up on the hours of service rules 

issue. One question—I have a couple of questions. As I understand, 

you’ve talked about the rigorous—in response to Senator Fischer’s 

question, the rigorous analysis in issuing that rule. And the FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
48 

eral Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the FMCSA, recently released the results of its MAP–21 mandated study on the real world 

impacts of the hours of service. And that was something that was 

recently released, correct? 

Ms. FERRO. Correct. That’s correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, I assume, when you’re talking about ‘‘rigorous analysis,’’ that’s what you’re referring to, in terms of part of 

your analysis in issuing the hours of service rule. 

Ms. FERRO. It is an example of the rigor that we use. It is, in 

fact, in relation to two lab studies in a congressional requirement, 

the broader naturalistic—— 

Senator AYOTTE. So—— 

Ms. FERRO.—going forward, yes. 

Senator AYOTTE.—I want to ask you a few questions about the 

study. 

Ms. FERRO. Sure. 

Senator AYOTTE. The study pointed out that drivers operating 

under the old rule had greater lane deviations, as I understand it. 

What was the difference, in centimeters, between the two groups 

of drivers? 

Ms. FERRO. So, let’s back up so I can just kind of put it in context. The study in question was a study actually mandated by Congress—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. For good—— 

Ms. FERRO.—in MAP–21—— 

Senator AYOTTE.—reason, because many—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE.—of us have heard deep concerns about the 

hours of service rule and how it is impacting the economic—economically, jobs. And so, Congress, obviously, asked you to do a—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE.—study as a—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE.—result of it. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. Fair enough. And so, it was very carefully 

scripted—the language was very scripted and constrained us from 

doing the kind of broader, I think, naturalistic analysis that we’re 

going to be doing, going forward. So—— 

Senator AYOTTE. So—— 

Ms. FERRO. So—oh, pardon me. 

Senator AYOTTE. So—I’m sorry—so, I just—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE.—want to make sure that I get a couple of these 

answers. 

Ms. FERRO. Sure. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, you feel that that study—so, let me just get 

to the heart of it, then—you felt that study was constrained. Because the study itself, as I understand it, only included an average 

of less than 12 days’ worth of data with 106 drivers. Is that true? 

Ms. FERRO. It’s true that it contained close to a half a million 

miles, and it included, for each driver, 12 days of driving. 

Senator AYOTTE. With 106 drivers, correct? 

Ms. FERRO. That’s correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. And you think that’s a large enough sample? 

49 

Ms. FERRO. The study requirements were very closely tied by 

statute—— 

Senator AYOTTE. OK, but—— 

Ms. FERRO.—to the way we conducted the—— 

Senator AYOTTE.—but do you think—— 

Ms. FERRO.—way we conducted the lab study. 

Senator AYOTTE.—that’s a large enough sample to draw conclusions? That’s my question. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, interestingly enough, it’s the largest naturalistic driving study that has ever been done in the commercial vehicle industry, so it is statistically a very relevant study, yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. Did the study show that drivers operating 

under the new rule were more likely to operate during daytime 

hours than nighttime hours? 

Ms. FERRO. It reflected that drivers who are most impacted by 

the rule changes—specifically, the 1:00 toS00 a.m. sleep requirement, if they use the restart—are most impacted. So, the nighttime-schedule driver is the most impacted driver. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, my question, simply, to you is that, under 

this rule, we are going to have more drivers driving during daytime 

hours. Isn’t that true? 

Ms. FERRO. That will be part of what we continue to analyze, 

going forward. We have not seen that. It is an incremental impact. 

And in the mix of all the commercial traffic that starts early mornings across our country, we think that impact is far outweighed by 

the improved driver safety. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, you would agree with me that there’s a 

higher crash impact during the day, isn’t that correct? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, it’s a much higher concentration of traffic during 

the day. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, one of the things I’m hearing from my constituents is that, because of the new hours of service rule, they actually are going to have to put more trucks on the road during the 

daytime hours, which are the highest crash times, because, obviously, there’s more traffic during the day that you could interact 

with. And so, have you come up with data as to how many more 

trucks are going to have to be on the road, because of the new 

hours of service rule, during daytime hours that, again, in some 

ways, I think, could undermine what you’re hoping to accomplish 

with this rule? 

Ms. FERRO. The analysis in developing the rule did identify a 

marginal impact, but, again, outweighed by the improvements of a 

better-rested driver. 

Senator AYOTTE. But, do you—— 

Ms. FERRO. But, we—— 

Senator AYOTTE.—do you know how many more trucks are going 

to have to be on the road during daytime hours? And do we have 

analysis of those numbers so that we can understand (a) the impacts on congestion, (b) the impacts on, potentially, I suppose, the 

environment, as well, the impacts on more crash potential, because 

we’ve got more drivers and congestion during the daytime hours? 

Do we know the answers to those questions? 

Ms. FERRO. Those are all core elements of a data collection effort. 

The rule has been in place now, everybody’s been operating on it, 

50 

for 11 months. So, again, we are gearing up for doing improved and 

additional analysis with new data. 

Senator AYOTTE. See, here’s the problem that we face. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. You’re gathering this data, and yet, what I’m 

hearing already from companies that have to operate under these 

rules, both large and small, that have a significant impact on our 

economy, is that they are going to have to drive more during the 

day, they’re having to put more trucks on the road. So, by the time 

we have this data, instead of having done the analysis in advance, 

we can have a situation where we are not having the impact we 

want to have on safety, number one, which we all want to make 

sure people are safe and secure, and, second, we see the negative 

impacts on the economy, which—I’m shocked at how many businesses are coming up to me, telling me about the impact of this 

rule. And it’s not just long-haul businesses. I was with a short-haul 

beer distributor this week, and the problem is, they require the 

long haul to get their product to them, and then they drive shorthaul distances. So, I think there are many impacts to this rule. 

And, my concern is that we’ve gone forward with it without the 

type of analysis of how many more trucks we’ll have on the road 

as a result of this. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, again, we did significant analysis in the rulemaking process, solicited as much data and information as we 

could possibly solicit. What has clearly transpired is that the trucking industry is hitting profitability levels that they’ve never seen 

before. I mean, this is among the strongest period that the trucking 

industry has ever experienced, when you look at their returns. 

They are healthy. It has not been an easy change for all companies. 

The vast majority—85 percent of the industry out there—is operating—based on the analysis we had done. There are those that 

have had to make adjustments, and many have made those adjustments. There are some for whom it has been harder. And I recognize that. And I started, last December, saying, ‘‘Please, let’s sit 

down, let’s walk through the logbooks, let’s look at the experiences 

you are having, let’s get the facts.’’ I was out in Minnesota, I was 

down in Arkansas. We just had a meeting in Virginia recently. 

Again, we are very—I am committed, and the agency is committed, 

to gathering the kind of data, to recognizing where the impacts are 

so that we can build the right analysis, going forward. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I appreciate that. I know my time is up. 

In New Hampshire, we have the largest wholesale—the largest 

food wholesaler in the country—CNS Wholesale Grocers—and 

they’re seeing a very significant impact, I mean, because of having 

to get food there on time. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. And also during seasonal issues, and also 

weather issues, which are significant across the country and in 

New England. So, I would ask, also, that you take their concerns 

into consideration, as well. 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Senator Rubio. 

51 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

Administrator Szabo, thank you for being here, as well. I wanted 

to talk to you briefly about All Aboard Florida, which I know is a 

project you’re aware of. As it’s currently proposed, the public benefits of that project would largely be concentrated in the areas like 

West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, and Orlando, where 

the stops are, but it would impose some costs and impacts to all 

local governments along that corridor. There is this feeling along 

the corridor in some of the areas that don’t have that concentration, that there are virtually no public benefits provided to them, 

but all the costs that come along with this project. We’re hearing 

a lot of concern about that from our constituents. 

In particular, I wanted to ask you a couple of points and see 

where FRA is with regards to this. In the midst of conducting an 

environmental impact statement for the project, I’ve heard from 

constituents and local officials who support this project, and I’ve 

also heard from constituents, including many in the Treasure 

Coast, which is just north of West Palm Beach, expressing concerns 

about the impacts this could have on their communities. The issues 

they’re concerned about include safety at the gate crossings and 

noise pollution, among others. 

I’ve passed these comments along to the FRA as we’ve gotten 

them, and I hope the agency has reviewed them. Can you share 

with us whether you are taking these concerns into consideration 

when you’re making assessments and conducting oversight over 

this project? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. Senator, it’s really important, and I strongly encourage you, as well as all citizens, to stay engaged in the EIS 

process to make sure that they get their concerns—their voices 

heard, and get on the record in that process. Because that process 

is, in fact, what is used to make sure that these concerns get addressed as the project moves forward. 

So, you know, yes, we’re hearing the concerns, we’re making sure 

that everything gets forwarded to the record. Rest assured, there 

will be a robust process with public hearings. And for those people 

that have reached out to us, we’ll make sure that they’re aware of 

those public hearings. We’ll make sure that they’re fully publicized. 

So, all of these concerns get on the record, and we ensure that 

there are measures to address these concerns as part of that 

record. 

Senator RUBIO. Let me ask specifically about safety. There’s already been an EIS conducted on the West Palm Beach-to-Miami 

segment. And FRA issued a finding of ‘‘no significant impact.’’ In 

that finding, the FRA lists over 120 locations for proposed crossing 

upgrades. Is the FRA proposing that those crossings be upgraded, 

or are those upgrades that are being recommended by All Aboard 

Florida? Do you know? 

Mr. SZABO. No, we intend to hold All Aboard Florida to the highest standard of safety. We have guidance that is out there for the 

grade crossing protection, approaches, and systems that we expect 

in any of our—in this case, it’s not a high-speed rail project, it’s a 

52 

regional express project, but there are standards for that. And we 

expect that high bar to be met. 

Senator RUBIO. So, it’s safe to say that the FRA is going to be 

monitoring these crossings to ensure that they’re upgraded and to 

ensure that the public safety is protected? You’re not just deferring 

to All Aboard Florida on issues like crossing upgrades. 

Mr. SZABO. No, we plan to hold them accountable on that. 

Senator RUBIO. OK. On the funding side of it, as you may be 

aware, All Aboard Florida has applied for a railroad rehabilitation 

and improvement financing loan. My question is about the review 

of this loan. Does FRA strictly look at the financial stability and 

proposed business plan when deciding to award the loan, or do you 

take local comments and concerns, like the safety and environmental ones that I’ve mentioned, into account, as well? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. When it comes to the loan, it really comes down 

to two simple questions. Are they eligible? And, in this case, the 

answer is yes. And then, two, can we make a finding of 

repayability? It’s strictly a mathematical—— 

Senator RUBIO. It’s a financial review. 

Mr. SZABO. That’s right. 

Senator RUBIO. You don’t take into account—— 

Mr. SZABO. That’s right. When it comes to the loan, it’s not about 

public policy, it’s about, ‘‘Is it eligible? And can we make the documented finding of repayability?’’ So, it’s a financial transaction. 

But, the EIS is the process that the public needs to continue to 

use to make sure their voices are heard and that their concerns get 

addressed. 

Senator RUBIO. All right. I have one last question, and it has to 

do with Sun Rail, a different project. 

Mr. SZABO. OK. We’ll go to Orlando. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, exactly. It’s a new commuter rail system, for 

those that are not familiar with it, that just started operations last 

month. There was an incident in which a car stalled on the tracks 

and was struck by a Sun Rail train. Luckily, there was no one injured, but the collision, along with other close calls on the rail 

lines, has prompted calls for additional safety measures on the system. In fact, yesterday, the Florida Highway Patrol announced that 

it’s going to be patrolling Sun Rail intersections to make sure drivers are following the law. 

So, as the agency with safety jurisdiction over Sun Rail, is FRA 

looking at these incidents? And what role does the FRA play in recommending safety precautions or improvements? 

Mr. SZABO. Are we looking at it? Absolutely. Senator, it comes 

back to a couple of things. First off, the three fundamental premises under Operation Lifesaver, the three E’s: education, enforcement, and engineering. And we need to make sure we’re advancing 

all of these. But, I really take you back to what we’re proposing in 

GROW AMERICA. There are significant benefits in there relative 

to grade crossing safety. That continues to be our biggest challenge 

nationwide. While I talk about the dramatic drop in rail accidents, 

incidents, injuries, fatalities, across the board, the one vexing challenge we have is on grade crossing safety. And through GROW 

AMERICA, there would be funding available for local communities 

to make grade crossing enhancements. We also need, to the extent 

53 

possible, to advance what I call ‘‘sealed corridors,’’ eliminating 

grade crossings, where possible, with the strategic placement of 

overpasses and underpasses so we ensure the efficient flow of pedestrians, trains, vehicles. But, the safest grade crossing is one 

that doesn’t exist. 

Senator RUBIO. OK. Just to close up, I’ll go back to All Aboard 

Florida for a moment. As you work through the EIS process and 

the public hearings and so forth, those will be announced? In essence, how can my constituents best know where and when these 

hearings are going to take place, and how they could best provide 

input? 

Mr. SZABO. There’ll be significant public notice, but we’ll also 

make sure that your office is aware. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Mr. SZABO. So, it’s not just going to be the traditional public approach. We’ll make sure that your office is aware of those hearings. 

Senator RUBIO. And we’ll work with the congressional delegation 

in Senator Nelson’s office, as well, in making sure that we get people to turn out and, in fact, get engaged in this process. So, thank 

you. 

Mr. SZABO. OK. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Senator Rubio. 

And the record should note that Senator Nelson was here earlier, 

and expressed to me his interest in these areas of inquiry. And he 

had hoped to return. I’m not sure that he’ll be able to do so. 

I want to come back, Mr. Szabo, to the penalty issue. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Because I think that the record here of 

minimal and minuscule penalties really is emblematic more than 

symbolic of a problem that really spans the entire area of scrutiny 

here, and pertains to other agencies, as well. And to come back to 

the Luden and McGrath incidents, wouldn’t you agree with me that 

the $5,000 penalty, under those circumstances of neglect, the severity of the consequences, the seriousness of the safety violations, is 

atrociously inadequate as a measure of what happened here. 

Mr. SZABO. Senator, I don’t know the specifics of those two cases, 

but I do know the process that we go through, that we’re required 

to go through as we assess fines, and that we do, in fact, take a 

look at the severity of the violation. You have to realize that the 

penalty is relative to the violation, not necessarily the outcome of 

that violation. And so, there has got to be a—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, when you say ‘‘not necessarily’’—— 

Mr. SZABO.—direct connection. Well—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. When you say ‘‘not necessarily,’’ it can be. 

And in both instances, there were deaths. 

Mr. SZABO. But, it—Senator, as I understand it, in the one case, 

in 2009, before I was with FRA, it’s my understanding, if I’ve been 

briefed properly, that it was relative to radio procedures that occurred after the fatality. So, it had nothing to do with the fatality 

itself, but it was a failure on the part of the engineer or the conductor to say the word ‘‘emergency’’ three times, which is required 

under our radio regulations. You have to say, ‘‘Emergency, emergency, emergency’’ before you start speaking. And so, the fine was 

for his failure to say that. 

54 

But, the point I make is, we have to make sure that we have a 

legally sustainable position. We use the penalty schedule that’s in 

place. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, what’s your explanation of the 

Luden incident? You were at the agency at that time. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, I—I’m not—which specific—I don’t know these 

by—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That’s the West Haven death. A worker 

was struck on the West Haven line—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—after the controller—— 

Mr. SZABO. You know, I will say this, that clearly—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—the controller failed—— 

Mr. SZABO.—clearly—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—to prevent a train from—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—going on the same track where he was 

working. 

Mr. SZABO. Clearly—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the railroad failed to have in place 

basic technology that was state-of-the-art for railroads around the 

country. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. Our regulation will address roadway worker prevention. In fact, that regulation, final rule, should be out this fall— 

we’re targeting for September—that will require the appropriate 

protections for all roadway workers and, in fact, would address that 

case. 

But, coming back to the penalty itself—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In other words, you will issue a regulation 

that might have saved his life. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, we’ve already been in the works. That’s been—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And why—— 

Mr. SZABO.—in our pipeline. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—why wasn’t that issued earlier? 

Mr. SZABO. It’s part of a pipeline, Senator. We have a process 

that we have to go through. My agency’s the first step in that process, then it goes into clearance with the offices upstairs, the offices 

by—of the Secretary, and then it goes over to OMB. And so, our 

regulatory approach is for us to continue to constantly come up 

with rules that feed into that pipeline, come through the pipeline. 

There has to be the appropriate periods of public comment and review. And so, it’s a never-ending process. We’re constantly feeding 

them through. 

So, this is the—one of the rules that were required, actually, 

under the Rail Safety Improvement Act. It’s been in the hopper, 

moving through the pipeline—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. How long has that regulation been in the 

pipeline, as you—— 

Mr. SZABO. I’m not sure when it actually started, but I do know 

this, Senator, that we actually complete some kind of regulatory 

document more than once a month. We complete about 15 a year 

that we put into and move through the process. So, it’s a neverending flow. 

55 

You know, Senator, not only did the Rail Safety Improvement 

Act require of us an unprecedented number of rulemakings, regulations, studies, and reports, but it also at that time promised us 200 

additional employees, you know, positions that were not filled, or 

at least not immediately filled. They’ve been partially filled now. 

But, we work every day as effectively and efficiently as we can with 

the resources that we’re given. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, on the Rail Safety Improvement Act 

of 2008, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation 

found, just last—a year ago, April—that 9 of the 17 mandated rules 

had not been issued. I understand that two have been issued since 

then. When are the other six rules going to be issued? 

Mr. SZABO. I know that—I would have to actually take a look at 

what the six are, but there would be a couple of them that I believe 

are waiting on the training standards. Some of these have to be 

queued up—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, can you give us dates for when those 

rules will be issued? 

Mr. SZABO. I can provide them to you. I can give you an update 

right now of where my pipeline is today. The final amendments on 

positive train control are due to be out this month. Training standards for railroad employees, a final rule is due to be out this 

month. Our risk-reduction program for freight railroads, the notice 

of proposed rule is due to be out in April—I’m sorry, in August. 

Our system safety program for commuter railroads, the final rule, 

we’re targeting for October. The roadway worker protection that I 

was talking about, that final rule is scheduled to be done in September. Passenger equipment safety standards for high-speed train 

sets, the notice of proposed rule is due to be out in November. Our 

fatigue management plans, the notice of proposed rule is targeted 

to be out in November. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I think you may have covered 

them—some of them, some of the six, because these outstanding 

rules involve risk-reduction plans, safety—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, that will be—final risk reduction will be 

final—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—fatigue management—— 

Mr. SZABO.—in October. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—training standards, emergency breathing 

apparatus—all of those six rules will be finalized in November? 

Mr. SZABO. Emergency breathing apparatus will not. We have a 

significant challenge there with the cost-benefit ratio. Obviously, 

any rule that I promulgate has to go through a rigorous cost-benefit ratio, and we have to be able to prove that the benefits, you 

know, equal or outweigh the cost. And we’ve got a real challenge 

on finding a cost-effective way to advance emergency breathing apparatus. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Just so we’re clear here, these are rules 

that were authorized and required by the law approved in 2008. 

Mr. SZABO. That is correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So, here we are, 6 years later, and they 

still haven’t been issued. What is the reason for that delay? 

Mr. SZABO. We prioritize our rules and move them as efficiently 

and effectively as we can through the pipeline. So, the highest priVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
56 

ority for us, obviously, was positive train control. That was the single most important regulation that we could get out that would 

have the greatest benefit to the public on safety. And the complexity of that rule, the need to go back and make amendments to 

it, you know, dealing with suits that happen with rules, coming up 

with—trying to get a cost-benefit ratio that would work. There are 

complexities here. And so, we prioritize all of these rules, start 

feeding them into the pipeline, and advance all of them as quickly 

as we can. 

But, the number of rules that were required of us was an unprecedented level, likely unmatched by any other period of time in the 

agency’s history. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. The NTSB currently has 56 open recommendations to you. For some of them, the NTSB has given a, 

quote/unquote, ‘‘unacceptable response,’’ in fact, on 29 of the recommendations, meaning that the FRA failing to move in the right 

direction to implement those recommendations. I also understand 

this is the highest number of open unacceptable recommendations 

for any entity within the United States Department of Transportation. Some of these recommendations concern rules that, as 

you’ve mentioned earlier, could have prevented the Metro-North 

catastrophic incidents; for example, inward- and outward-facing recording and audio devices on local—— 

Mr. SZABO. Senator, that would not have prevented that accident. In fact—now, don’t get me wrong. We believe inward/outward-facing cameras have safety benefits. That’s why back in 2013, 

we chose to make it a part of our rulemaking program for 2014, 

engaged the RSAC on it. Certainly, it will help in accident investigations. So, there are safety benefits. But, sir, it would not have 

prevented Spuyten Duyvil. And, in fact, the requirements that we 

put forward in our emergency order were, in fact, the very steps 

that were appropriate to immediately eliminate those risks: the signal upgrades, the civil speed, you know, restrictions enforcement. 

As I said, every rule that we want to promulgate, every rule we 

want to move, has to go through a cost-benefit ratio. And we’re not 

allowed to take the benefits twice. So, for example, the benefits of 

Spuyten Duyvil, preventing that, are being captured in the positive 

train control rule. So, when I go to advance a rule now on inward/ 

outward-facing cameras, I’m going to have a challenge, relative to 

my cost-benefit ratio, on what it would have prevented. 

So, this is just one of the challenges that, you know, as agencies, 

we face. It’s part of what we deal with, but we attempt to deal with 

effectively. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I am not here to debate you. My 

point was not that it would have, not that there was any certainty 

that it would have prevented Spuyten Duyvil, but that it could 

have. Inward- and outward-facing cameras could have provided a 

deterrent to that conductor nodding off. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In other words, his knowing that he was 

on camera. There are a variety of other rules here that might have 

similarly prevented Spuyten Duyvil, including research that would 

mitigate fatigue, which is recommendation—— 

57 

Mr. SZABO. And again, that’s about to be completed. Our fatigue 

mitigation plans will be required, under the risk reduction and system safety program, so—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Rules that would have greatly enhanced 

inspection practices, which might have prevented the derailment in 

Bridgeport, which resulted from the failure to inspect and maintain 

properly that track, causing the joints to fail and the derailment 

to occur. You observed, yourself, that there were actions that might 

have been taken by Metro-North, and actions that could have been 

required—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—by FRA rules, that would have prevented 

these—— 

Mr. SZABO. We go back, Senator, after every accident, no matter 

how large or how small, to review what we can do differently. It’s 

all a part of our drive for continuous safety improvement. 

Our approach, we use our data to—and it goes into a computer 

model—to allocate our resources. It’s, you know, the staffing allocation model. And so, we use our inspection data to ensure that we’re 

strategically deploying the limited resources that we have. As 

you’ve noted before, we only have the resources to inspect about 1 

percent of the Nation’s rail trackage each year. And so, we have to 

follow our data. 

And it’s following that data, it’s that approach, that has been so 

effective in driving this 95 percent drop in accidents, injuries, fatalities to record lows. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me just ask you—— 

Mr. SZABO. That—but—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—a more general question. Wouldn’t you 

agree with me that these rules have to be issued more quickly? 

Mr. SZABO. I wish that that was feasible, Senator. But, you 

know, all I can assure you is that—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, what would it—— 

Mr. SZABO.—with the resources—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What do you need for it to happen? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, the important thing to note here is, it’s a matter of growing the entire pipeline. Even if you give me more resources, which, of course, I always love, you know, to have more 

resources—all that allows me to do is enter the rules into the pipeline more quickly. But, there’s still going to be a bottleneck having 

it flow through. It’s a matter of resources at every step of the process. 

The point I was coming back to, though, sir, is that I believe that 

we can, in fact, continue to improve safety every day. In 2013, we 

had fewer accidents than in 2012. In 2012, we had fewer accidents 

than in 2011. My goal is to ensure, in 2014, we have fewer than 

we had in 2013. And so, I was talking about our data based approach to inspection. There’s no question that, when you take a 

look at Metro-North—and certainly, if you talk to Canada, if you 

take a look at Lac-Megantic, there was no data in either case that 

would have triggered the fact that there was an extraordinary 

amount of risk there. 

And so, while we should not throw away what has worked so effectively for us the past decade, there’s no question we have to lay 

58 

over on top of it additional steps. And so, under GROW AMERICA, 

I’m talking about a three-pronged approach. We continue our data 

based oversight and enforcement program, but we have to get to 

the second step, which is the progressive risk-reduction, risk-analysis programs that, one, will be required in the system safety program—that final rule will be done—what did I say?—the target is 

for October of this year. Over and above that, GROW AMERICA 

gives us the resources we need to make confidential close-calls reporting a nationwide program. And we think that that’s critically 

important. You know, from what we’ve seen in the pilot projects 

where this has been implemented—most notably, our most mature 

pilot project, there was a 70 percent—70 percent—reduction in accidents and injuries. And so, we believe that this has tremendous 

potential to get us to the next level of safety. 

And in that regard, Senator, I had told you—I had promised 

you—that when the Deep Dive report was done, we were going to 

use it as a learning tool for the entire industry and for my agency. 

And I called together all the commuter railroad CEOs, from across 

the country, to New York. Metro-North hosted us. They all responded, brought staff. There were 100 people in that room. And 

we went through that Deep Dive report, you know, had a lessonslearned discussion on it, and then had an open discussion on all of 

them, ‘‘All right, based with this new knowledge, what are you 

going to do? What are each one of you going to do to be more 

proactive and identify and mitigate these risks well in advance?’’ 

A very robust discussion. 

Based on that, a meeting with all the commuter rail CEOs in 

about 10 days at their after-meeting and bringing in—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I hear you—you’ll make that meeting. We 

won’t keep you that long. 

Mr. SZABO. We might. But—Senator, I’ll have to make that meeting—but, we’re going to have a full-blown, several hour conversation on confidential close calls. And the president of the Union Pacific Railroad, who’s had my most successful pilot project, at his 

own expense is flying to that meeting to engage with these CEOs 

and share his experience in why he believes it has so much value 

in advancing safety. 

To the other piece—so, this is what we’re doing with the industry 

to learn from that—the other piece I talked about that I have to 

learn, my agency has to learn. So, I brought in all of my regional 

administrators from across the country for that meeting in New 

York. Two reasons. All of them have commuter properties within 

their jurisdiction, so I wanted them to be a part of the conversation. But, then, we all came back here to D.C. and spent a day together taking a look at and talking about those things that we 

need to do differently. We’re doing good work. We know we must 

always do better work. We’re at a record low number of passenger 

fatalities, but that doesn’t bring back the lives of those four people 

that perished up on Metro-North. I know I own that. Our goal is 

to get to zero, and stay there. And with what we’re proposing in 

the GROW AMERICA Act, I’ll have the tools to get us there. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Szabo, I’ve given you the floor to provide a full answer, and I very much appreciate—— 

Mr. SZABO. Thank you. 

59 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—your doing so. 

And I want to make clear to you that the critical questions that 

I’ve been raising are not directed at you, personally, or even solely 

at your agency. They’re really directed at a broken system for rulemaking. What you’ve referred to as a ‘‘pipeline’’ is more like an obstacle course ridden with hurdles that are insurmountable for 

many of these essential rules that protect health and safety. And 

it is a broken system, not only for your agency and your rules, but 

for many other rules in the Federal Government. And so, I hope 

we can use your agency as an example of how the system can be 

improved, because we can debate whether specific rules—cameras 

facing in and out, alerters, automatic train control, as distinguished from positive train control—whether these basic safety 

measures—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—could have prevented—no one can say 

they would have prevented—— 

Mr. SZABO. Senator, to—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But, the point here is, they should have 

been issued long ago. The recommendations made by the NTSB 

should have been implemented long ago. And that may be an issue 

of resources or complexity of decision issues or the failings of the 

administrative system itself, and the Administrative Procedure Act 

perhaps should be reviewed. But, one way or the other, the system 

has to be reviewed and changed. 

Mr. SZABO. Well, thank you for indulging me, Senator, because, 

you know, I do take this very, very personally. It’s personal to me. 

As I said, I come out of the ranks. I’ve had my share of close calls. 

I don’t know any railroader that hasn’t. I’ve had five friends killed 

on duty. I’ve been to those funerals, I know those families. And so, 

when it comes to safety, this is very personal for me. 

And yes, I want to achieve perfection. We’re not there yet, but 

every year I’ve been here—and frankly, my last two predecessors, 

every year, made continued progress. And, you know, my staff 

knows that it’s all about continuous safety improvement. 

And, Senator, I can’t tell you how much I believe in this team 

of professionals that I have—these inspectors and my staff. These 

are incredibly dedicated people, they work so hard, and this mission is personal for them, also. And so, we’re truly on the same 

page with what it is we want to achieve. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you about the Deep Dive report. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Are you satisfied with Metro-North’s response so far? 

Mr. SZABO. At this point, they have certainly said all of the right 

things. And from what I’ve seen, I’m seeing the right things. But, 

you know, it’s going to take time to play out. My Deep Dive team 

continues to have a presence up there to monitor their compliance 

with what they have promised us. We continue to meet with senior 

leadership every 30 days. We also continue to meet with the labor 

folks up there just to hear what we hear from them at the ground 

level. 

60 

But, certainly when I talk with Joe Giulietti and Tom 

Prendergast, and I’ll be meeting with them personally again this 

week—I think they’re in to see me on Thursday, I believe—the appropriate level of commitment clearly seems to be there. You know, 

they understand, as I said we do, the job that we have to do to regain the confidence of the riders up there. And I believe they’re up 

to the task. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So, fair to say they’re saying the right 

things, but the jury’s still out on whether they’re doing the right 

things. 

Mr. SZABO. They’re saying the right things. We’re seeing the 

right things in the initial steps. But, you know, it’s going to take 

time. There’s a lot of work up there, and particularly when it comes 

to changing safety culture. That is a drawn-out process. It doesn’t 

happen overnight. And so, it’s going to take just continued—continued reinforcement. But, I clearly believe that they’re heading in the 

right direction. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. On the 100-day plan that they have announced and promised to fulfill—in fact, by June 11, so we’re coming close to it—have you been working with them on that 100-day 

plan? 

Mr. SZABO. Staff has been engaged. Yes, my regional administrator is up there on a regular basis. As I said, even parts of my 

Deep Dive team, which I brought in from across the country from 

other regions, have been engaged with them. So, yes, we’re—they’re 

cooperating with us, we’re cooperating with them, and we’re monitoring their progress. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And do you have a view as to whether 

that plan will be, in fact, achieved? 

Mr. SZABO. As I said, at least at this point they are clearly on 

track to achieve what they have set out to do, and now it becomes 

our job to continue to monitor that progress. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do you have any assessment as to why 

the Metro-North bridge that went down recently failed to open, or 

failed to close once it had opened, as to what the reasons were for 

that mishap? 

Mr. SZABO. We will get you a fuller explanation for the record. 

But, as I understand it, that bridge is well over 100 years old. 

You know, it really speaks to the state of the infrastructure, particularly on the Northeast Corridor, and is one of the things that 

our proposal under GROW AMERICA is explicitly put together to 

address: modernizing that infrastructure to make sure that it is 

more safe, more reliable, and more efficient. This asset on the 

Northeast Corridor, you know, is one of the prize assets that we— 

it’s one of the best passenger rail markets in the world—in the 

world. But, because of decades and decades of underinvestment, it 

has never reaped its fullest potential. And so, that’s the case in 

that bridge, and, you know, the concerning thing is, there are so 

many other bridges and tunnels on the Corridor that are of a similar age. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And again, it’s not just about the MetroNorth railroad, or even—— 

Mr. SZABO. That’s right. 

61 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—the Northeast Corridor. Senator Coons 

noted for me—and, in fact, wanted me to ask you about—a bridge 

on I–495, which, late yesterday, encountered a similar problem. It’s 

a bridge over the Christina River, I believe, in Delaware, which 

now has been shut down. It is closed indefinitely. It carries about 

90,000 vehicles a day, and it will have a huge impact in creating 

congestion, from Florida to Maine. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Especially in trucking. 

Mr. SZABO. You know—is this a rail bridge or a highway bridge? 

This is a highway bridge, OK. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Highway bridge. 

Mr. SZABO. But, to rail bridges, Senator—to rail bridges, you 

know, there are a couple of elements of GROW AMERICA that 

really help with railroad bridges. I talked about the two pieces, the 

one for Amtrak to be able to bring their railroad to a state of good 

repair. That’s a critical part. The second piece is for other corridors 

to be upgraded through competitive grants. And these are the kind 

of infrastructure improvements we’re talking about. 

But, the last one I want to touch on is a grant program for shortline railroads. And I think this is critical, particularly as we talk 

about the movement of crude oil. The Class I railroads, for the 

most part, can take care of themselves. They have deep pockets. 

But, the short lines are very capitally constrained in what is a very 

capital intensive industry. And so, there are bridges out there, 

there’s track structure out there, that have not been upgraded to 

modern standards. And so, in GROW AMERICA, we’re advocating 

for competitive grants for short-line railroads to make critical safety upgrades to bridges, critical safety upgrades to track structure 

to be able to safely haul heavier loads, and critical upgrades to signaling systems for short lines. So, we’re looking to address this in 

our proposal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I think one of the problems we can 

agree—and maybe this is an issue that pertains to all your agencies—is the resources available for enforcement. And, as you well 

know, Senator Schumer and I advocated, successfully, for an additional $185 million in the last fiscal year, Fiscal Year 2014, which 

was to hire 45 additional critically necessary safety inspectors for 

your agency. Can you tell me what the status of the hiring is for 

those—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. We moved immediately—now, again, you don’t 

just, you know, snap your fingers and have 45 people in place, but 

we have moved immediately on the first 15. Ten of them have, in 

fact, been hired. But, Senator, to be clear, it takes about a year— 

by the time you recruit, hire, go through the training that is necessary, it takes about a year to be a qualified inspector to be 

turned loose on your own. But, we’ve moved right away when 

there’s an opportunity for more resources. We’re not going to wait 

in—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do you need more? 

Mr. SZABO.—moving on that. Senator, it’s my job to ensure the 

safety of this industry with the resources you choose to give me. 

And, you know, so certainly—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, we can—— 

62 

Mr. SZABO.—I’m thankful—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—we can only give you what you request. 

We can give you more, but the best indication of whether you need 

more is whether you request them. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. It’s my job to work with the resources that I 

have and to strategically deploy—you know, that’s why we use the 

staffing allocation model to make sure that we’re as effectively deploying as well as we can. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Again, I don’t want to put you on the spot 

here, but I’d like to ask you, for the record, to provide me with an 

estimate, as specific as possible, of the additional resources you 

need for enforcement. 

Mr. SZABO. OK. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I’d like to make the same request of 

all of your agencies. 

Mr. SZABO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Not to be critical of what you’ve done in 

the past, but simply to show what we need to do to have adequate 

enforcement of the rules and laws on the books. If they’re on the 

books and they’re not enforced, they’re dead letter. In fact, they’re 

worse than dead letter, because they encourage noncompliance. 

People who know that rules aren’t going to be enforced aren’t going 

to obey them. When the penalties aren’t sufficient, there’s no incentive to obey them. If they’re part of the cost of doing business, the 

big companies that you regulate will thumb their nose at your 

agencies, which is to say at public health and safety. So, I’m going 

to ask that, for the record. 

And let me just conclude with these questions, Mr. Szabo. My 

understanding is that the maximum penalty for the violations of 

orders and rules such as pertained in the Luden—Robert Luden incident—was $25,000, and that the—in the case of egregious and aggravated cases, the maximum is $105,000. Is that correct? 

Mr. SZABO. I believe that’s correct. For the record, I can confirm 

that for you. 

Mr. SZABO. Those are established via statute. But, there are 

other elements that come into play as we’re determining how much 

a particular violation—you know, what we’ll be able to sustain with 

a fine. So, it’s not for every violation that’s out there, that we can 

instantly go and levy the maximum against them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Can you give me examples of when the 

maximum of $25,000 or $105,000 have been imposed? 

Mr. SZABO. We’ll get you that for the record. That way I can let 

you know what the history has been, those cases where that may 

have been done, and the legal basis that was in place to support 

that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. How quickly can you provide that for the 

record? 

Mr. SZABO. I’ll put staff to work on it. But, again, there’s a clearance—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. These are cases that have already—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—occurred, they have already been closed, 

the penalty’s been imposed. I’m asking for examples of them. 

63 

Mr. SZABO. I will put staff to work on it today, Senator, but 

there’s a clearance process on everything that we provide. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Why was the Luden death on those tracks 

in West Haven not an egregious and aggravated case? 

Mr. SZABO. For the record, we’ll get you, again, what we believe 

was the legal basis for our fine. But, Senator, again, I want to come 

back to something that I said earlier, that the purpose of fines is 

to ensure compliance, it’s not necessarily to punish. And, you know, 

the hammer is but one tool that we have in our toolbox, and we 

need to make sure that we have multiple approaches to drive continuous safety improvement. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, it may be only one tool, but it is one 

of the preeminent tools. And when you fail to use it, you are leaving yourself, essentially—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. Well, as I said, Senator—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—weak and worse—— 

Mr. SZABO.—the 5 years I’ve been here, we have, in fact, you 

know, set a record for the highest dollar amount of fines levied for 

any 5 year period. So—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But, the—— 

Mr. SZABO.—with the tools I have—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—the Luden penalty—— 

Mr. SZABO.—we’re doing what we can do. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—and I’ll just conclude on this point—is only one of minuscule penalties, $5,000 and $10,000 over that period of 10 years, that’s been documented. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. You know, Senator, certainly we’d be happy to 

work with you on some technical assistance if you would like to 

take a look at legislation that addresses our penalty schedule. 

So—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, if I were in your shoes, I would be 

advocating for more authority. 

Mr. SZABO. We’ll work with you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you, talking about answers for 

the record—when you were last here, you promised some answers. 

We still haven’t received them. 

Mr. SZABO. I—they’ve been completed, both by me and my staff. 

I worked on those personally, staff has prepared them, and they’re 

in the clearance process. I certainly had hoped they would have 

been delivered to you in advance of this, but you should have them 

very shortly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. They’re in the pipeline? 

Mr. SZABO. That’s right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. When are we going to see them? 

Mr. SZABO. I can’t answer that, other than to say I believe that 

it’s very close. And I—it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s this week, but 

I don’t control that piece. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well—— 

Mr. SZABO. So—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—I’m not going to put you—again, I’m not 

here to embarrass anyone, but I’d like to know who has to clear 

them. Whom should I contact? 

Mr. SZABO. We can—for the record, I’ll get you—in fact, I believe, 

in the Q&A that you proposed to us, we’ve got in there the process 

64 

that is used for clearance. It actually was relevant to at least one 

or two of the questions that you asked me. So, you know, you’ll 

have that information. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I thank you all for being here today. And 

I hope that we can continue this conversation. 

I have additional questions for the record. I don’t want to detain 

all of you here. I understand my colleagues may, as well, so we’re 

going to keep the record open for a week. 

And again, my thanks to you for spending the time with us and 

being so forthright and helpful. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. ANNE S. FERRO

Question. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) uses Hours 

of Service regulations to help prevent fatigue-related accidents in the trucking industry. After years of working on hours of service regulations, some in Congress 

want to stop enforcement of important provisions. 

I’m concerned this could have unintended consequences on safety. What are the 

real world impacts of rolling back these provisions? 

Answer. Rolling back the once-a-week limit on use of the 34-hour restart that 

FMCSA adopted in its December 2011 final rule would allow employers to require 

their commercial truck drivers to work an average of more than 80 hours per week 

and remain behind the wheel on our Nation’s highways. This would significantly increase the risk of a fatigue-related crash. No other mode of transportation allows 

employers to demand that safety-sensitive employees work such grueling schedules. 

The current 34-hour provision that has been in effect since July 1, 2013, limits 

truck drivers to an average of 70 hours on duty per week. FMCSA estimates that 

limitation on the use of the 34-hour restart will save 19 lives per year, prevent hundreds of injuries, and improve driver health. Were the proposed legislation suspending enforcement of the rule enacted, these safety benefits would be lost. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO

Question 1. As you know, on December 10, just days after the Spuyten Duvyil derailment, the FRA issued Safety Advisory 2013–08. The advisory recommended that 

all railroads: (1) Review the circumstances of the December 1 Spuyten Duyvil incident; (2) Instruct employees on the importance of compliance with maximum authorized speed restrictions; (3) Remind employees that FRA regulations prohibit the 

operation of a locomotive or train at a speed which exceeds the maximum authorized speed by at least 10 mph; (4) Evaluate quarterly and 6-month reviews of testing data; (5) Reinforce the importance of communication between train crewmembers located in the controlling locomotive. How has the industry responded to 

this advisory? Are railroads nation-wide heeding your call and learning from the 

tragedy of Spuyten Duyvil? What actions have you seen other railroads take due 

to these lessons? 

Answer. On April 14, I addressed an assembly of commuter rail executives from 

across the Nation and, with Metro-North and the Metropolitan Transit Administration, discussed Operation Deep Dive, its findings and its implications for the rest 

of the commuter rail industry. In that meeting, many commuter rail executives expressed their intentions to conduct internal and/or contractor-performed evaluations 

of their operations to identify possible safety culture degradation. For example, New 

Jersey Transit is conducting both an internal and contractor-performed evaluation 

of its operations and will brief FRA in early August on the results of both. 

In addition, there was strong interest expressed by many in learning more about 

FRA’s Confidential Close Calls Reporting program. A follow up meeting with the 

Commuter Rail COEs has been scheduled for June 14. 

Question 2. How FRA is ensuring that Metro-North is responding to the overall 

recommendations in the Deep Dive Report? 

Answer. As you know, after months of review, the FRA released its Operation 

Deep Dive Report in March 2014. I was glad to see the results of that study and 

stay in close contact with your office during its development. The report—as I’ve 

said since—is a searing indictment of Metro-North’s leadership, its lack of safety 

culture, and its inattentiveness to the basics of infrastructure maintenance. The report also notes that ‘‘FRA will continue its oversight in order to ensure that the imVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
66 

mediate improvements implemented during Deep Dive are reviewed, evaluated, and 

modified.’’ 

Since March, Metro-North has had an opportunity to respond, and on May 15 the 

railroad released a plan for addressing the many faults outlined in the Deep Dive 

assessment. 

Question 3. What actions are you taking, specifically, ‘‘to ensure that the immediate improvements’’ are ‘‘reviewed, evaluated, and modified’’? 

Answer. FRA meets with Metro-North senior management every 30 days to review the carrier’s progress with continuous safety improvement; the fourth 30-day 

review meeting is scheduled for July 14. Meanwhile, FRA inspectors are on the 

property conducting inspections and conducting audits to validate the carrier’s 

progress in achieving the Operation Deep Dive directed actions, ensure regulatory 

compliance, and promote railroad safety. Additionally, FRA meets with labor representatives to gain their perspectives on the carrier’s progress. 

In addition to oversight, FRA has provided technical assistance to Metro-North to 

further improve safety. One example is the technical assistance that resulted in a 

much improved and compliant operational testing and observation program. 

Question 4. What is the nature of your day-to-day interactions with Metro-North? 

Answer. FRA Region 1 inspectors have a daily presence on Metro-North property 

with heightened inspections conducted by FRA track and operating practices inspectors as both track infrastructure and transportation oversight were identified in the 

Operation Deep Dive investigation as problematic. Daily communication between 

FRA Region 1 and Metro-North senior management occurs. Additionally, FRA Region 1 has initiated and facilitated meetings to promote continuous safety improvement. Examples include the January 14 meeting to promote an improved internal 

rail flaw inspection protocol, the May 4 meeting to encourage Metro-North to adopt 

autonomous (unmanned) track inspection technology and improved internal rail flaw 

protocol, the June 9 meeting to assist Metro-North with moving forward with an autonomous track inspection program, and the June 26 meeting, which established a 

collaborative outreach effort between Engineering Department management and the 

Teamsters Union to promote safety culture among maintenance-of-way employees. 

FRA is also exploring a possible research project in collaboration with MetroNorth on fouled ballast conditions, which are track bed conditions identified by the 

Operation Deep Dive investigation. 

Question 5. How much more often do you review and evaluate Metro-North’s practices in June 2014 than in May 2013? 

Answer. There has been heightened oversight in response to the Metro-North accidents and employee fatalities, reaching its highest level during the 60-day Operation Deep Dive investigation, and remaining elevated during the current follow-up 

monitoring and validation period. Additionally, FRA conducted an extensive accident/incident reporting audit in June 2014. Inspections have measurably increased 

and oversight continues to be substantially higher on Metro-North’s operations 

when compared with previous years. 

Question 6. Many of the problems outlined in the Deep Dive report are quite specific. These include recommendations that Metro-North use advanced track inspection technology, improve its employee training, improve operational testing and inspections, document testing requirements and test results, ensure blue signal protection is effective, and address fatigue—among maintenance of way employees and 

controllers, too. But some recommendations are written in rather less-than-concrete 

terminology, e.g., ‘‘develop a plan’’; ‘‘develop a strategy’’; and ‘‘consider a change.’’ In 

turn, Metro-North has checked the box on many of these proposals, implying they’re 

well on their way to having been achieved. How can we know—including my many 

constituents, who were alarmed by the report—that Metro-North is truly making 

progress? 

Answer. FRA inspectors are on the property monitoring Metro-North progress in 

completing the Operation Deep Dive directed actions. Inspections and audits validate progress as evidenced by the resulting inspection reports and audit reports. 

FRA will continue with its heightened oversight activities until it is satisfied MetroNorth has achieved safety parity with the rest of the commuter rail industry. 

Question 7. If Metro-North truly carries out the recommendations, how will it 

stack up against other commuter railroads? How does it compare now? 

Answer. As Metro-North carries out the recommendations and directed actions, it 

will move to or near the top of commuter railroads. This is because of Operation 

Deep Dive’s focus on safety culture, FRA’s first attempt to evaluate a railroad’s safety culture, above and beyond the existing regulations. In directing Metro-North to 

place enhanced safety above on-time performance, to reorganize the safety department to be a force for continuous safety improvement, and to improve its training 

67 

across all operating departments, FRA has taken the unprecedented action of directing a railroad to improve its safety culture to the benefit of its customers and its 

employees. 

Currently, Metro-North is moving in the right direction and, with FRA’s continuous oversight, is expected to achieve and move beyond parity. 

Question 8. I’m very concerned about FRA and its treatment of practices that led 

to death and injuries. For instance, in May of 2014, track worker Robert Luden was 

killed in West Haven in Connecticut. We’ve learned that his death could have been 

avoided by simple tools called shunt technology. We’ve also learned that MetroNorth was fined a mere $5,000 for the safety lapses that led to Mr. Luden’s death. 

Yet FRA is permitted to fine up to $25,000 in penalties and is even allowed to fine 

up to $105,000 for egregious and aggravated cases. Is $5,000 a sufficient fine in 

Luden’s death? Will $5,000 truly incentivize changes in workplace practices that 

will ensure accidents like this don’t take place? 

Answer. As a fifth generation railroader, I am personally affected by the death 

of any railroad employee performing his or her job. Over the course of my railroad 

career I have lost five friends to on-duty fatalities. Use of shunt technology can be 

problematic on third-rail electrified railroads, creating additional risks that nullify 

the very protection desired. FRA considered all of the available evidence concerning 

the accident in deciding what enforcement action to take. 

In a situations involving a fatality, and depending upon the circumstances, a railroad could be subject to civil liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. 

Potential liability for civil damages, incentivizes safety compliance. FRA civil penalties do not provide monetary compensation for harm suffered by railroad workers. 

Rather, civil penalties are intended to promote compliance with Federal railroad 

safety laws and regulations. Civil penalties are also only one of the enforcement 

tools available to FRA. Indeed, FRA subsequently issued Emergency Order No. 29 

later in 2013 to require Metro-North to make immediate, necessary changes in railroad safety practices that civil penalties alone could not. FRA will use any and all 

of the enforcement tools available to it to take whatever action is necessary to help 

ensure railroad safety. 

Question 9. What changes should we make in Congress to ensure that FRA can 

properly penalize railroads for improper practices? 

Answer. The statutory changes that FRA requires are those in rail safety provisions of the GROW AMERICA Act, which the Secretary sent to Congress on April 

29. For example, FRA wants the authority (1) to require certain harmonization of 

railroads’ operating rules in small geographic areas where two or more railroads 

serve as host railroads for joint operations; (2) to regulate the hours of service of 

freight train crews, signal employees, and dispatchers based on sound, up-to-date 

science; and (3) to grant merit-based extensions of the current statutory deadline 

for certain railroads to implement a positive train control (PTC) system and take 

other action related to PTC. 

Question 10. What circumstances would warrant a fine of $25,000? What circumstances would warrant a fine of $105,000? 

Answer. The railroad safety statutes and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act provide for assessing a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for a violation 

of a rail safety regulation or order or of certain provisions of the rail safety statutes 

except that when a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations 

has caused an imminent hazard of death or injury to individuals, or has caused 

death or injury, the amount may be not more than $105,000. 49 U.S.C. 21301– 

21303; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. Each day that the violation continues is a separate violation. The statute does not provide explicit guidance on the circumstances in which 

the ordinary maximum of $25,000 or the aggravated maximum of $105,000 should 

be assessed. As stated in FRA’s guidance at 49 C.F.R. part 209, appendix A, ‘‘This 

authority to assess a penalty for a single violation above $25,000 and up to $105,000 

is used only in very exceptional cases to penalize egregious behavior. FRA indicates 

in the penalty demand letter when it uses the higher penalty amount instead of the 

penalty amount listed in the schedule.’’ FRA makes these determinations on a caseby-case basis; however, the statutory language on factors to be considered when 

compromising the amount of a penalty assessed for a rail safety violation provides 

a general framework for making initial assessment determinations: ‘‘(A) the nature, 

circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; (B) with respect to the violator, 

the degree of culpability, any history of violations, the ability to pay, and any effect 

on the ability to continue to do business; and (C) other matters that justice requires.’’ See 49 U.S.C. 21301(a)(3)(A)–(C), 49 U.S.C. 21302(a)(3)(A)–(C), 49 U.S.C. 

21303(a)(3)(A)–(C). FRA also has internal procedures for what should be done when 

68 

the Office of Railroad Safety makes recommendations to the Office of Chief Counsel 

for such ordinary maximum or aggravated maximum penalty assessments. 

Question 11. Will FRA produce a list of recent fines, when imposed, and the legal 

basis for each fine, as you said at the hearing you’d be able to produce? Can this 

list go back ten years? 

Answer. Yes, FRA is in the process of generating such a list. However, any analysis of a ten-year period would be confounded by capturing the period both before 

and after the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Additionally, FRA updated its 

system for managing the enforcement of railroad safety statutes and regulations in 

2008; while it is technologically possible to compile a full list of fines going back to 

2004, the time and expense to do so are probably not justified by the elucidative 

benefit of this additional information. To provide context into the scope of the undertaking, the initial list of all fines assessed since October 1, 2008—to capture violations since the passage of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008—contained approximately 30,000 distinct violations and associated fines. 

Question 12. NTSB has issued many safety recommendations to FRA over the 

past few years. Many of those have been turned into rulemakings that have led to 

new rules and regulations that are intended to save lives and improve reliability. 

Many of those recommendations, however, have sat dormant or have been rejected. 

NTSB currently has 56 open recommendations to FRA. And for some of them, the 

NTSB has given FRA an ‘‘unacceptable response’’ on 29 of the open recommendations—meaning that the FRA is failing to move in the right direction to implement 

those recommendations. I also understand that this is the highest number of ‘‘open 

unacceptable’’ recommendations for any entity within the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Some of these recommendations urge rules requiring the use of inward-and outward-facing recording and audio devices on locomotives (recommendations R–10–001 

and R–10–002—both open and unacceptable); some urge FRA rules and research 

that would mitigate fatigue (recommendations R–12–016; R–12–018; R–12–019 and 

R–13–021—all open and acceptable); and one urges greatly enhanced inspection 

practices (recommendation R–14–012—just recently opened). While this most recent 

recommendation came out on May 19, 2014 others have been around for years. And 

had the recommendations been implemented before the spate of Metro-North incidents, lives could have been saved. While mandates issued by Congress are certainly 

important, how urgently are you working to implement these recommendations? 

Answer. FRA recognizes the significance of each open recommendation and has 

focused its efforts on implementing or addressing each of them in an appropriate 

and timely manner. FRA maintains open communications with the NTSB to address 

any open recommendations. As the Federal agency charged with carrying out the 

railroad safety laws and prescribing regulations as necessary for railroad safety, 

FRA reviews and makes judgments whether or not to adopt the NTSB recommendations, in whole or in part, and how best to do so. FRA does not and cannot automatically adopt them, especially not those recommendations requiring rulemaking without considering the agency’s regulatory priorities and the requirements of the rulemaking process. In this regard, FRA carefully considers whether the safety issues 

raised in NTSB recommendations may be addressed by non-rulemaking means. 

FRA continues to act diligently in completing its regulatory workload, placing a 

priority on those rulemakings that will most effectively advance safety. In general, 

FRA has to strike a balance between speed and quality. ‘‘Quality’’ includes adherence to demanding procedural and substantive legal requirements. As you know, all 

three branches of the Federal Government—Congress, the courts, and the Executive 

Branch—have established certain mandatory procedures and substantive requirements related to the rulemaking process (i.e., the development and issuance of regulations, including FRA safety regulations). With few exceptions, before FRA is permitted to issue a final rule, there must be public notice of the proposal and an opportunity for public comment; a reasonable response to any public comments; an articulated, rational basis for the rule; and consistency of the rule with any applicable 

laws. 

For many FRA rulemakings, other Federal agencies and offices are part of the 

clearance process: these draft rulemaking documents, cleared by FRA staff and by 

me as Administrator, go into a pipeline that extends from this agency to the Office 

of the Secretary of Transportation, which circulates the document to other agencies 

and offices within the Department, and then to the Office of Management and Budget, where the draft rule is circulated to relevant non-DOT agencies and offices. 

Costs and benefits of a draft proposed rule and draft final rule must be identified, 

analyzed, and weighed against each other. This evaluation can be very complex, but 

provides critical information to decision makers, reviewers, and the public. It should 

69 

also be noted that the complex nature of the administrative review process for draft 

rulemaking documents means that widening one part of the pipeline (e.g., by adding 

resources) is not enough to expedite issuance of a rule if the rest of the pipeline remains narrow; the delay simply occurs at a different stage of the process. After FRA 

issues a final rule, FRA’s procedural rules provide for the filing of petitions for reconsideration, a vehicle through which litigation is often avoided, thus conserving 

administrative and judicial resources. A final rule is also subject to judicial review 

in the U.S. Courts of Appeals and may be set aside by the court. (By contrast, NTSB 

does not issue rules; it issues recommendations, and these recommendations are not 

subject to notice and comment, cost-benefit analysis, or judicial review.) 

Regarding inward- or outward-facing cameras, it is important to note they would 

not have prevented the December 1st Spuyten Duyvil derailment. FRA acted appropriately with Emergency Order 29 to require those measures that had a direct relationship to the accident and would provide immediate safety benefits to MetroNorth’s operation. While Congress could have mandated a camera when it passed 

the RSIA in 2008, it chose not to, so congressionally mandated rulemakings were 

given priority in the rulemaking process. FRA does believe that inward-and outward-facing cameras can provide value and will assist in accident investigations. 

That is why in the summer of 2013, while giving priority to finishing the 42 Congressional mandates established in the RSIA, FRA was involved in various camera 

projects occurring in the industry. Based on what we learned, FRA placed this issue 

on our internal rulemaking agenda in November of 2013 for action in 2014. As 

planned, the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) has accepted the task of 

formulating recommendations on the appropriate design and use of locomotivemounted cameras and will begin RSAC working group meetings on the topic this 

summer, with recommendations due early next year. 

FRA is a data-driven agency, dedicated to achieving its safety mission for the good 

of the public, and subject to the highest ethical standards. FRA works tremendously 

hard to ensure that it prioritizes its rulemaking endeavors to address the most safety-critical issues in the timeliest fashion. Given the 42 individual mandates imposed 

on the agency in the RSIA, FRA has utilized its limited resources in an efficient 

manner in order to advance and address the safety needs of the country and industry in a timely fashion. During the five-year period from February 1, 2009, to January 31, 2014, FRA published approximately 76 major regulatory documents, including 66 advance notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRMs), and final rules; 3 emergency orders; and 7 interpretations, for an average 

of more than 15 major regulatory documents per year. We are also actively involved 

in many pending rulemakings, including one on fatigue management, which will address the issue of sleep apnea and other fatigue-related issues. 

We believe our approach to handling and prioritizing rulemakings has increased 

the level of safety across the industry. This is evidenced by the historically low accident statistics during the last ten calendar years. During this period, total 

derailments decreased 48 percent, total train accidents decreased 48 percent, and 

total highway-rail grade crossing accidents decreased 32 percent. The year 2012 had 

record low numbers of train accidents, and that safety record was surpassed in 

2013. But we always owe the public better. Our goal is to drive continuous safety 

improvement. We expect this of ourselves, and we expect it of the industry we regulate. 

Question 13. As I raised in your last appearance before this committee, an April 

2013 DOT IG report found that FRA was delayed on issuing rules required of it 

under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA). When that report was 

issued, FRA had not issued 9 of 17 mandated rules. The report also found inefficiencies in FRA’s rulemaking process, including failure to properly communicate and 

share documents with the Rail Safety Advisory Committee, also known as the 

RSAC. 

There are still six rules to go. And at the hearing you mentioned producing a list 

that prioritizes the rulemakings with dates as to when the rulemakings would be 

finalized. Can you produce said list? 

Answer. Below is a list of the remaining RSIA-mandated rulemakings, in priority 

order. The dates when these rulemakings will be finalized are not known and are 

particularly hard to predict for rulemakings that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has determined to be significant and therefore subject to Department 

of Transportation and Executive Branch review. 

1. The final rule on training standards is in review in the Executive Branch. 

2. The NPRM on risk reduction plans is in review in the Executive Branch. 

3. The final rule on system safety plans is in review within the Department of 

Transportation. 

70 

4. The NPRM to extend the alcohol and drug rule to maintenance-of-way workers 

had been redesignated by OMB as non-significant and is now expected to be 

published in July. 

5. The final rule on railroads’ reports to the National Crossing Inventory is now 

expected to be published by August, if the final rule is determined by OMB 

to be non-significant. 

6. FRA staff is currently developing the fatigue management plan NPRM. This 

plan would be a required part of a railroad’s system safety or risk reduction 

plan, alluded to earlier. 

7. The final rule on emergency escape breathing apparatus is delayed due to competing priorities and the need to reexamine data for an economical option to 

comply with the RSIA. The rule has been designated by OMB as significant. 

8. The rulemaking on dark (unsignaled) territory is being held in abeyance because technology implementation plans expected in railroads’ risk reduction 

and system safety plans will likely make the rule unnecessary for safety. (The 

mandate is for either a rule or guidance.) 

Question 14. I understand we are waiting on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to release a proposed rule concerning the possible need to retrofit DOT– 

111 cars, which DOT submitted earlier this year. I also know that 111 cars account 

for nearly 70 percent of the U.S. tank car fleet, and they have been involved in a 

number of high-profile derailments in the past year. 

This concerns many of my constituents as a CSX train derailed just north of New 

York City last summer. It was carrying trash—but had it been carrying crude, it 

could have been devastating. 

Given this increase in hauling, what is your agency’s plan to ensure the safe 

transport of this product, which poses significant danger? Does your agency have 

the resources necessary to address this surge in accidents? What actions are you 

taking in the interim before the OMB releases the proposed rule? Can you confirm 

that any focus on crude oil transportation—as critical as it is—will not distract your 

agencies—especially FRA—from other key safety priorities, like those affecting passenger and commuter rail? 

Answer. In the last twelve months the Department has taken a number of steps 

to improve the safety of transportation of crude oil by rail. These steps include three 

emergency orders and enforcing compliance with existing regulations and emergency 

orders. The emergency orders were intended to: (1) ensure proper securement of 

trains carrying certain hazardous materials in specific volumes, (2) ensure the proper classification and packaging of crude oil, and (3) notification of first responders 

of the number of Bakken crude oil trains moving through their jurisdictions. FRA 

has initiated and will continue enforcement efforts to ensure industry compliance 

with the requirements of these emergency orders. We are also in the process of codifying securement requirements of Emergency Order No. 28. 

Additionally, the Secretary issued a ‘‘Call to Action’’ challenging all stakeholders, 

including Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of member companies of the American Petroleum Institute (API) and CEOs of the railroads, to identify prevention and mitigation strategies that could be implemented quickly to enhance the safe transportation of crude oil by rail. 

In response, industry committed to a number of voluntary actions intended to 

mitigate the risk of transporting crude oil by rail. These measures address prevention of train accidents and mitigation of their consequences, including by improving 

response to such accidents. FRA will work closely with industry to monitor adherence to their commitments as well as to provide assistance where needed. 

Finally, FRA is compiling incident and compliance data and overlaying this information on identified crude oil routes. This information will be assembled in the form 

of maps that will inform and guide coordinated multi-discipline inspection and enforcement strategies and initiatives. In addition, FRA’s rail integrity rule went into 

effect on March 25, 2014. The rule requires railroads to submit to FRA rail internal 

flaw data. FRA, in turn, is developing a repository for this data. This data will provide additional information related to identified crude oil routes. 

The focus on crude oil transportation will not detract from other safety priorities, 

especially those affecting passenger rail. FRA has actually increased overall safety 

resource levels and dedicated those resources to the safe transport of crude oil by 

rail. We have added new inspector positions and are focusing on all aspects of crude 

oil train movements through the rail network. We have also collaborated with 

PHMSA and industry to help ensure railroads and the crude oil industry implement 

additional safety measures for crude oil transport. We have also increased the use 

of our Automated Track Inspection Program (ATIP), and added manned equipment, 

71 

to cover higher risk routes such as crude oil routes. In addition to a comprehensive 

review of the Metro-North safety program, we are embarking on additional safety 

reviews of other passenger railroads as necessary. We are also encouraged by the 

level of interest expressed by both intercity passenger and commuter railroads in 

implementing risk reduction programs such as Confidential Close Call Reporting 

Systems, which will help ensure continuous safety improvement in an area that is 

already very safe. And the Passenger Rail Division has been working with new operators to ensure the safety of new passenger service. 

Safety is FRA’s highest priority, and we allocate our resources accordingly. As 

noted above, we have increased overall safety resource levels. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HON. ANNE S. FERRO

Question. Your agency uses hours of service (HOS) regulations to limit the number of hours a truck driver can operate. This is done to prevent fatigue-related accidents in the trucking industry. After years of working on this matter, the final rule 

implementing the HOS framework became effective in 2013. The new rules have 

garnered some criticism and some are seeking to roll them back—especially provisions related to the 34-hour re-start, even though they went through years of public 

comment and litigation. What impact would rolling back these rules have on safety? 

Answer. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has worked 

hard to reduce the likelihood of fatigue among drivers of commercial motor vehicles 

(CMVs) and to provide greater opportunity for rest through our HOS rule and other 

initiatives. As stated previously, rolling back the once-a-week limit on use of the 34- 

hour restart that FMCSA adopted in its December 2011 final rule would allow employers to require their commercial truck drivers to work an average of more than 

80 hours per week and remain behind the wheel on our Nation’s highways. This 

would significantly increase the risk of a fatigue-related crash. No other mode of 

transportation allows employers to demand that safety-sensitive employees work 

such grueling schedules. 

The current 34-hour provision that has been in effect since July 1, 2013, limits 

truck drivers to an average of 70 hours on duty per week. FMCSA estimates that 

limitation on the use of the 34-hour restart will save 19 lives per year, prevent hundreds of injuries, and improve driver health. Were the legislation currently proposed 

by Congress suspending enforcement of the rule enacted, these safety benefits would 

be lost. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN

Question 1. I understand we are waiting on the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to release a proposed rule concerning the possible need to retrofit DOT–111 

cars, which DOT submitted earlier this year. I also know that 111 cars account for 

nearly 70 percent of the U.S. tank car fleet, and they have been involved in a number of high-profile derailments in the past year. This concerns many of my constituents as a CSX train derailed just north of New York City last summer. It was carrying trash—but had it been carrying crude, it could have been devastating. Given 

this increase in hauling, what is your agency’s plan to ensure the safe transport of 

this product, which poses significant danger? 

Answer. With regard to rail safety, PHMSA and FRA have taken a comprehensive 

approach when developing a proposal to reduce risks posed by the bulk transport 

of hazardous materials by rail. Specifically, FRA and PHMSA are focusing on methods to prevent accidents and incidents from occurring, mitigate the effects of those 

events that do occur, and improve emergency preparedness and response. Aside 

from the draft proposal, the Department has taken numerous actions in the form 

of safety advisories, emergency orders, enforcement actions and inspections and 

crude testing to improve the safe transportation of crude by rail. On the prevention 

front, FRA and PHMSA are working together to implement necessary operational 

controls and rail track integrity requirements to lessen the likelihood of accidents. 

PHMSA has requirements in place (Hazardous Materials Regulations) to mitigate 

the effects of potential accidents through appropriate packaging of the materials 

based on classification; and effectively and accurately communicating the hazards 

to transportation workers and first responders. 

PHMSA’s plan to address the risks posed by the bulk transport of hazardous materials by rail includes both non-regulatory and regulatory, short-and long-term solutions. This plan includes clarifying and improving requirements and conducting 

72 

outreach to stakeholders such as the regulated community, industry, state and local 

government, and emergency response sectors. PHMSA is also collaborating and actively engaging all stakeholders with our Hazardous Materials Safety Assistance 

Team and our field operations staff. A list of actions taken as part of PHMSA’s comprehensive approach to reducing the risks and mitigating the consequences of the 

bulk transport of hazardous materials by rail can be viewed at our Operation Safe 

Delivery website (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/osd/chronology). 

Question 2. Does your agency have the resources necessary to address this surge 

in accidents? 

Answer. PHMSA’s Office of Hazardous Material Safety (OHMS) includes a staff 

of 175 employees at headquarters and five regional offices, including a total of 57 

investigators. OHMS’s operating budget is approximately $45 million. Since October 

1, 2014, PHMSA has obligated approximately $1.4 million to support investigation 

and testing, regulatory initiatives, and outreach in support of this priority. For 

multi-modal prevention and response activities associated with the safe transportation of crude oil, the President’s Budget for FY 2015 requests $40,000,000, This 

appropriation would provide funds for a multi-modal initiative to support prevention 

and response activities associated with the safe transportation of crude oil, including 

enhanced inspection levels, additional safety inspectors, investigative efforts, research and data analysis, economic analysis, training and outreach, and testing in 

high risk areas. The funds would be available for initiatives within the Federal Railroad Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

Question 3. What actions are you taking in the interim before the OMB releases 

the proposed rule? 

Answer. While the proposed rulemaking provides a comprehensive proposal to address these risks, PHMSA has continued to actively pursue other initiatives to 

achieve interim safety improvements. A list of all actions taken as part of comprehensive approach to preventing and mitigating the risks posed by the bulk transport of hazardous materials by rail can be viewed at the Operation Safe Delivery 

website (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/osd/chronology), the following highlights some efforts PHMSA, FRA, and the Department have taken in the interim, 

while a proposed rule is being developed and reviewed. 

• June 12, 2014—PHMSA hosted a Crude Oil Emergency Response Workgroup 

Meeting in conjunction with the U.S. Fire Administration—National Fire Academy. The workgroup was comprised of subject matter experts from the emergency response community, rail carriers and the petroleum industry with the 

goal of providing technical information to better respond incidents involving 

crude oil. 

• May 29, 2014—PHMSA convened a Lessons Learned Roundtable Forum where 

public safety and emergency response officials from jurisdictions where a crude 

oil or ethanol rail transportation incident occurred came together to share their 

experiences. 

• May 7, 2014—USDOT issued Emergency Order requiring railroad carriers to inform first responders about crude oil being transported through their towns and 

communities. 

• May 7, 2014—PHMSA and FRA issued a Safety Advisory requesting companies 

to take steps to avoid the use of DOT 111 tank cars when transporting Bakken 

crude oil. 

• March 6, 2014—To provide further clarity for shippers and to prevent attempts 

to circumvent the requirements in the recent Emergency Order concerning the 

safe transport of crude oil by rail, the Department issued an amended version 

that specifies which tests are required, while also prohibiting shippers from 

switching to an alternate classification that involves less stringent packaging. 

• February 25, 2014—USDOT issues Emergency Order requiring shippers to 

properly test and classify the crude oil prior to transportation. 

• February 10, 2014—PHMSA met with emergency response stakeholders and industry groups to discuss training and awareness related to the transport of 

Bakken crude. 

• January 21, 2014—Secretary Foxx issued follow-up letter to Call to Action participants summarizing industry commitments. 

• January 16, 2014—Secretary Foxx met with rail company CEOs and rail and 

energy association leadership as part of the Department’s Call to Action to discuss how to maintain safety record even as domestic crude oil production and 

movement has increased. 

73 

• January 2, 2014—PHMSA issued a safety alert to notify the general public, 

emergency responders, and shippers and carriers that the type of crude oil 

being transported from the Bakken region may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude. 

• November 13, 2013—PHMSA and FRA issued a safety advisory reinforcing the 

importance of proper characterization, classification, and selection of a packing 

group for Class 3 materials. 

Question 4. Can you confirm that any focus on crude oil transportation—as critical 

as it is—will not distract your agencies—especially FRA—from other key safety priorities, like those affecting passenger and commuter rail? 

Answer. The focus on crude oil transportation will not detract from other safety 

priorities, especially those affecting passenger rail. FRA has actually increased overall safety resource levels and dedicated those resources to the safe transport of 

crude oil by rail. We have added new inspector positions focused on all aspects of 

crude oil train movements through the rail network. PHMSA and FRA have also 

collaborated with industry to help ensure railroads and the crude oil industry implement additional safety measures for crude oil transport. FRA has increased the use 

of the Automated Track Inspection Program (ATIP), involving manned equipment, 

to cover higher risk routes such as crude oil routes. In addition to a comprehensive 

review of the Metro-North safety program, FRA is embarking on additional safety 

reviews of other passenger railroads as necessary. We are also encouraged by the 

level of interest expressed by both intercity passenger and commuter railroads in 

implementing risk reduction programs such as Confidential Close Call Reporting 

Systems, which will help ensure continuous safety improvement in an area that is 

already very safe. The Passenger Rail Division has been working with new operators to ensure the safety of new passenger service. Safety is the Department’s highest priority, and we allocate our resources accordingly. 

Question 5. Considering the derailments and fiery explosions we’ve seen arising 

from the transportation of crude by rail in Canada, North Dakota and just recently, 

Virginia, many states and cities have raised concerns about what’s moving on the 

rails through their communities. DOT has also called on the industry to provide 

more data on crude so that DOT can better understand how crude should be handled. Do you have the data you need to make appropriate assessments of the 

amount and volatility of crude being shipped by rail? 

Answer. As part of rulemaking efforts, PHMSA has developed a regulatory impact 

assessment (RIA) that addresses the issue of the bulk transportation of certain 

flammable materials by rail. This RIA has compiled various statistical and economic 

data that stakeholders provided and that PHMSA developed. This data includes, but 

is not limited to, estimates of tank car fleet size, assessments of quantity of materials shipped, and impacts of proposed changes. In addition, based on PHMSA‘s and 

FRA’s testing and sampling efforts, combined with the voluntarily submitted testing 

data by industry, PHMSA better understands the properties of crude oil and has 

used this understanding to help develop a comprehensive rulemaking. Further test 

data will continue to be considered in any regulatory action. PHMSA and FRA are 

confident that the proposal, along with public input, will account for the unique 

characteristics of crude oil and improve safety. We look to public comment on these 

proposals and the data that supported their development. 

However, PHMSA believes additional data from stakeholders would be helpful. 

The NPRM will be accompanied by the publication of the RIA. Both of these documents seek comments from the public on the estimates and assumptions used 

throughout them. Further, with regard to physical testing of crude oil, PHMSA continues to evaluate current test methods and whether alternative methods will provide more meaningful results. As part of this effort, the Agency participates in the 

American Petroleum Institute working group charged with developing industry best 

practices, including those regarding testing and sampling methods for crude oil. 

Question 6. The oil industry has released studies in recent weeks claiming the 

Bakken crude is safe to transport by rail using current technology. Do you agree? 

Answer. While many of the findings of the industry studies are compelling, a 

number of them can only be verified through additional research. For example, do 

current test methods need to be improved or are there new test methods that need 

to be implemented to better characterize crude oil? While PHMSA evaluates these 

findings, the Agency is also actively involved in an American Petroleum Institute 

working group tasked with developing industry best practices, including those regarding testing and sampling methods for crude oil. We also continue to perform 

our own testing on crude oil characteristics in the Bakken and other shale plays. 

PHMSA recognizes that Bakken crude has more light end materials that may 

present increased safety risks, when compared to other types of crude oil; particuVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
74 

larly when considering the quantity in which it is usually shipped. Bakken crude 

is a light crude oil and has more gas content than conventional crude oil. PHMSA’s 

proposed rule, is intended to improve the integrity and safety of not just Bakken 

crude oil, but other flammable materials. PHMSA will seek public comment on all 

aspects of the proposal, to ensure the best available data and information is available in the decision making process. 

PHMSA is confident that its proposal, in coordination with public input, will account for the unique characteristics of crude oil and improve safety, and looks forward to public comment on these proposals and the data that supported their development. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HON. GREGORY D. WINFREE

Question 1. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology 

(OST–R) coordinates DOT’s research and development programs. The Research Office is responsible for integrating research across the transportation agencies and 

modes. And your office has done considerable work evaluating close call systems, 

something that Metro-North has been urged to adopt. What are the benefits of close 

call systems? 

Answer. The Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) has contributed to 

noticeable improvements in five key elements of system-based safety management. 

Those are: risk identification; collaborative problem solving; root cause identification 

and analysis; implementation of corrective actions; and establishing a venue 

through which unsafe and sensitive situations can be openly addressed without fear 

of retribution. 

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has collected close call reports from 

conductors and engineers working for three railroad companies (Union Pacific Railroad Company, Canadian Pacific Railroad (i.e., its railroads that conduct operations 

in the United States), and New Jersey Transit Rail Operations since February 2007. 

So far over 3,500 close call reports have been submitted to BTS. Quantitative analysis of these sites indicated: 

• 90 percent reduction in disciplinary cases; 

• 31 percent reduction in de-certifications per 200,000 worker hours; 

• 41 percent reduction in human factors derailments per 100,000 cars moved 

(reportables and non-reportables); 

• 53 percent reduction in incident cost; and 

• a significant reduction in derailments caused by running through switches, primarily in rail yards. 

Most importantly, program evaluation analyses confirmed that a close call system 

leads to significant improvement in safety awareness, safety culture, and employee 

engagement by providing a safe, non-punitive, confidential, non-confrontational 

model for labor and management to jointly develop and implement safety improvements. 

Question 2. How does your research and statistical tracking inform safety policy 

at DOT? 

Answer. The Department of Transportation (DOT) takes a system-wide, multimodal approach to collecting and analyzing safety data. The Department is working 

to standardize data collection, evaluation and, ultimately, data-driven decisions to 

improve safety. Safety research comprises 42 percent of the Department’s total 

RD&T funding, which is significantly higher than the amount expended on the nexthighest goal (23 percent, Economic Competitiveness). Through this cross-modal approach, safety benefits will be seen across the transportation network. 

The DOT Safety Council, which is chaired by the Deputy Secretary, is comprised 

of the heads of the Departmental operating administrations and senior staff. It provides a forum for serious current and emerging safety issues, both multimodal and 

particular to a single mode, to be brought up, discussed, and then acted upon either 

by the individual operating administrations or by the Safety Council itself. Safety 

Council initiatives include: activity on risk-informed rulemaking, near-miss reporting systems, support to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as it began its 

safety oversight program, and the development of the safety.data.gov web portal. 

• The Safety Council is currently working on risk-informed rulemaking. It has become increasingly difficult to promulgate safety-related regulations based on the 

present requirement of linking them through a benefit-cost analysis to lives alVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
75 

ready lost. The Safety Council is learning from other agencies how they develop 

proactive regulations based on risk information. 

• There is significant interest within the DOT on developing and using near-miss 

precursor data to understand hazards and create remedies before accidents 

occur that cause lives to be lost. The FAA, FRA and Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics have presented to the Safety Council on their systems, and aspects 

are being considered for implementation by other DOT organizations along with 

a possible DOT-wide near miss data collection system. 

• When the MAP–21 surface reauthorization was signed into law, the FTA was 

given safety oversight authority for the first time. As a result, a series of Safety 

Council meetings were held with then-Administrator Peter Rogoff and his senior staff to afford them the opportunity to understand the challenges and best 

practices of safety regulation, including the underpinnings of the safety management systems (SMS) approach. As a result, FTA adopted the SMS approach 

for this new function. 

• The Safety Council was charged by the White House to bring together safety 

data from across the Federal Government for public access and use as part of 

its Open Data initiative. This effort, led by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, has successfully entered over 1,000 safety data sets from ten cabinet agencies and a number of smaller organizations into the portal, with scheduled data 

events occurring several times a year and thousands of downloads of the available data. 

Question 3. How much of your work is dedicated to fatigue risk issues? 

Answer. Operator fatigue and its safety risks and implications was one of the two 

initial projects undertaken by the Safety Council, the other being safety culture, 

which also influences operator fatigue and its mitigation. It is the largest active program for the Safety Council, expending about $450,000 over five years. As a result 

of this focused effort the following six work products, led by five separate operating 

units, have been or will be delivered by October 1, 2014: 

1. A white paper on the current need and state of human fatigue modeling, and 

specifications to meet anticipated new uses. These specifications are intended 

to be used within a contracting vehicle such as a Broad Agency Announcement 

for development of the next generation of these models (FRA led). 

2. Sponsorship of a commercial motor vehicle workshop on obstructive sleep 

apnea and a subsequent report on different, potentially effective ways to communicate with operators and the public about this serious condition (FMCSA/ 

FRA co-led). 

3. Sponsorship of a day-long workshop at the 2012 Transportation Research 

Board annual meeting on strategies for communicating and addressing operator drowsiness. Workshop attendance was at capacity (30 participants), the 

majority of whom were representing private sector and labor organizations, 

within the United States and overseas. A report was generated synopsizing the 

presentations and the ensuing discussions and outcomes (FRA/FMCSA co-led). 

4. A general communications toolkit that can be tailored by the individual modal 

organizations to message the dangers of operator fatigue to different audiences 

(i.e., the operator, the operator’s family, supervisors, executives and the public). 

The communications offices of the different DOT operating administrations 

were engaged to understand needs and general themes that may resonate with 

diverse audiences (FMCSA/OST–R co-led). 

5. A series of specific logic models were developed for several DOT operating administrations (i.e., Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration) and a general model 

was created linking research and development activities on operator fatigue 

with related programs, outcomes and impacts. A gap analysis was then conducted that outlined what additional research was still required based on program needs and their anticipated outcomes (Human Factors Coordinating 

Committee, FRA, OST–R co-led). 

6. Secretary LaHood wanted assurance that when the operating administrations 

entered into Hours of Service rulemaking they were all considering the same 

science and variables, even if ultimately the rules between operating administrations treated them differently (i.e., whether or not napping was allowed). 

This checklist tool allows both the operating administrations and General 

Counsel to consider the same set of science and data when undertaking Hours 

of Service rulemaking (FAA led). 

76 

Question 4. What major safety issues are you seeing in your research that may 

not be at the forefront right now, but will be in the years to come? 

Answer. The Safety Council has identified several emerging safety issues that are 

expected to become increasingly problematic. 

The first is the integration of increasingly sophisticated automation into vehicles, 

both commercial and private. Safety issues include the trust people place in the automation, and ensuing complacency and skill loss; automation failure modes and operator awareness and ability to reengage in the driving task; over-reliance on the 

automation, especially when products are being marketed to those who might not 

otherwise be able to operate the vehicle; and lack of shared fate (i.e., software programmer vs. human pilot). 

The second area is transportation system vulnerability to cyber threats. The Safety Council has identified a number of these threats, including the jamming and 

spoofing of GPS signals, but addressing these threats remains a challenge. 

A third area of increasing concern is related to societal demographics. People are 

working later into life and driving remains the most common form of transportation 

for older adults. Keeping commercial and private vehicles accessible by this population is becoming increasingly possible through automation, but then by default 

over-reliance and the other automation issues described above become even more 

problematic. 

The other end of the age spectrum provides a fourth concern, that young adults 

are increasingly relying on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. 

Ensuring the safety of all transportation users requires thought and actions (i.e., 

messaging, enforcement, new and retrofitted infrastructure that balances the needs 

of all users). 

Another emerging issue is the legalization of marijuana use in some states, and 

how that may ultimately impact transportation safety. In addition, the transportation of oil and gas on the Nation’s roadways, railways and waterways is also considered both a safety and security threat and is being monitored by the Safety 

Council. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO

Question. I am pleased that the updated tank car design rule was finally transmitted to OMB, especially considering the initial petition for this update was submitted to PHMSA in 2011. Does either of you have concerns about moving forward 

with the tank car design rule before you have finished your work determining what, 

if any, unique characteristics Bakken crude has? It seems to me that an important 

first step in determining the adequacy of a tank car design would be to know if 

there are unique characteristics of the substance being put inside the tank car and 

what potential hazards these unique characteristics might pose. 

Answer. No, PHMSA recognizes that Bakken crude has more light end materials 

and presents its own safety risks, when compared to other types of crude oil. 

Bakken crude is a light crude oil and has more gas content than conventional crude 

oil. However, the PHMSA’s proposed rule, including the tank car design, is intended 

to improve the integrity and safety of not just transporting Bakken crude oil, but 

the transportation of other flammable materials with safety risks. Additionally, 

PHMSA’s proposal will seek public comment to ensure the highest level of scrutiny 

before any changes are adopted. 

Further, in developing the proposal, PHMSA used the data collected on crude oil 

characteristics in conjunction with physical testing of tank car integrity and predictive modeling tools to gather data on tank car performance in an accident scenario to develop its proposals. PHMSA is confident that its proposal, in coordination 

with public input, will account for the unique characteristics of crude oil and improve safety and looks forward to public comment on these proposals and the data 

that supported their development. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HON. ANNE S. FERRO

Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Program Questions 

Question 1. It is my understanding that CSA was originally created as a way to 

assist FMCSA and its State partners in targeting limited enforcement resources on 

those motor carriers with the highest safety risk. This is a goal I support. However, 

I now understand the FMCSA is currently working on a way to formally incorporate 

77 

CSA into the system the agency uses to determine driver fitness, even though there 

are many outstanding questions about the reliability of the CSA system for those 

carriers that have little to no data on record. Does this not concern you Administrator Ferro? 

Question 1a. How would the FMCSA account for this in making driver fitness determinations? 

Answer. FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

to adopt a revised methodology for issuance of motor carrier safety fitness determinations (SFD). The Agency is not proposing to make driver fitness determinations 

at this time. 

The proposed motor carrier SFD methodology would determine when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in or affecting interstate 

commerce based on: (1) the carrier’s performance in relation to five of the Agency’s 

Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICS); (2) an investigation; or (3) a combination of on-road safety data and investigation information. The 

intended effect of this action is to reduce crashes caused by CMV drivers and motor 

carriers which result in death, injuries, and property damage, by more effectively 

using FMCSA data and resources to identify unfit motor carriers and removing 

them from the Nation’s roadways. Incorporating on-road safety data into the Agency’s SFD methodology has been an open recommendation from NTSB for several 

years. 

FMCSA is developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on SFD to address the availability and sufficiency of performance data in assessing a safety rating. The FMCSA has been clear that using on-road safety performance information 

to determine safety fitness is a separate and distinct process from SMS which is 

only used for prioritizing motor carriers for intervention. A relative threshold such 

as that used in SMS has never been presented as an option for this process. When 

the SFD NPRM is released and public comments are received, the Agency will carefully evaluate the input from all interested parties. 

Question 2. Data accuracy is one of the reoccurring concerns often raised with 

CSA. Part of this data is submitted by the carriers themselves, so called census 

data. In an attempt to increase the frequency and accuracy of carrier-generated 

data, it is my understanding that FMCSA announced last fall that it would begin 

deactivating USDOT numbers for carriers that have failed to submit the required 

census data. According to that announcement, deactivations were supposed to begin 

in March for any carrier that had failed to update its census data by January 2014. 

Have these deactivations occurred? 

Question 2a. If so, how many carriers have been deactivated? 

Question 2b. Is there a process for them to easily be reactivated? 

Answer. In March 2014, following outreach to carriers and public notice of its intent to do so, FMCSA started deactivating the USDOT numbers of carriers that 

failed to complete their biennial update by their designated month and year. As of 

May 2014, FMCSA deactivated over 56,000 USDOT numbers. Carriers that have 

their USDOT numbers deactivated for failing to complete the biennial update can 

go online to the FMCSA website and update their information. Unless the carrier’s 

registration has been suspended or revoked for another reason, once the online update is completed, the USDOT number is immediately reactivated. 

Question 3. I understand that the FMCSA includes a disclaimer with the SMS 

[Safety Management System] scores, indicating that they should not be used to 

draw safety conclusions and, instead, a carrier’s official safety rating should be used. 

It is well known though that they are being used that way; in fact, SMS scores are 

even included on the FMCSA’s own mobile phone application, SaferBus, designed 

to provide safety information and help consumers select a bus company. Again, 

given the limits on the data and the fact that 72 percent of carriers are without 

any SMS scores, are you not concerned about the impact it is having on otherwise 

safe carriers’ businesses? 

Question 3a. What is the FMCSA doing to address these concerns? 

Question 3b. Do you believe this data and related programs should be promoted 

publicly when there are such limits on its usefulness for a large number of carriers? 

Answer. FMCSA regulates a diverse industry consisting of more than 525,000 active interstate truck and bus companies, with fewer than 800 field operations personnel. To ensure that the Agency allocates its resources as effectively as possible, 

the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) 

uses motor carrier data from roadside inspections, reportable crashes, and investigations, to prioritize motor carriers for safety interventions and identify the highest 

risk carriers before crashes occur. 

78 

SMS is designed to identify patterns of non-compliance and, therefore, applies 

data sufficiency standards (i.e., minimum number of inspections). For example, in 

the driver-related BASICs, SMS requires three or more driver inspections. 

Currently, FMCSA has enough data to assess approximately 38 percent of the 

525,000 active companies. These companies are involved in over 91 percent of crashes. Therefore, while the Agency continues to focus efforts on improving data collection for all carriers, SMS has sufficient data to assess companies that are involved 

in the majority of crashes. Other methods FMCSA uses to increase data collection 

include: (1) New Entrant Safety Audits, many of which have limited roadside inspection data, and (2) Inspection Selection System (ISS), which prioritizes and generates inspection recommendations to roadside officers for entities with limited data. 

The Agency is committed to providing a current, informed, and comprehensive picture of a motor carrier’s safety and compliance posture and seeks to ensure understanding among stakeholders as to what SMS is, and what it is not. In addition, 

in November 2013, the Agency proposed several new SMS website display changes, 

with the following objectives: (1) provide easier, more intuitive navigation, and userfriendly features to clarify SMS’s role as FMCSA’s prioritization tool for CSA interventions; (2) provide a ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ for FMCSA safety information; and (3) retain 

and provide easy access to detailed information and new performance monitoring 

tools. 

FMCSA will continue to evaluate stakeholder input. The Agency has been engaged in and remains committed to a collaborative, transparent, data-driven, and 

research-based process for changes to SMS. 

Question 4. The GAO issued a Report to Congressional Committees regarding 

modifications to the CSA program. It is my understanding that the FMCSA has 

written a letter in response. Would you provide me with that response letter? 

Answer. The Departmental letter is attached. 

Hours of Service Question 

Question 5. At the hearing you mentioned that you are in the process of collecting 

data on the new hours of service rules that went into effect last July. Can you 

please provide me with more details of that data collection including the information 

on what you are collecting, what you hope to show by this data, and when you expect to have enough data to draw conclusions? I am particularly interested in how 

this data collection relates to reductions in crashes since the rule was put into effect. 

Answer. The Agency has collected and analyzed data on violations of the 2013 

HOS rules, which showed that a significant percentage of violations cited during the 

first 1 to 2 months after the rule took effect were for violation of the new 30-minute 

break requirement. As drivers became more familiar with that requirement we have 

seen those violations taper off. Regarding the effect of the new rules on crashes, as 

the new hours of service rules have only been in effect for one year, FMCSA will 

be looking closely at any change in the number of crashes involving commercial 

motor vehicles, the time of day those crashes occurred, and any other circumstances 

surrounding the crash that may help us understand the impact of the new rule. Sufficient State-reported crash data for these analyses should be available to FMCSA 

in early 2015. FMCSA is also looking into ways to measure the impact the new rule 

may have on the volume of commercial motor vehicle traffic during daytime congestion hours. 

Speed Limiter Question 

Question 6. It is my understanding that the FMCSA is working on a new rule requiring the use of speed limiters. Can you provide an update on where you are in 

the process? 

Answer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and 

FMCSA are jointly preparing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in response 

to petitions from the American Trucking Associations and Roadsafe America that 

would require: (1) heavy vehicles to be equipped with a speed limiting system, and 

(2) motor carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce to maintain functional speed limiting systems for the service life of the vehicle. This rule would decrease the estimated 1,115 fatal crashes annually involving vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 lbs) on roads with posted speed limits 

of 55 mph or above. The current rulemaking schedule posted at http://www.dot 

.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings indicates an estimated publication date of October 23, 2014. 

Question 6a. It is my understanding that Ohio and Illinois each standardized 

their speed limits last year, to allow trucks and other motor vehicles to travel at 

the same maximum speed. Before this change, trucks had lower maximum speeds 

79 

than other motor vehicles. It would seem to me that some of the same challenges 

faced by these states—and that motivated them to change their laws—would apply 

if speed limiters were put in place nationwide. Has the FMCSA looked into the reasons for these changes? 

Answer. The NHTSA and FMCSA did not examine the bases for recent speed 

limit changes in Ohio and Illinois. However, the Agencies did consider the potential 

impact of speed differentials between light vehicles and heavy vehicles prior to 

NHTSA granting the petitions for rulemaking in 2011 (76 FR 78, January 3, 2011). 

On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and FMCSA jointly published a notice requesting 

public comment on the petitions. The Agencies received more than 3,800 comments 

in response to the notice. 

Question 6b. One concern truckers in my home state have about a speed limiter 

rule actually dovetails with a concern they have about CSA. As you know, all crashes, no matter who is at fault, are reported to CSA. The truckers I have spoken with 

are afraid that having trucks and cars going at different speeds might increase the 

number of rear end collisions they are in, and thus might negatively impact their 

CSA scores. How would you respond to these concerns? 

Answer. The FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of motor carriers about the impact that crashes would have on their SMS scores. First, the Agency believes the 

speed differentials between commercial vehicles traveling up to 68 miles per hour 

(the speed limit suggested in the petitioners) and other highway traffic approaching 

from the rear of the commercial vehicles is unlikely to increase the risk of a crash 

beyond what motor carriers experience today with the voluntary use of speed limiters to improve fuel efficiency. As argued by the American Trucking Associations 

(ATA), many of the Nation’s largest truck fleets currently limit their speeds to save 

fuel, and thereby reduce operating expenses. The ATA did not indicate that any of 

these fleets experienced increased numbers of motorists striking the rear of the 

truck. 

Second, the crash score from the BASICs (Behavioral Analysis Safety Improvement Categories) is not displayed to the public. This means that the public would 

be aware of the number of crashes a motor carrier has experienced but there would 

be no information indicating how many, if any, of the crashes were preventable. The 

Agency would address preventability during any investigation or interventions rather than make assumptions about these matters. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. ROY BLUNT TO

HON. ANNE S. FERRO

Question. FMCSA has been successfully sued at least 5 times in the past few 

years where the agency has not fully complied with law, has not adequately considered data, and has not fully justified the cost of regulatory decisions. The best example is the case of the three lawsuits regarding the hours of service rules. Also a recent GAO report found that fewer than 15 of more than 750 individual violations 

at the carrier level had a reliable statistical relationship with crash risk. Many 

FMCSA regulatory requirements are outdated or seem to not lend to safety. Does 

FMCSA recognize some of these shortcomings, and do you have plans going forward 

to address them? 

Answer. The Agency acknowledges that some legal challenges to its rulemakings 

have been successful. It should be kept in mind, however, that many FMCSA initiatives—especially those involving hours of service—trigger intense disputes among 

interested parties. Publishing a proposed rule for notice and comment is often an 

occasion for groups to put on the record their non-negotiable and mutually incompatible positions, which is rarely helpful to FMCSA in crafting a final rule. And if 

that final rule does not satisfy their demands, these parties immediately seek legal 

review. While it is true that the courts identified certain procedural errors in earlier 

HOS rulemakings—which FMCSA has corrected—the D.C. Circuit concluded in 

2013 that the Agency’s 2011 final rule was well supported and well-reasoned, and 

it rejected the frontal attacks leveled by several groups. 

With regard to the issue of the GAO report on individual violations, when 

prioritizing a company using the SMS, the Agency does not focus on a single violation, instead uses a robust data set of roadside inspections, reportable crashes, and 

investigations to prioritize the highest risk carriers before crashes occur, including 

carriers whose patterns of non-compliance are a flag for high-risk behavior. The 

Agency is continually working to improve its process through on-line comment tools, 

Federal Register notices, listening sessions, and the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory 

Committee, seeking and utilizing public comment to continuously improve the effectiveness of its process and system for identifying high risk carriers. 

80 

FMCSA spends a great deal of time and effort, not only to research and write effective and cost effective safety regulations, but also preemptively to address arguments likely to be raised by potential litigants. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN

Question. I am pleased that the updated tank car design rule was finally transmitted to OMB, especially considering the initial petition for this update was submitted to PHMSA in 2011. Does either of you have concerns about moving forward 

with the tank car design rule before you have finished your work determining what, 

if any, unique characteristics Bakken crude has? It seems to me that an important 

first step in determining the adequacy of a tank car design would be to know if 

there are unique characteristics of the substance being put inside the tank car and 

what potential hazards these unique characteristics might pose. 

Answer. No, PHMSA recognizes that Bakken crude has more light end materials 

and presents its own safety risks, when compared to other types of crude oil. 

Bakken crude is a light crude oil and has more gas content than conventional crude 

oil. However, the PHMSA’s proposed rule, including the tank car design, is intended 

to improve the integrity and safety of not just transporting Bakken crude oil, but 

the transportation of other flammable materials with safety risks. Additionally, 

PHMSA’s proposal will seek public comment to ensure the highest level of scrutiny 

before any changes are adopted. 

Further, in developing the proposal, PHMSA used the data collected on crude oil 

characteristics in conjunction with physical testing of tank car integrity and predictive modeling tools to gather data on tank car performance in an accident scenario to develop its proposals. PHMSA is confident that its proposal, in coordination 

with public input, will account for the unique characteristics of crude oil and improve safety and looks forward to public comment on these proposals and the data 

that supported their development. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROY BLUNT TO

HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN

Question 1. There are considerable Bakken crude testing and survey efforts under 

way by oil producers and shippers. The American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers recently completed a study based on 1,400 crude samples that found Bakken 

was no more volatile than traditional crude or other hazardous liquids transported 

by rail. A North Dakota Petroleum Council also study confirmed this. How will this 

data be utilized by PHMSA, and do you expect it to settle questions surrounding 

Bakken crude and how it compares to other crude types? 

Answer. The Department is a data driven organization, and all data—to the 

greatest extent possible—is incorporated into all of the Department’s regulatory activities. The data submitted to date and any submitted in the future will be analyzed and compared to PHMSA’s sampling and testing results. Based on the shale 

oil boom producing Bakken and other crude oils, the large volumes and quantities 

of these materials being transported by rail in unit trains over long distances is unprecedented. Our focus has been to ensure this method of transportation is safe. 

While many of the findings of the American Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers’ 

study are compelling, a number of its findings can only be verified through additional research. For example, do current test methods need to be improved or are 

there new test methods that need to be implemented to better characterize crude 

oil? While PHMSA will actively evaluate these findings, the Agency is also actively 

involved in an American Petroleum Institute working group tasked with developing 

industry best practices, including those regarding testing and sampling methods for 

crude oil. 

Finally, PHMSA uses the data collected on crude oil characteristics in conjunction 

with physical testing of tank car integrity and predictive modeling tools to gather 

data on tank car performance in accident scenarios to develop its proposals. 

Question 2. Will you be requesting more data or do you believe this is sufficient? 

Answer. PHMSA always welcomes new information to better inform decisions and 

potential actions. 

Question 3. Will it inform the rulemaking process your department already has 

underway? 

Answer. Yes. PHMSA has used the data collected on crude oil characteristics in 

conjunction with physical testing of tank car integrity and predictive modeling tools 

81 

to gather data on tank car performance in accident scenarios to develop its proposals. The proposals in our rulemaking will account for the unique characteristics 

of crude oil. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HON. GREGORY D. WINFREE

Question 1. The Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works passed the 

MAP–21 Reauthorization Act last month, which shifted administration over much 

of OST–R’s work, including Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), to the Federal Highway Administration. Are 

you supportive of this proposal since it appears to conflict with other changes that 

have been made at OST–R that have elevated certain responsibilities? 

Answer. The Environment and Public Works Committee’s reauthorization proposal, S. 2322, would transfer administration for the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO), the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), 

and the University Transportation Centers (UTC) programs from the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST–R) to the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA). These three programs are funded through the Highway 

Trust Fund and cumulatively represent $198.5 million in annual authorized funding, over 90 percent of the funding OST–R receives from Congress. 

In 2004, these three programs were incorporated into the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) via the Norman Y. Mineta Research and 

Special Programs Improvement Act (P.L. 108–426). Just as RITA was intended to 

be a cross-modal enterprise, each of these three programs is inherently multi-modal 

and was intentionally placed within the newly-created RITA: 

• the ITS research program is a multi-modal hub of research activity and has applications across the surface and maritime operating administrations within the 

Department; 

• the UTC program supports cross-cutting research and workforce development 

across the transportation enterprise; and 

• BTS provides trusted data and statistics on a multi-modal range from ferries 

to freight to airlines. 

In January, via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113–76; at Division L, Title I), RITA was elevated into the Office of the Secretary as the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. Importantly, the Act made no 

change in mission or programmatic structure. This elevation began as a request in 

the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request and repeated again in the Fiscal 

Year 2014 proposal. Both budget requests included these three programs within 

OST–R. 

In the first surface transportation legislation enacted since the creation of RITA, 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21, P.L. 112–141), 

Congress recognized the importance of these multi-modal programs by keeping them 

in OST–R (then RITA). Keeping the programs housed in RITA was consistent with 

the technical assistance offered by the Administration at the time. Furthermore, the 

Administration’s current reauthorization proposal, the GROW AMERICA Act, recognizes the inherent multi-modality of the ITS JPO, BTS, and the UTC program and 

seeks to keep them within OST–R, as opposed to being confined to a single modal 

‘‘silo.’’ The Highway Trust Fund research and statistical programs of the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary will continue their existing missions and remain key components of the newly-elevated office. Additionally, the GROW AMERICA Act includes 

authorizing language to cement OST–R within the Office of the Secretary. 

RITA’s transition into the Secretary’s Office is well underway—the ITS JPO, BTS, 

and UTC programs included. Indeed, the Department has ‘‘hit the ground running’’ 

in adopting the changes enacted into law, is transitioning to ensure this new office 

is the focal point for research across DOT, and is looking across the research investments made in all of the modes to improve the delivery of transportation research 

and technology programs, and of national statistical programs. Organizational 

change does not happen overnight but, already, what we do is being drawn into 

leadership discussions as part of the Office of the Secretary, in a way that it was 

not when RITA was an Operating Administration. 

Question 1a. What consequences would this shift have on OST–R? 

Answer. The ITS JPO, BTS, and UTC programs have a combined authorization 

of $198.5 million in annual funding, via the Highway Trust Fund. If these programs 

were shifted to FHWA for administration, OST–R would continue to manage the DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:49 Dec 09, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\91647.TXT JACKIE
82 

partment’s research coordination efforts and the Office of Positioning, Navigation 

and Timing & Spectrum Management. These programs are funded via the General 

Fund; the budget request for Fiscal Year 2015 is $14.625 million. OST–R would continue to oversee the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, 

MA, and the Transportation Safety Institute in Oklahoma City, OK, both of which 

are fee-for-service organizations. 

Question 1b. How would this impact the work done on ITS and at BTS? 

Answer. As its name implies, the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) is shared with FHWA. Specifics of the sharing agreement between the two organizations are detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) formalized in 2006. In short, OST–R provides strategic management for the 

ITS JPO, and program staff are accountable to the Assistant Secretary. FHWA provides administrative, finance and procurement support. In practical terms, a shift 

to FHWA would shift the programmatic reporting chain for the ITS JPO. 

Authorizing language for BTS in MAP–21 (sec. 52011; 49 USC sections 6301– 

6313) makes clear that BTS is intended to be a fully multi-modal and comprehensive source of statistics on the performance and impacts of the national transportation system, a scope that aligned with RITA’s mission and continues to align with 

OST–R’s mission. As an OMB-designated Federal Statistical Agency, the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) is required to ensure the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes, and of the analyses and reports which BTS prepares for policy uses and for 

public release. Past discussions of ‘‘assigning’’ the Bureau to any one modal administration have been met with concerns from the stakeholder community about ‘‘loss 

of independence’’ or ‘‘loss of objectivity.’’ A BTS shift would impact FHWA in that 

the accountability for statistical products would now flow through FHWA, and 

FHWA would need to begin to provide administrative, finance and procurement support to BTS, currently provided through OST–R. 

Both the ITS JPO and BTS are inherently multi-modal and provide research applications and statistical support across the transportation enterprise generally, and 

the USDOT specifically. Being housed in OST–R structurally will continue a crossmodal focus through which they can achieve their missions, delivering multi-modal 

solutions. 

Question 2. GPS has been identified as a critical component of your office’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). What research is being carried out by your office on the further use and integration of GPS into surface transportation safety and 

efficiency? What role does precision location play in the future of transportation? 

Answer. The availability and accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS) offers increased efficiencies and safety for all modes of surface transportation. Many 

of the challenges associated with the routing and dispatch of commercial vehicles 

are significantly reduced or eliminated with the use of GPS. Implementation of GPS 

technology to track and forecast the movement of freight has created a logistical revolution, including an application known as time-definite delivery. GPS-based applications have also transformed the management of mass transit systems, road maintenance crews, and emergency vehicles. 

GPS is an essential element of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Connected Vehicle program designed to increase situational awareness and reduce or 

eliminate crashes through vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure 

(V2I) data transmission. Research is being conducted in the area of advanced driver 

assistance systems, which include road departure and lane change collision avoidance systems, among other safety-critical applications. 

Railways are installing Positive Train Control (PTC) systems, many of which are 

GPS-enabled, to prevent collisions, derailments, work zone incursions, and passage 

through switches in the wrong position. A PTC system can automatically vary train 

speeds, and provide real-time information to re-route traffic, and safely direct maintenance crews onto and off tracks. 

GPS also provides rail dispatchers and passengers more accurate information on 

train arrivals. It enables the automation of track surveying and mapping operations. 

GPS also allows the automation of track inspection systems that work much faster 

and detect more defects than human crews, saving time and money while improving 

safety. 

Per U.S. National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Policy, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation has the lead responsibility in representing 

civil Departments and Agencies in the development, acquisition, management, and 

operations of GPS and for the development of requirements for civil applications. 

Within DOT, this responsibility resides within the Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Research and Technology (OST–R). 

83 

OST–R works with all of the DOT modal administrations in defining their requirements for positioning, navigation, and timing. These PNT requirements are 

captured in the Federal Radionavigation Plan which is developed biennially. OST– 

R also chairs the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC) which is the recognized worldwide forum for effective interaction between all civil GPS users and 

the U.S. GPS authorities, as well as the DOT Pos/Nav Working Group to share GPS 

implementation strategies and lessons learned across the modes. 

Looking to the future, sub-meter location accuracies have been identified as needed to assist in improving safety and efficiency, including 10 cm horizontal accuracy 

(95 percent integrity) for vehicle collision avoidance. Also, there will be an increased 

focus on the integrity of the navigation solution which is the measure of the trust 

that can be placed in the correctness of information supplied by a navigation system 

solution and the ability of the system to provide a timely warning to users when 

the system should not be used for navigation. 

GPS alone cannot always meet PNT requirements and, given increased awareness 

of the vulnerability of GPS to interference and spoofing, GPS most likely will not 

be the sole source of positioning for safety critical systems in the future. GPS in 

conjunction with map matching, inertial navigation systems (INS), accelerometers, 

Light Detection and Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), and other devices and 

techniques will be used to form an integrated approach, ensuring sufficient accuracy, availability, and integrity of the navigation and position solution to meet user 

needs. 

Æ