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

53–678 PDF 2009

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

SAFETY PROGRAM 

(111–76) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

November 16, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Andenmatten, Mr. Ron, Owner, Cargo Tank Concepts, Ltd ................................ 28 

Byrd, Lamont, Director of Safety and Health Department, International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters ................................................................................... 28 

Cannon, John F., Vice President - Sales & Marketing, Walker Group Holdings ........................................................................................................................ 28

Casey, Jim, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Air Transport Association of America ................................................................................................ 28 

Chipkevich, Bob, Director, Office of Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigations, National Transportation Safety Board ............................ 9 

Porcari, Honorable John, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 9 

Rogers, Mark, Director, Dangerous Goods Program, Air Line Pilots Association, International ................................................................................................ 28 

Windsor, Barbara, Hahn Transportation, New Market, Maryland, on Behalf 

of the American Trucking Association ............................................................... 28 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida ............................................................................. 55 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Andenmatten, Mr. Ron ............................................................................................ 59 

Byrd, Lamont ........................................................................................................... 68 

Cannon, John F. ....................................................................................................... 80 

Casey, Jim ................................................................................................................ 88 

Chipkevich, Bob ....................................................................................................... 90 

Porcari, Honorable John ......................................................................................... 105 

Rogers, Mark ............................................................................................................ 115 

Windsor, Barbara ..................................................................................................... 120 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Porcari, Honorable John, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ..................................... 111 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 53678.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 53678.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 53678.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 53678.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 53678.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 53678.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 53678.007
(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION’S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY PROGRAM 

Monday, November 16, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., at the William Donald Schaefer Tower, 6 St. Paul Street, 16th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland, Hon. Corrine Brown [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on 

Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the reauthorization of the Department of Transportation’s hazardous materials safety program. 

Earlier today, we had an opportunity to visit a cargo sustaining 

repair station and see a trailer with plunging equipment; and I 

think it helped us understand what is involved with retrofitting 

these vehicles and what safety advantages it provides. I don’t believe anyone on our Committee wants to compromise the safety of 

the traveling public or American workers, but we need to implement this legislation in a common sense manner that doesn’t harm 

the same businesses that we relied on to improve the current economic climate. 

H.R. 4016, the Hazardous Materials Safety Act of 2009, included 

important safety provisions that enhanced training for emergency 

responders and hazardous material inspectors, stressed enforcement of hazardous materials regulations, and improved the performance of the Pipeline and the Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 

However, I feel we need an additional look at issues in H.R. 4016 

going into next week’s mark-up, so I decided to hold this field hearing to enable Members of Congress to hear from all sides of the 

issues, including wetlines and lithium battery safety. 

Like many Members I spoke to, I do have some concerns with the 

changes affecting wetlines and impact on the trucking industry. 

Currently, there is only one manufacturer in the United States 

that has a system to make cargo trucks—tanker trucks comply 

with the new law we are creating. 

2 

I know that there are patents pending on similar technology, but 

I believe we need to ensure that the equipment is available and 

that there is a robust industry that will spur innovation and competition. Manufacturers and repair shops must be given time to 

perfect their product and procedures which, in turn, will bring 

down the cost during these tough economic times. 

Similarly, as more and more lithium batteries are transported in 

the United States, we must ensure that there are adequate protections in place to ensure safety. But some have raised concerns 

about provisions in the bill related to lithium batteries, and I am 

sure today’s witnesses will be able to answer any questions that we 

may have. 

With that, I want to welcome today’s panelists and thank them 

for joining us. I am looking forward to their testimony. 

Before I yield to Mr. Shuster, I ask unanimous consent that 

Members be given 14 days to revise and extend their remarks and 

to permit the submission of additional statements and material by 

Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

I ask unanimous consent for other Members who are not on the 

Subcommittee to participate in today’s hearing and ask questions 

of the witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

I yield to Mr. Shuster for an opening statement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the chairwoman and thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

As you mentioned, we have already visited a facility today that 

I think gave us a lot of good information on at least the wetlines 

issue that we are facing. So I appreciate you holding the hearing. 

I have several serious concerns about the HAZMAT bill that we 

plan to mark up this Thursday; and I have said before we need to 

strike a balance in HAZMAT transportation, making sure that the 

appropriate safeguards are in place while at the same time careful 

not to unnecessarily burden the workhorse industries of our economy with restrictions and red tape. In certain areas, I am afraid 

this bill does not do a good job in striking that balance. 

It is absolutely essential to our way of life that we are able to 

safely and quickly deliver a wide range of potentially dangerous 

material without unnecessary bureaucratic interference. Hazardous 

materials include everyday consumer items we rely on, heating oil, 

as well as items that are critical to our health such as medical devices and the chemicals that make our drinking water safe. 

HAZMAT carriers have a remarkably safe record. The percentage 

of hazardous good movements resulting in an injury or fatality is 

an astonishing endorsement of the safety of that industry. 

Only.00002 percent of movement results in an injury and 

about.000014 percent—I don’t even know what that number is, actually—of movements result in a fatality, unbelievably low percentages. 

Of course, anytime there is a loss of life we need to be concerned 

about that and try to find ways to stop it. But it is very, very difficult to get zero percentage when you are moving items around the 

country. It is very difficult. In fact, when you want to compare it 

to something, there are four times as many deaths caused by lightning strikes annually than hazardous materials transportation acVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:10 May 17, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53678 JASON
3 

cidents. So this is a remarkably safe industry, considering the huge 

volume of goods that flow through the system. 

We need to make careful choices about where we can best use 

our resources to minimize these small risks while maintaining an 

effectively functioning system. If we regulate too much, we risk 

knotting the system in so much red tape it will cease to be effective 

for its users and could damage the economy. 

I have grave concerns that we are doing exactly that in this bill. 

Creating new regulations could have serious and sometimes unintended consequences on the movement of goods and commerce as 

well as on safety. 

This bill requires the rule making regulating shipments of lithium batteries and air cargo, despite the fact that PHMSA is about 

to issue a new rule on this very issue in the next few weeks. Lithium batteries are everywhere in our society—cell phones, BlackBerries, watches, medical devices, laptops, to name a few. 

One of the problems with this section is that we mandate the 

shipments of these batteries be placed in crew-accessible locations 

or in fire-resistant containers if there are no fire-suppressing equipment systems on the plane. The problem is that on many flights 

it would be impossible to place all the batteries in a crew-accessible 

location, and fire-resistant containers have not been developed. 

This means that air cargo and airlines would have to invest an unknown amount in fire-suppression systems that would not necessarily work to extinguish all lithium battery fires. If the airlines 

choose not to purchase these systems, it seems likely that many 

lithium battery shipments will be forced on to other modes, which 

would have untold consequences on our commerce and our economy. As much as I like the railroads, in many cases air cargo is 

the most efficient method to move these high-value goods. 

There are other issues and concerns throughout the directed rule 

making on lithium batteries. Passenger airlines are worried about 

how the section will affect the ability of shipments of lithium batteries that are currently allowed. Several parties have also raised 

concerns about how the section will comport with international 

standards and how the new prescriptive regulations could impact 

the United States’ ability to compete in international markets. 

So I support removing this section from the bill in its entirety, 

letting PHMSA proceed with their the rule making and allowing 

the normal course of notice and comment without this inflexible 

congressional mandate. 

Another issue that concerns me is the ban on carrying flammable 

liquids and wetlines in cargo tank trucks. A ban will force many 

tank car operators to install equipment to purge products from the 

wetlines. The problem with this provision is that purging equipment must be installed by welding to the cargo tank. I am told that 

three times as many shop workers have been killed in cargo tank 

welding accidents in the last 10 years than have been killed in accidents caused by flammable materials in the wetlines. 

Additionally, this legislation does not allow for manufacturers to 

develop innovative solutions creating equivalent levels of safety for 

new manufactured trucks. 

Finally, I would like to address the new section on special permits and approvals. This section was not included in the original 

4 

highway authorization bill that was marked up in the Highway 

and Transit Subcommittee in June, and we had a hearing on this 

subject in September. 

Special permits and approvals are routinely issued when the 

HAZMAT carrier is performing a function that falls outside the 

normal HAZMAT regulation. Based on what I heard at that hearing in September, PHMSA had issues administering this program, 

but I am concerned that the legislation goes beyond just addressing 

the issues of PHMSA. We are creating a new fee system that will 

impose undue costs on industry for processing applications and ensuring compliance with the terms of special permits. Furthermore, 

the section requires a new fitness determination without giving industry a chance to comment on the rule making. 

So, again, I support making reforms at PHMSA to make sure the 

program is being properly administered, but I think we are going 

too far with this costly and prescriptive regulation that will have 

unknown negative consequences on the important industry. 

And, with that, I yield back. I want to also welcome our witnesses, and I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with the 

comments and associate myself with the comments by our Ranking 

Member. 

I think our first responsibility is for providing for the safety of 

our communities. I come from Los Angeles where we are just 

packed, and any accident is not a situation that we look forward 

to. 

The focus of this, of course, is the two important safety issues 

that are to be addressed, the safety of the trucks and the air transportation safety, both. I have at least 60,000 trucks traveling 

through my district daily, so I have a lot of interest in how it is 

carried and how safe it is. The wetlines have caused serious accidents in California that we know of. I believe if we have the technology we should be looking at how that can be implemented without heavier costs on the trucking industry and the ability for it to 

be implemented. 

The lithium batteries are extremely flammable; and since we 

travel on the airplanes twice a week, I certainly want to ensure 

that we, the passengers, especially the ones I am on, are safe. If 

we have the resources to properly package them and stow them on 

the aircraft, then so be it, but let’s find out how we can get this 

done. We must require battery companies and airline companies to 

use as many of these resources as possible to protect both the airplane and its cargo of people and its regular cargo. 

I do look forward to the testimony, Madame Chair. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Petri, when you make your opening statement, can you introduce your person from your district? Because I understand you are 

going to have to leave at some point. 

Mr. PETRI. First, I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for 

holding this important hearing. 

5 

I realize that this issue has been before the Congress for some 

considerable time, but there have been difficulties in getting proper 

input. And I really do think it is important to try to follow the regular order and to have an opportunity to hear from experts in the 

industry. 

Because you get into these specialized areas, and people ask me 

what it is like to be a Member of Congress. And I say, I didn’t 

know any more the day after I was elected than I knew the day 

before I was elected. Suddenly, I was elected. Suddenly to have to 

vote on all kinds of issues that I was not an expert on. 

And the purpose of having hearings and this sort of input I think 

is very important because it gives different elements that are concerned about an issue an opportunity to go on the public record and 

to hear each other’s views; and we, in effect, get to sit a little bit 

like a jury and try to sort out how things fit together. And often 

in that process the groups will come to an informed compromise 

that serves the public interest on their own. 

So I commend you for having this hearing; and I especially am 

glad that you are willing to include a neighbor of mine from Fond 

du Lac, Wisconsin, John Cannon, who flew out I guess yesterday 

from the not-yet snows but frost of Wisconsin to be here. He has 

had over 20 years of experience in the tank industry. He has been 

an engineer. He has served in leadership positions on a number of 

trade associations related to the industry. He has written many, 

many papers and served on many industry study groups and I 

think will be a real addition to the hearing when you get to the 

second panel. 

So thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Shuster. Thank you to the citizens of Maryland for hosting us 

today. It is a great opportunity to be here and watch democracy in 

action. 

To all of our witnesses, I truly appreciate it. For our two witnesses from DOT and NTSB, thank you for your service to this 

country. We truly appreciate it. 

We have got advocates here from industry groups that create 

jobs and make this country grow. We have got safety advocates. 

And, like most of us out here, we may be parents; and, like Mrs. 

Napolitano said, safety is a big concern when I strap my 3-yearold into the car and into the plane. And we also know that there 

has to be that fine line, that sweet spot between ensuring safety 

and commerce and business to be able to continue. So I want to 

thank the chairwoman and the Ranking Memberfor taking the 

time to allow us to be educated. 

Mr. Petri is exactly right. Listening to the experts and getting 

the feedback and going out to cargo tank services this morning and 

crawling underneath there and looking at wetlines and listening to 

experts telling us what we were seeing and what happens, that is 

critically important in rule making and legislating. 

I, too, have seen some of the concerns. My constituents from out 

in southern Minnesota have been absolutely concerned. And there 

is no false sides of this. Everyone is concerned about safety, and 

6 

everyone is concerned that we get this right. The question is, how 

do we best do that? How do we make sure that the safety and the 

cost-benefit analysis are coming in and how do we allow the rule 

making of the experts to play a role in this? 

So thank you for this opportunity. I am looking forward to hearing from our experts today to help us make some decisions as we 

move closer to getting this bill forward. 

With, that I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shuster. 

Thank you very much for holding this hearing today. 

I, too, as Mr. Shuster, have several concerns with regard to section 201 of H.R. 4016, the Hazardous Material and Transportation 

Act, which I raised during hearing on the highway bill back in 

June. The specific section adds a new requirement for the transportation of lithium cells and batteries. As I noted at that time, I requested input from all stakeholders for this mater in the legislation. H.R. 4016 was not released until a little time afterwards. 

As I understand it, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, that is, PHMSA, and the FAA are already working 

on rule making regarding lithium battery transportation regulation. Furthermore, that rulemaking will address concerns the Highway Subcommittee has raised in addition to allowing for public 

input into this matter. It is my understanding that OMB currently 

has a rule and will be announced in the next several weeks to 

begin the rule making process. 

We are all concerned about the safety issues surrounding this 

matter. However, I believe that the additional regulations can be 

accomplished through the appropriate rule making without necessary legislation. This process will allow the public to comment on 

the matter as well as the PHMSA and FAA to offer their expertise 

that they have in the area of transporting lithium batteries. 

At this time, I am unclear that the benefits of including a provision like section 201 in the legislation, especially when the requirements are going to be another thing that is going to be detrimented 

in manufacturing. Imposing these requirements could have enormous consequences both for both consumers and for American companies. This language contains very restrictive requirements that 

will lead to unnecessary loss of business or revenue. 

In my district, there is a lead battery facility that will be negatively impacted by this language. At a time when our unemployment in parts of my district hovers around 15 percent, we cannot 

pass yet another change that will negatively impact business. 

The specific language of the bill restricts placement of batteries 

in aircraft to crew-accessible locations unless the battery is in a 

fire-resistant container or the aircraft has a fire-suppression system in place. I believe this is a major problem and fear that the 

practical impact of this language will be to ban lithium batteries 

and devices that use lithium batteries, i.e., computers and cell 

phones, from aviation. Currently, there are no fire-resistant containers in existence; and it is not possible to place all batteries in 

crew-accessible locations on these planes. 

7 

Finally, the legislation does not allow for the harmonization with 

the International Civil Aviation Organization standards, the ICAO. 

In short, it is very important that cargo regulations and requirements be harmonized internationally. Harmonization best guarantees safety in the provision of commerce, especially in aviation. The 

ICAO has spent extensive time and energy creating agreed-to international standards that have been adopted. 

In summary, I believe this language will be extremely disruptive 

to the battery manufacturers and could have a very negative impact on battery production. And, with that, I thank the chairwoman; and I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair; and let me 

welcome my colleagues not only to my hometown but to my district. 

Madam Chair, this is an outstanding facility in which we hold 

this hearing today. The Maryland Public Service Commission has 

shown an exceptional hospitality; and I want to thank the Commission, including Chairman Nazarian and all of the other Commissioners. And we want to especially thank Ms. Cassandra Boykin 

with the PSC who did just an outstanding job in helping us to arrange this hearing. 

I also thank you, Madam Chair, for convening today’s hearing on 

the reauthorization of the Department of Transportation’s hazardous materials safety program. And thank you for providing us 

with an outstanding opportunity to learn more about wetlines on 

tanker trucks through the site visit we completed this morning. It 

was quite educational. We certainly thank Mr. Roy Clark for his 

hospitality. 

We have before us, ladies and gentlemen, an incredibly diverse 

and knowledgeable group of panelists who will help us critically examine the issues to be addressed by the hazardous materials reauthorization pending before the Transportation Committee. 

Let me recognize Deputy Secretary of Transportation John 

Porcari. Mr. Porcari is the former Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation. I know personally of Secretary 

Porcari’s commitment to the safe transport of hazardous materials; 

and I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for returning to Maryland 

today. 

I also to extend a special welcome to Ms. Barbara Windsor of 

Maryland’s own Hahn Transportation, who is representing the 

American Trucking Association. Last month, I met with Ms. Windsor; and she personally assured me of the trucking community’s 

focus on ensuring the safe and secure transport of hazardous materials. 

Madam Chair, I think that is one of the things that we all recognize, that it seems like we have a chorus of people saying that they 

want safety, but they want to make sure that it is balanced with 

regard to cost and other considerations. And so I want to thank Ms. 

Windsor for all that she has done. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have entrusted the Department of 

Transportation with the critical responsibility of protecting the 

American public and the environment from the risks that the 

transportation of hazardous materials can pose to them. The city 

of Baltimore has experienced a major hazardous materials incident. 

8 

In fact, it occurred not very far from this building; and so I know 

firsthand the risks the transportation of hazardous materials can 

pose. 

Back on July 18th, 2001, 11 cars, including 4 tank cars, of a 60- 

car CSX train, derailed in Baltimore while traveling through the 

Howard Street tunnel, not very far from here. One of the tank cars 

was punctured, releasing a flammable liquid which subsequently 

ignited and burned for days. 

Given the risks associated with the movement of hazardous materials, we must trust the DOT and its safety agencies to put safety 

above all considerations. 

Earlier this year, I was shocked to learn that employees at 

PHMSA reported that it is common practice to make decisions on 

whether or not to grant companies special permits or what used to 

be called exemptions from otherwise applicable safety regulations 

based on the financial interest of the company seeking the permits 

rather than the relevant safety concerns. 

Today, we convene to consider the provisions that should be included in the hazardous materials reauthorization pending before 

the Transportation Committee, including measures to ensure that 

PHMSA effectively manages the special permits program. We will 

also be joined by a representative from the National Safety Transportation Board who will discuss several of the Board’s top recommendations pertaining to hazardous materials transportation. 

Finally, I note that in 2005 the Transportation Research Board 

issued Special Report 238 which found that, while there are a number of agencies involved in regulation of hazardous materials shipping, each agency often examines its transportation from its own 

isolated perspective. Following the release of that report, I introduced legislation to create a Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program. This program was created as a pilot in the 

SAFETEA-LU legislation. The research program has already become an invaluable forum through which applied research is being 

conducted on a multi-modal basis on the transportation of hazardous materials. 

It is my hope, Madam Chair, finally that the program will be 

made permanent in the hazardous materials reauthorization. And 

with that I thank you again, and I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

And now Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you—I’m not sure this is on. Can everyone 

hear me? 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to the Subcommittee. Because I am not a Member of this Subcommittee, but 

I really appreciate being here in my home State of Maryland in my 

colleague Elijah Cummings’ district. 

I recall the September 10th testimony. Some of our witnesses, 

Deputy Secretary Porcari, on PHMSA and some of the difficulty, 

frankly, with the special permitting that has been done under this 

program, it certainly signaled either or both a need for legislative 

statutory action and certainly regulatory action. Because you can’t 

run a program just on special permitting alone, and that has become incredibly clear with PHMSA. 

9 

I will say that, Madam Chairwoman, I am honored that you have 

chosen to conduct this field hearing. Because I think it is important 

for us to be in location on site and with a real-world experience of 

the challenges that are in front of us when we were considering— 

as we have been considering this legislation. 

It seems to me—again, Mr. Petri, this is also an area I don’t 

know a lot about, and I am learning, but it does seem to me that 

there is an important balance to be struck between the public safety, worker safety, and the ability to move commerce; and that is 

what we are looking for here. It doesn’t necessarily mean, in my 

view, that that means an absence of any legislative action at all, 

but it may mean figuring out what that balance is between what 

is happening currently in the regulatory process and what we need 

to do legislatively. 

I look forward to the testimony today, from the wide range of testimony today, so that we can really get some answers and figure 

out the best way to move forward; and I appreciate the opportunity 

to sit in this field hearing as a guest of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Now it is my pleasure to introduce our first panel of witnesses. 

First, I am going to have the honor of introducing John Porcari, 

who is the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation—— 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. —and former Secretary for Maryland. 

And we have with us Mr. Bob Chipkevich, who is the Director 

of the Office of Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigations at the National Transportation Safety Board. 

I want to welcome both of you here today, and we are very 

pleased to have you. 

We will start with you, Mr. Secretary. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN PORCARI, DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND 

BOB CHIPKEVICH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RAILROAD, PIPELINE, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVESTIGATIONS, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 

Shuster, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear today. 

Secretary LaHood and I regard the safety of America’s transportation system as our highest priority. When I last testified before 

the Full Committee on September 10th on PHMSA’s special permit 

program for hazardous materials, I made a commitment to put 

safety first as we carry out our duty to protect people and the environment from the risks inherent in hazardous materials transportation. At that time, I told you of our step-by-step plan to aggressively address the issues raised by the Committee and the Office 

of Inspector General Advisory on Special Permits. I can report to 

you today that the agency is making great strides in completing 

each action item. 

Today, I would like to address two safety issues highlighted by 

the National Transportation Safety Board and Members of this 

10 

Committee—the risks posed by the transportation of lithium batteries, particularly on board aircraft, and safety problems associated with the transportation of flammable liquids in unprotected 

product piping on cargo tank motor vehicles, known as wetlines. 

In 2008, an estimated 3.3 billion lithium batteries were transported worldwide by all modes of transportation, including passenger and cargo aircraft. Lithium batteries are regarded as hazardous materials because they can overheat and ignite in certain 

conditions and once ignited can be especially difficult to extinguish. 

Since 1991, we have identified over 40 air-transport-related incidents involving lithium batteries in devices powered by lithium 

batteries. 

We have addressed a number of concerns as the technology of 

lithium batteries develops. For example, regulations that prohibit 

transportation of most metal lithium batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft. The prohibition resulted from FAA testing indicating that current aircraft cargo fire suppression systems would 

not be capable of suppressing a fire if a shipment of metal lithium 

batteries were ignited in flight. However, more work to ensure the 

safe transport of lithium batteries remains. 

In 2006, the NTSB investigated an incident at the Philadelphia 

International Airport in which a fire suspected to have been caused 

by lithium batteries destroyed a United Parcel Service cargo aircraft and most of its cargo. The NTSB concluded that flight crews 

on cargo only aircraft are at risk from in-flight fires involving lithium batteries. Following the incident investigation, the NTSB 

issued five recommendations to PHMSA. 

Of particular concern to the NTSB and the DOT are shipments 

of small lithium batteries that currently are excepted from certain 

regulatory requirements. PHMSA and the FAA have been working 

together with the Committee to address these concerns. 

We are working to improve wetline safety. Wetlines are rigid aluminum piping in a cargo tank motor vehicle used to load and unload products such as gasoline and diesel fuel. In 1998, the NTSB 

recommended the Department prohibit the transportation of hazardous materials in wetlines. The Department recognized the safety risks associated with wetlines and take NTSB’s recommendations on wetlines very seriously. 

Recently, the Department completed an in-depth, comprehensive 

review of incident reports and other safety data to determine 

whether rulemaking action to reduce the risks associated with the 

transportation of hazardous materials in wetlines are necessary. 

The review encompassed 6,800 incidents involving cargo tanks 

transporting flammable or combustible liquids that occurred during 

a 10-year period, from 1999 to 2009, and identified 184 incidents 

in which wetlines were determined to be damaged and/or ruptured. 

A total of 18 of these incidents involved fires. A total of 13 fatalities and 7 injuries were associated with wetline incidents over a 

10-year period. Of these, our initial conclusion is that 6 fatalities 

and 7 injuries resulted directly from wetlines release. However, we 

are continuing to review the direct cause of the remaining 7 fatalities. 

Based on this incident analysis and our cost-benefit assessment 

of newly available technologies to remove lading from product lines 

11 

and the consequence event, we believe that a rulemaking to prohibit the transportation of flammable liquids in wetlines can reduce 

safety risks without imposing undue cost burdens on the regulated 

community. Cost-benefit analysis is important to our consideration 

for regulatory action, but we will also consider the potential risks 

and consequences of more severe accidents. We plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2010. 

Madame Chairman, as you can see, the Department is working 

diligently to reduce the risks posed by the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce and to improve the effectiveness of 

PHMSA’s safety responsibilities. 

Let me close by recognizing the committee’s leadership in improving wetline and lithium battery safety in the draft HAZMAT 

reauthorization bill. We look forward to continuing to work closely 

with you to improve cargo tank safety and reduce the dangers of 

transporting lithium batteries on aircraft. Thanks again for the opportunity to testify today at the special field hearing, and I am 

happy to take any questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Chipkevich. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member Shuster, and Members of the Subcommittee and Member 

Edwards. Thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the 

National Transportation Safety Board. I would like to highlight 

NTSB concerns about the hazards of wetlines on cargo tanks and 

the transport of lithium batteries by air. 

Most cargo tanks used to transport fuel are loaded through bottom loading lines and then are operated over roads with fuel 

present in this piping. Because of their design, location, and vulnerability to being hit by other vehicles, the practice of carrying 

hazardous materials in wetlines increases the potential seriousness 

of any accident. 

In 1988, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Research and 

Special Programs Administration found it unreasonable and illogical to allow gasoline to be transported in wetlines. It found that the 

petroleum industry’s unwillingness or inability to drain cargo lines 

resulted in widespread noncompliance. 

In a rule published in 1989, RSPA stated that it strongly believed that the practice of transporting hazardous materials in exposed, unprotected piping, designed to fail if impacted in an accident, was an unnecessary risk. RSPA encouraged the industry to 

eliminate this hazard. 

The industry responded but not with a solution. The American 

Petroleum Institute replied that the probability was that a fatality 

would be directly attributed to a wetline failure and therefore did 

not take any action to eliminate this hazard. 

The demand for lithium batteries has skyrocketed, and the popularity of electronic equipment has also grown. As the use of lithium 

batteries has increased, the number of incidents involving fires or 

overheating of batteries has also grown. 

Fire destroyed two pallets of primary lithium batteries at Los 

Angeles International Airport after the pallets were removed from 

an inbound passenger flight from Japan. The batteries were neither identified nor shipped as hazardous materials. Instead, they 

12 

were shipped as ordinary freight under an exception to the hazardous materials regulations. 

Fire destroyed freight in a cargo container that was being loaded 

onto a cargo-only aircraft in Memphis, Tennessee. The fire originated in a box that had two rechargeable lithium battery modules 

that were components for a battery pack for a electric car. 

And after an in-flight cargo fire, an aircraft made an emergency 

landing at Philadelphia International Airport. The aircraft and 

most of the cargo were destroyed. Although the cause of the fire ultimately could not be determined, the prevalence of electronic 

equipment in that cargo compartment, where the fire most likely 

originated, caused us to look closely and examine safety issues involving the transport of rechargeable lithium batteries on commercial aircraft. 

The NTSB has recommended action to improve the reporting and 

analysis of incidents; to eliminate exceptions for packaging, marking, and labeling of lithium battery shipments; to stow shipments 

where they are accessible to flight crews; to use fire-resistant containers; and to provide guidance and information to the traveling 

public and flight crews about the safe carriage of lithium batteries 

and electronic devices aboard aircraft. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

I guess I will start with the Secretary. 

Getting an accurate number of wetline-related deaths is very important to the Committee and the discussion, and there has been 

some confusion. Can you tell us me how many people—fatalities 

have occurred in the last 10 years? I know this is going to be very 

difficult, but how many can we attribute to the wetlines? In one 

case, someone was drinking and ran into the truck. So do you have 

a description of what actually caused the accident? 

Mr. PORCARI. Madam Chair, I can describe from our data the 

consequences of the accident. That is, whether our data shows the 

release of material from the wetline directly resulted in a death. 

Based on that 10-year review of 6,800 incidents, of which there 

were where 184 wetlines were determined to be damaged or ruptured, we have confirmed that 6 fatalities resulted directly from the 

wetlines release, rather than some other event, and 7 injuries as 

well. 

There are additional deaths and injuries beyond that, but at this 

point, based on the data that we have, we cannot directly attribute 

it one way or the other. 

I would also point out that there may be a degree of underreporting of incidents. In an earlier analysis that we did of wetline 

incidents, we estimated that 24 percent of wetline incidents were 

not reported. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Can you expound on that a little bit? 

Because when you say ′′unreported′′, if it is an incident wherein it 

is a fire in the community or it is an explosion, that is going to be 

in the paper. That is a reportable incident. 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, ma’am. 

We have tried hard to capture accurate data for this. If there is 

a report from first responders or a media report, we have tried to 

13 

capture that in our data. If it was a less serious event or even a 

serious event that for some reason did not get reported, we cannot 

be sure we have captured that in our data, and that estimated 24 

percent underreporting was from the last rulemaking process related to wetlines. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, there is lots of description as to 

whether it is a new truck or whether we are retrofitting a truck 

as far as cost is concerned, and I am very interested in figuring out 

how you are figuring out what is the cost. Because I have gotten 

from $8,000 to $3,000 to as cheap as $1,500. 

Mr. PORCARI. It is an important variable, obviously, in the costbenefit equation. We are aware of one company currently that is 

selling wetline purging systems, both manual and automatic ones. 

The basic equipment for the non-welded manual purging system, 

we are told, is $2,300, with an estimated $600 additional to install 

it, to retrofit it. 

The manual purging system on a new cargo tank would be an estimated $2,300, and the cost to retrofit an existing cargo tank 

would be $2,900. The non-welded automated purging system is 

$3,800, again with an additional $600 beyond that in cost for installation. 

That is based on what we know right now. Part of the rulemaking process is to gather current and accurate data regarding 

the costs. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am going to let other Members ask 

questions, but I have a real concern that it is only one company 

providing that service, so that cost can be a variable. I was told 

that there is about, I guess, four or five patents pending. Now I 

don’t know exactly what that means, because patent doesn’t mean 

that you are going to actually get the exact thing that we are talking about. 

Mr. PORCARI. That is correct, Madam Chair. We have been told 

as well there are patents pending under the systems. The numbers 

that I gave you are based on the one company that we know of that 

currently manufactures and sells the wetlines purging systems. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am not going to speak for them, because they are going to be on another panel, but their prices were 

different from the ones you just said, also. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chipkevich, when the NTSB goes through a 

decision to make a recommendation on banning—when you make 

the recommendation on banning the carriage of gasoline in 

wetlines, do you consider the fatalities that occurred in the process 

of retrofitting trucks with the different systems? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. We certainly look at the seriousness of the accident and the consequences of the accident. What we do is identify 

any safety issue that is involved and then look at if there are ways 

to prevent similar type accidents or similar types of severe consequences from occurring in an accident. So what we do is to look 

at an actual safety issue and whether there is something that can 

be done to address that issue. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, so then I understand in the last 10 years 

there were 20 shop workers, folks who retrofit these vehicles have 

been killed in their retrofitting process. I am not sure I understand 

14 

it. Do you consider that at all in your rule making or when you 

make your recommendation or is that something that falls outside 

of the NTSB’s—— 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. We have not looked at that particular area, but 

we have made recommendations in the past on the repair of cargo 

tanks. Shop facilities have to meet certain safety requirements, and 

the persons doing the repairs have to meet those safety requirements; there are procedures that are set up. We did check with the 

cargo tank company, Sunoco, who did install the equipment and 

are aware of any injuries during the installation of that equipment. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, that is a great concern of mine. We are looking and saying that there were 6 fatalities that we know of for sure 

and maybe several more—I forget what the number were in injuries, 13, I guess it was. 

When you look, nobody is looking at the situation, when there is 

a retrofit, 20 people have died. I have heard that people say they 

were in violation of OSHA. And I have heard other stories that the 

company wasn’t necessarily violating OSHA law. It was the employee doing the work that decided they were going to do something they shouldn’t have been doing. 

And so here we have a situation where we are saying we are 

going to stop these wetlines from causing injuries and fatalities. 

Yet we may create more deaths and injuries in the process of 

switching them over; and somebody has to step back and say, we 

need to take a look at that. 

Mr. Secretary, I mean, what are your thoughts on that? 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, first, I am not aware of any deaths resulting 

from welding, for example, of wetline retrofits. We would be very 

interested in any data that is out there. It is something that we 

would look at very carefully. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Again, that is why I am so concerned about going 

forward with this mark-up tomorrow with this piece in there, because that is the facts that have been presented over and over to 

us again, that we are going to save 6 lives and maybe give up 20 

lives in the process. That doesn’t seem like that is something we 

want to do. 

And, again, the chairman of the Full Committee points out that 

those folks were in violation of OSHA, but it is an individual that 

is not following—just like with some of these wetline incidents, I 

think the chairwoman asked the question, what was the cause of 

the accident? We know that the wetlines may have 30 or 20 gallons, caught fire. Someone was killed or injured. What was the reason for it? 

And I have seen in a couple instances where people were on their 

cell phones, there was drunk driving, or they were running stop 

signs. So once again we come back to the individual. The individual 

is not following the letter of the law and is not complying with the 

law. And so they do something stupid or make a mistake and an 

accident occurs and what we have is a death or fatality. 

So, again, I would urge both of you to consider that other side 

of the equation as we move forward on this. Because I am afraid 

we will create more deaths and more fatalities when we think we 

are going to solve a solution. And, again, do you have any thoughts 

on that? If the evidence is clear, you know, we save 6 people, but 

15 

we are going to give up 20 lives, does that come into the equation 

anywhere in any of your thoughts on this? 

Mr. PORCARI. Again, that is something we would carefully consider in the rulemaking process. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I would like to note that certainly 20 years ago 

DOT asked the industry to look at developing technology to address 

the wetline issue and had plenty of opportunity to develop technology to address it. The technology that is being used today, manufacture is yet improving the technology, has demonstrated that 

there is another means to install the equipment where you don’t 

have to weld on the cargo tanks or the wetlines. In fact, you would 

have to drill a hole and tap a fitting into part of the internal valve 

at the bottom of the cargo tank where you would eliminate the 

welding hazard. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I see my time has expired. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We will have another round. 

I just have a question for you. I mean, only recently—I am learning a lot more than I knew a couple of days ago—that you were 

able to unload it on the top, but because of the regulation that we 

passed with EPA now you have to—you can’t do that anymore, so 

that is why they went to doing the fueling underneath. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, ma’am. About 30 years ago, the Clean Air 

Act was passed; and our carriers were required to capture the hydrocarbon vapors being released. Industry could have developed a 

system to capture those vapors on the top and, in fact actually 

chose to look at bottom loading. Part of their reasoning was because of injuries, workers falling off the top of the tank on and 

things of this nature. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. That was a good reason, though, don’t 

you think? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I think by using the bottom loading method, 

they have created another hazard. We had bottom loading lines 

that had shear sections that were designed to break away rather 

than to pull a big hole in the bottom of the tank. Added to that 

is the vulnerability of that location for being struck by other automobiles. So what that did was create another hazard. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yeah, but, you know, I am not—we are 

going to have other testimony, but, depending on the condition of 

the weather, if they have to go up there, if it is snowing or if it 

is raining—I mean, those are all factors that you have to consider. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. You are correct. But, also, if the choice was to 

use bottom loading, we believe that the industry should also identify a means to empty those loading lines once they finished filling 

the cargo tank.. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am not disagreeing with you, but the 

point is, if you can’t show that this is real hazardous as far as the 

volume that they carry and the number of accidents, then perhaps 

they chose a system that is not as safe in comparison to not being 

safe. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

In response to Deputy Secretary Poracri’s statement about getting information and input, have any of the agencies such as the 

16 

Fire Department, highway patrol, law enforcement been asked to 

report any of the information they may have when they respond to 

these accidents? 

Mr. PORCARI. Ma’am, part of the data that we gather is those 

kinds of reports; and we try to do the best job we can. We do think 

that there is a possibility of underreporting based on what we have 

seen previously. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Underreporting in what areas, sir? 

Mr. PORCARI. The incidents may be underreported because the 

agency didn’t report it to us, the companies may not have reported 

incidents or, in cases where it might otherwise have been in the 

media, there wasn’t a media report that we would have picked up. 

So any of those. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Isn’t law enforcement requiring a reporting of 

accidents? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, law enforcement is and industry is as well. 

And, again, I think, based on what we saw in the prior rulemaking 

process, there is a likelihood of underreporting. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. On the issue of lithium batteries, the question 

comes of passenger aircraft. Are they allowed on passenger aircraft 

or is it just on cargo? 

Mr. PORCARI. Metal or primary lithium batteries are not permitted in the cargo areas of passenger aircraft, the belly cargo, in 

other words, of passenger aircraft. They are permitted on all-cargo 

aircraft. Cargo only. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Reading some of the information, there has 

not yet been developed a container that would secure these batteries, am I correct? 

Mr. PORCARI. That is correct, from what we know today; and the 

proposed rulemaking would have stowage requirements as a consequence. If there isn’t either automatic fire protection or a container system that would contain the fire, the crew-accessible stowage in that proposed rulemaking would actually provide an opportunity to access the fire. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would this also require the training of the 

personnel handling not only the loading personnel but also the flying personnel or the off-loading personnel? 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, I think in every case there are training 

needs. The flight crews should actually have some training as part 

of their background in that. But, clearly, this is a very difficult fire, 

a metal, lithium battery, if there is one; and what the proposed 

rulemaking does is provide at least an opportunity, if the crew can 

get to it, to try and deal with it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Based on transportation—and I worked in 

transportation for a while—as soon as the cargo is receded by the 

airline, it becomes the responsibility of the airline for its safety, so 

that the airline then would then have to ensure that it is handled 

properly. Does that not require training for their personnel to ensure that the liability isn’t there for any damage, any death, any 

injuries? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, it does require training, and it also requires 

identification, knowing what the cargo is, so that you can respond 

to it properly. 

17 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would that bill of lading be able to determine 

whether or not that particular plane would be able to carry that 

cargo? In other words, how are you limiting this so that it is for 

certain that cargo is not being placed in a place where it is not 

suitable? 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, first and foremost, the proposed rulemaking 

would have labeling requirements so that you would first know 

what you have. In other words, that this is a lithium battery that 

would be required to be placed where it is crew accessible. Then, 

on the training side, you would have to make sure that you are 

stowing it correctly so that it is, in fact, crew accessible during 

flight. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. To Mr. Chipkevich, apparently, a witness will 

later state that the alternative purging of the wetlines is to encapsulate the wetline and still keep the liquids in the line. The system 

would trap the liquid in the line, prevent it from spilling out of the 

shear section in the accident—in an accident. In the ones that you 

investigated, did any of them, or how many of them, or did most 

of them involve a spill from the actual shear section or they involve 

a rupture or puncture? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. The accidents we have investigated have involved a ruptured pipe. These accidents, did not involve the braking away of the shear section. In order to break away the shear 

section, you have to have the force just exactly right. It is designed 

so that it doesn’t pull a hole in the bottom of the tank with that 

valve. In the accidents we have investigated, the piping actually 

broke. For example, in the last accident we investigated, it broke 

about 6 feet away from the valve. It was an 18-foot pipe, so that 

type of a system would not have worked to contain the product. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In other words, what is being currently, I 

would say, touted as a preventable shearing—we look at two types 

of shearing areas. That does not ensure that it is going to break 

there. So it could be other structural damage in the rest of the infrastructure. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. That is correct. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We are going to have another round. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am going to yield to Mr. Petri. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to emphasize this is very disturbing to me, 

that we keep mentioning about the underreporting. And I know 

that you have only been Secretary for a few months, but perhaps 

the best thing to do is to do a study and get an independent someone to verify. If we don’t—if we can’t accurately say how many accidents, what caused it, and maybe we need an independent agency 

if the Department can’t do it. 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, Madam Chair, if the information is out there, 

we think we can capture that information. If it isn’t getting reported for various reasons, I am not sure anybody, independent 

agency or outside organization, would get it as well. We would like 

to and are continuing to make every effort to get good data. But, 

based on what we have seen in the past, we think that it is likely 

that there is underreporting. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Based on what? 

18 

Mr. PORCARI. Based on the previous rulemaking. That is where 

the 24 percent number came from. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We will talk about it. 

Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. 

There is a lot of things I would like to ask about, but let me just 

explore one particular area with you. In either legislation or rule 

making, is it preferable to define a standard other kind of objective 

or is does it make more sense to tell people how they should reach 

a particular thing to be in compliance? Especially if, when you tell 

them how to do it, someone has a patent on it and you give them 

a competitive advantage. 

Mr. PORCARI. Sir, what we try to do—— 

Mr. PETRI. If you are requiring that people buy something from 

someone, that is not very good public policy, I wouldn’t think. 

Mr. PORCARI. That is certainly not our intention. What we would 

try to do, sir, is to define a performance standard, and let, in this 

case the industry, meet that standard. However, any system that 

is effective in meeting that standard would work. 

Mr. PETRI. You think it is best to set a standard or give the Secretary the authority to review different approaches to that, that 

meet that standard, if someone has a bright idea. I mean, obviously 

just because they assert it meets some objective doesn’t mean it 

does. Someone has to be a referee in all of this. But we should not 

be too prescriptive because we could cut off better ideas or cheaper 

ideas that achieve the same goal or whatever. 

Mr. PORCARI. That is correct. Generally we want to set the standard and any technology or system that meets that standard will 

work. 

Mr. PETRI. One other area, there will be some testimony later, 

when we get into the wet lines, as to the scope of any law or rule, 

and there is a difference between 406 and 407 trucks, have you had 

a chance to review testimony of Mr. Cannon or any of the others? 

Evidently, the accidents have actually occurred on the 406 trucks 

which have a longer wet line and in the 407 it is a very small 

thing. I mean, would that difference between something like 30 or 

15 gallons and 1 gallon of fluid enter into the cost-effectiveness of 

a rule? 

Mr. PORCARI. I have not had a chance to review that testimony. 

I look forward to it. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you both for 

your service and for being here today. 

Mr. Chipkevich, there is a couple of things here I wanted to note 

in your testimony, about a June 7, 2006, withdrawal notice from 

PHMSA that stated further regulation—this is dealing with the 

wet lines issue—further regulation would not produce the level of 

benefits originally expected and that the quantifiable benefits and 

proposed regulatory approaches would not justify the corresponding 

costs. 

Then you followed up on July 31, 2007, where PHMSA advised 

NTSB that they would work on a best-practice outreach to try and 

do the best possible. What was the outcome of that? What was the 

outcome of that determination and what changed from 2006 to 

19 

2009 that said, yes, we have an issue here but it can be addressed 

working with industry on best practices to reduce to as small a 

point possible? If you could elaborate on that I would appreciate it. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, sir. RSPA or PHMSA had advised us that 

rather than move forward with requiring wet lines to be drained, 

they would work with industry on educating emergency responders 

about being careful at accident sites and taking certain precautions. It didn’t have anything to do with emptying the wet lines 

or making sure the wet lines were protected. So, it was a matter 

of post-accident responding rather than addressing the safety issue, 

and that is why we felt that they didn’t actually address the issue 

that needed to be dealt with. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. On this issue, on the wet lines again, again I 

am coming back to, is the purging the only possible thing here? 

Why can’t this stuff be flushed back at the point of loading? Is 

there any way you can do that at the loading terminals? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Certainly there are different means that they 

can look at. Industry has explained that once product is loaded, the 

remaining product in the lines, goes through a meter for taxing 

purposes. This process creates the problem of draining the product 

back out of the lines. 

The second point is, that there are different grades of gasoline 

that may be transported on a cargo tank. There are four or five 

compartments on a cargo tank and, therefore, there are issues if 

you try to drain it back out, possible contamination from previous 

loads, and things of this nature that present a new problem. 

Mr. WALZ. So the folks at the terminal, because of the tax issue 

on what has already been metered, don’t want it back? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. That is part of it, yes. 

Mr. WALZ. Even though my guess is, am I speculating too much 

here, that is the most cost-effective manner to do this? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. WALZ. I don’t want you to speculate. I am just trying to get 

a grasp on this here that I think we are trying to reach a compromise on this. I don’t think we doubt the numbers that are coming out here. 

I am sure not going to minimize one fatality in this. When we 

say there were six, there were six families that lost family members, and that is important. But this cost-benefit analysis has to 

come into this, and that is what I am really trying to get a grasp 

on. 

If these are hazardous to a certain degree, how best do we address that? So that is what I still keep coming back to. I think the 

question on this that is somewhat challenging for many of us is, 

is this the best technology that is available out there. All of a sudden if we warrant this or legislate this, what is that going to impact these producers. 

That is why I am really interested in the feedback. Maybe I 

should dig up or have the staff dig up some of this testimony from 

this best practices exercise that went out there. That might be valuable if it is around. You have seen some of it; correct? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, sir. We could certainly provide the Committee the information that was given to us on the best practices. 

Mr. WALZ. I would appreciate that if you would. I yield back. 

20 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, has the FAA or FAA certified halon fire suppression equipment to extinguish or contain fires caused by lithium 

batteries? If not, doesn’t this legislation mean that passenger airlines can no longer carry shipments of lithium batteries? 

Mr. PORCARI. My understanding is, and I will get a kick in the 

back if I am wrong here, that the halon systems, fire suppression 

systems, are effective in putting out lithium battery fires for lithium ion batteries but not metal lithium batteries. 

Mr. LATTA. Okay. If this lithium battery regulation would become law, doesn’t it mean that the United States lithium battery 

regulations won’t be in harmony anymore with the International 

Civil Aviation Organization standards? 

Mr. PORCARI. It means at least for the time being, that our regulations would be more strict than ICAO. There are other examples 

where we have done that as well. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask this then in a follow-up. If the U.S. does 

adopt those regulations that wouldn’t be consistent with the 

internationalregulations, wouldn’t that in turn drive jobs from the 

United States because the shipments would be flown to either Canada or Mexico and then have to be shipped in from those points, 

costing U.S. jobs and then also driving up costs to consumers? 

Mr. PORCARI. Typically shippers are looking for a logistic solution 

that is as simple and as cost-effective as possible. I would think it 

would be much more expensive to transship from aircraft in a foreign country to, for example, truck or rail and then ship into the 

United States. 

It is, I think intuitively, not likely that that would be a viable 

alternative. 

Mr. LATTA. Okay. If you say it is not a viable alternative, how 

are they going to ship if, under international, the ICAO has one 

regulation, we have another, wouldn’t a company which shipped to 

a country that would be under the international regulation, not the 

U.S.? 

Mr. PORCARI. I believe there are other examples out there, actually, where U.S. leadership in ICAO regulations has raised the bar, 

as it were, for safety. The labeling and stowage requirements in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking are something that we believe that 

airlines can comply with and logistics companies can comply with. 

Mr. LATTA. We were given a letter today that stated that the 

hearing or a meeting that was held in Montreal last month, under 

the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel, reconsidered those regulations, 

made a few revisions that explicitly rejected—requested substantial 

revising. 

At this juncture then the United States would have a much 

stricter regulation out there that would require a lot of these 

flights then to be rerouted from the U.S. to either Canada or Mexico. 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes. Should the rule take effect, that would be the 

case. 

Mr. LATTA. No further questions. I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

21 

Mr. Chipkevich, you had indicated two options that would meet 

the performance standard from PHMSA’s 2004 notice of proposed 

rulemaking regarding the elimination of flammable fluids from wet 

lines, the use of external purging systems or the replacement of an 

existing external piping with shortened or recessed piping. 

Are both methods equally effective, and what is the cost of implementing each? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. It depends on the type of equipment. As we saw 

today the gasoline tank trucks, for example, the MC-306 and 406 

cargo tanks, some of the pipes on that equipment are as much as 

18 feet long. So they carry a lot of gasoline and a lot of vulnerability to being hit. 

Besides, it was an MC-407 cargo tank, which had a very short 

1-foot piece at the end of it which could also be used for different 

products. DOT currently allows in the regulations an exception, if 

the cargo tank has substantial protection at the back, for a product 

such as liquid poisons, corrosives and products of that nature that 

can be in a pipe that has that very little amount at the end. 

Certainly, if you had that type of situation with the gasoline tank 

truck it would be different. When you have something of that nature, certainly, there is a lot of substantial protection at the end 

of the tanker, and also there is an opportunity to be able to drain 

a small amount as opposed to as much as 18 gallons from a large 

gasoline-type piping. So there is a big difference in the design of 

that tank and the piping and hanging below the tank that is vulnerable, that was the issue we were trying to discuss. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you have any idea what the cost might be? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I think it is probably something that—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It shouldn’t. I think Secretary Porcari gave us an 

idea of what the other method would be. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. No. While it may be impractical for the typical 

gasoline tank truck, it might be practical for some other flammable 

liquids that would be transported in a 407-type tank truck. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You can see what we are struggling with, and I 

am sure you are struggling with it too, just listening here. All of 

us are very concerned about the safety but we are also trying to 

go figure out, just strike that balance. I think Ms. Edwards also 

mentioned that. 

So what we then do is we look at what the American Trucking 

Association says, right, because they are trying to strike that balance, too, and they say that the risk of a fatal wet line incident is 

approximately one in 30 million, one in 30 million, which they said 

is less than a person’s risk of being struck by lightning. 

I am just wondering, has the NTSB examined the extent of the 

risk of involving a fatal wet line incident or in a wet line incident 

causing a fire, and what is your comment on the American Trucking Association’s viewpoint on that? 

You know, one in 30 million is quite a bit, and I would—by the 

way, if we are going to err, I would rather err on the side of safety. 

But I am just curious when we look at cost-benefit analysis and all 

of that, what are we looking at? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Well, certainly, we look at the safety issue. We 

look at a safety situation that has been created that can be fixed. 

In fact, the solution is there. That risk can be taken away. Any 

22 

time you have an accident with a highway cargo tank, in particular 

the flammable liquid MC-306 and 406 cargo tanks, you really increase the seriousness of the accident by having that exposure. 

We looked at it from the standpoint of a safety issue. There is 

a solution to fixing that problem that would significantly reduce 

the consequences of an accident and the seriousness of an accident. 

In these cases, we had individuals in automobiles that had struck 

the cargo tanks; they were trapped underneath when the fire started. There could certainly be more serious accidents involving vehicles with more passengers aboard or in other circumstances where 

the accident gets out of control. 

So we believe it is a safety issue that needs to be addressed and 

we think there is a solution there that can be applied to remedy 

the situation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just real quick, Secretary Porcari, I take it you 

all want to see this resolved as soon as possible; is that right? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know that the normal thing is you hear people say wait, wait, wait. What would be the disadvantage of waiting, studying it, making sure we have the technology or what have 

you? I am not promoting that, I am just asking because you know 

that is the normal response in Washington, the hold up. 

So what would be the problem with doing that? 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, first, Congressman, I would point out that 

this has been studied before, this issue has been through extensive 

review. There is an opportunity cost on any safety issue in waiting. 

I think you put your finger on the key term here, balance. That is 

really what we do through the regulatory process, try to balance 

cost-effectiveness with safety. 

I would also point out it is not just a cost-effectiveness issue, consequence matters; in other words, how severe the accident potential 

is if it happens is something that is not strictly in the numbers but 

very important in the decisionmaking process. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

to our witnesses. I have a couple of questions. 

One, Deputy Secretary Porcari, I keep reading and rereading the 

legislation where lithium batteries are concerned, and I can’t really 

see the inconsistency between what we have created legislatively 

and what you are doing now in engaging a rulemaking process. 

What wasn’t clear to me in your testimony is the Department, the 

administration’s position on the legislation. 

Mr. PORCARI. An excellent question, ma’am. From what we have 

seen of the legislation it is not inconsistent with what we are doing. 

I would point out that the rulemaking process is often long and 

with an uncertain outcome, but the proposal in H.R. 4016 is not 

inconsistent with the rulemaking process. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I appreciate your clarifying that because also in 

the provisions related to lithium batteries it says that within 24 

months the Department is to come up with those regulations, with 

the rulemaking, and I think that that leaves, that is 2 years. That 

leaves a lot of time for the rulemaking process if this were to take 

effect today. 

23 

The requirements in there are guidelines for the Department in 

terms of doing its rulemaking. 

Thank you very much for that clarification. 

I also want to ask both of you about, you know, about this question of whether the industry is actually mandated. When I read the 

section related to external product piping on cargo tanks and transporting flammable liquids, I read under section A, number 2 that 

the prohibition for existing cargo tank motor vehicles says that no 

person may offer for transportation or transport a Class 3 flammable liquid in the external product piping of a cargo tank motor 

vehicle on or before December 31, 2020. 

Part of what that is saying to me is that in fact the legislation 

isn’t requiring a particular technology, it is merely saying that the 

industry would participate in deciding how to meet a standard. 

Is that your understanding? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. Then, I want to go back to the question of the lithium batteries, because having had a laptop in my living room on a chair that self-ignited and wasn’t plugged in, I know 

that these things can happen. So I am my own focus group. 

I am wondering, though, in the legislation that we have envisioned, how we also get to a place where the crew and where the 

cargo itself is able to be extinguished. So this question of accessibility is really important because my own personal experience is 

that when that happens, this was a laptop that wasn’t in fact 

plugged in, that when that happens you have got to deal with it 

really quickly or you have got a mess on your hands. 

Mr. PORCARI. That is absolutely true. What the proposed rulemaking would do with the stowage requirements is at least give 

the crew a fighting chance, as it were, to evaluate what is going 

on and land as quickly as possible. They can’t run this product outside and set it down. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Lastly, Mr. Chipkevich. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I might add, NTSB had made the recommendation to have lithium batteries in crew-accessible locationsuntil fire 

suppression systems are required on cargo aircraft. During our investigation of the lithium battery issue, we did take testimony from 

one of the air carriers, FedEx, who is working very aggressively to 

develop a fire suppression system for its cargo aircraft. One possible system would have equipment with a nozzle on board that 

could be directed exactly to a cargo container that is having a problem. Suspected smoke or fire could puncture that container, and 

therefore put a fire suppression system that sprayed water right 

into that container to address the issue. 

Air carriers and others have also been looking at some other 

types of fire suppression, such as putting fire resistant drapings 

and covers over containers to minimize fires. So we think the problem is being addressed, and we think that until they actually get 

there-- I think they are very close to implementation-- that the best 

alternative is to put the batteries in a location where they are 

accesible so that the crew can deal with the fire. 

One of the worst situations is a fire on an aircraft and the crew 

does not know about the fire. You need to be able to deal with the 

24 

fire, which will give you some time to get the aircraft on the 

ground. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Or know what is in the containers and know what 

is in the shipping boxes or know where they are located in the aircraft, isn’t that right? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. No further questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I think that we are going to have another round quickly, and then we will go to the next panel. 

Mr. Secretary, I have some real concerns, and I am going to give 

you my concerns in writing. But can you tell me, first of all, Ms. 

Edwards asked the question whether or not we were mandating in 

the legislation exactly what system to use. But, in fact, it is only 

one system that is certified in the entire country; is that correct? 

Mr. PORCARI. I believe that is correct right now. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So even though there are, I think, about 

four or five patents, patents don’t mean anything. Patents mean 

that you have got an application in and you don’t even know 

whether your system is going to work; is that correct? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, I believe those are patents pending. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So let’s be clear it is only one company 

that is manufacturing this system, and I guess my second question, 

and this is important to me, as we sit here today, the trucking industry is carrying how much every day, how many millions of gallons every day? 

Mr. PORCARI. I don’t know offhand, I am sorry. It is a lot. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. It is a lot, it is a lot. Basically it is a 

lot and basically the industry is safe. What they are telling me, and 

you can correct me, is that the major problem is not the one that 

we are discussing here today, the major problem is that these 

trucks tilt, you know, and then they may turn over. That is the 

major problem. Even if we fix the wet lines, if they had a serious 

accident it would explode. 

In addition to that, the second generation of these trucks that 

they are making now that is four, what, 25 years, they are built, 

that they are real sturdy, as opposed to when you were talking 

about 1985 when they were talking about the additional legislation, 

that these are a better generation of trucks. 

Clear that up for me, because I don’t want to sound like I am 

speaking for the industry, but I have had to go back and read all 

of this information, I have got a chance to talk to some of the 

truckers, in the road, you know, while they were out there, not just 

the owners of the companies, it was just me and the truckers at 

the service station. No cameras. 

Mr. PORCARI. Madam Chair, clearly there are a number of risks. 

The wetline risk that we are discussing today and addressing in a 

proposed rulemaking is only one of them. Safety means comprehensively addressing issues. You are hearing two of them today, one 

related to trucks. There are many more, and we are trying to move 

forward on a number of fronts simultaneously. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Okay. On the battery, I just got one 

quick question. My understanding is that maybe the technology is 

not there for the system in the cargo area. 

Mr. PORCARI. For the fire protection? 

25 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, for the fire protection. 

Mr. PORCARI. That is correct. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So what are we mandating? 

Mr. PORCARI. What we are actually mandating is clear labeling 

of what the product is so that it is properly handled. Proper stowage, so that it is crew accessible in flight. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Okay. What is going to happen in flight 

if they can’t put it out? 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, at a minimum this would give the crew an 

opportunity to recognize the danger, assess it, and land as quickly 

as possible. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Did you want to talk to either one of 

those areas? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Certainly on the issue of accessibility, we believe that the testing at the FAA tech center did show that halon 

was effective on passenger planes in a cargo compartment in suppressing a fire. Halon fire suppression works on lithium ion batteries and the rechargeable batteries, but not on primary batteries. 

Therefore, because halon was not effective on primary battery fires 

and it was agreed that the primary batteries should not be in the 

cargo compartments on passenger aircraft. 

We believe certainly though that the way to move forward with 

the primary batteries is through the development of fire suppression systems that can in fact help to extinguish a fire with the primary batteries, the metal batteries. Until we can get it to that 

point, the batteries need to be identifiable and accessible to flight 

crews which can, in fact, give the crews some additional time to get 

the aircraft down. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Again, in this legislation that we are 

going to pass—and, again, I think it is pretty clear right now there 

is only one technology out there. What is the solution if we pass 

this and people are going to be forced to buy this one type of technology, what do we propose to do if that is the case? 

The Department of Transportation says stop, we can’t do that? 

That is the whole concern of this. With the timeframe we have in 

place, is that technologies aren’t going to be developed, people 

aren’t going to have alternative choices there is going to be one system out there. What is the solution to that? 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, by defining a performance standard, it does, 

at least over time, typically spur competition where you would have 

other systems. It would certainly be our hope that that would be 

the case here. 

Mr. SHUSTER. On DOT 407 tanks, I think we saw one today and 

that has, that has a little bit of gas, petroleum or product in there. 

Are those, they are not going to be exempted from this legislation. 

Is that something that you think should be exempted with that 

small amount of fuel in there? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I think that the current regulations don’t identify by a specific tank truck but by product. If you have poison, if 

you have corrosives or some other hazardous liquid products, you 

have to provide either adequate protection that is going to protect 

the piping from a significant accident, or drain the line. 

26 

If the legislation did say that flammable liquids, Class 3, that the 

lines had to be empty, then the issue would be that that particular 

piece would have to be emptied. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I come back to this point again, and I think that 

is my biggest problem with this legislation is that it is going to 

force something out there on the industry that by all accounts, and 

other folks have said it, this is a relative—this is an extremely safe 

industry. 

We certainly would like to see it safer, but still nobody has said 

that they have taken into consideration the 20 fatalities versus the 

6 fatalities when you bring these trucks in to have them retrofitted. 

You are not just going to bring in the current levels, if this legislation becomes law, it is not going to be the same current levels of 

trucks coming in to be fixed and worked on and retrofitted. You are 

going to have every tanker in the industry over a 7 or 10-year period, 100,000 or more are going to be coming into these shops. My 

concern is once again if you are welding on these things, your fatalities are going to be even greater. 

We are solving one problem and potentially causing an even 

greater problem, and it seems to me that the NTSB has not taken 

that into consideration, and I really believe that has to be part of 

it. That is one of the reasons that we go through a rulemaking 

process with PHMSA. Let them go through and determine what is 

going to be the best solution for safety as well as cost-benefit analysis. 

Again, I come back to that. Have you considered that? That 

100,000 tankers are greater than the total—I don’t know what the 

total population is. Go ahead. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I think, certainly, there are very strong safety 

procedures that must be followed when you are doing work on tank 

trucks. We made recommendations in the past for special qualifications for personnel doing the work and that the tank shops meet 

certain qualifications, and I think that there are other solutions. 

NTSB doesn’t say that you need to weld, that you have to weld. 

I think we would have the opportunity for innovation, as we saw 

today out at the facility, where there is other valves and other 

means of installing the safety equipment without having to do 

welding. 

My concern has been with the industry. This has been an issue 

for 20 years. The DOT has asked the industry to go out and develop the technology and to address it. There has been plenty of opportunity for the industry to do so, and I think there is still plenty 

of opportunity to improve and to develop technology in this area. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You come back to we go back to one supplier, if 

that is the solution. Again, you are not taking the whole picture 

into consideration, I believe, when you make these recommendations. 

Again, it comes down to if you had one system that doesn’t weld 

but that that is the other system that is out there you have to 

weld. There are going to be deaths, there are going to be fatalities. 

Those are things that, once again, I think you have to take into 

consideration. 

You can say, you can train people and train people we heard 

today, but the accidents that happened at the shops, they were 

27 

complying with OSHA but the worker decided he wasn’t going to 

do—he did something he shouldn’t have. 

Just like the person who is on the cell phone that runs into the 

wet lines. I guess we can’t legislate to eliminate stupidity, because 

people are going to do stupid things, and that is why we get in 

many of these accidents. Again, I think we are going about this in 

a way that there will be more injuries, more fatalities, because of 

what this legislation is forcing us to do. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I want to thank the panelists. Is there 

any Member that feels that they would like to ask another question, because I would like to move to the second panel. 

Mr. WALZ. If I could make a comment. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. I too many troubled by this. When I look at again the 

legislation, we are not necessarily mandating a technology, we are 

mandating a standard. I think the suggestion I said—and the Petroleum Institute folks would say this too—you can dump it back 

at the loading rack. That requires no fit, no anything. 

Is it possible we can improve safety and not add a burden or cost 

here? Is that the belief that you guys have? I think these are good 

questions, and both the chairwoman and the Ranking 

Memberbrought up concerns that all of us have expressed but I 

think there may be other options out there. 

Would either of you like to comment just quickly on that? 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. I think certainly there are ways to find to do 

it safely. We believe the wetlines certainly, because of the vulnerability, really present an additional risk and hazard that doesn’t 

need to be there. 

Should the industry choose to empty those wet lines in a different manner, that would be perfectly fine. Purging it with either 

a system that we have seen or a system that is still in development 

certainly is how we think it should be accomplished. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you all for your testimony. 

As I said, there may be some additional questions, and I think 

we are looking at trying to take this bill up on Thursday. So we 

will give you any additional questions that we may have between 

now and Thursday. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. CHIPKEVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We are going to get back to it because 

we have one more panel. Then we want to open it up for some 1- 

minutes from people in the audience. I always like to have that as 

a part of the hearing so we can hear from people who are not on 

the agenda. We want to leave a little time for them. 

Panel II, Mr. Jim Casey, Vice President and the Deputy General 

Counsel for Air Transport Association of America; Mr. Mark Rogers, Director, Dangerous Goods Program, Air Line Pilots Association, International; Ms. Barbara Windsor, Hahn Transportation, 

New Market, Maryland, on behalf of the American Trucking Association; Mr. LaMont Byrd, Director of Safety and Health Department of International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Mr. John F. Cannon, Vice President - Sales & Marketing, Walker Group Holdings; 

and Mr. Ron Andenmatten, owner of Cargo Tank Concepts. 

28 

Are you the one with the twin brother? 

Mr. ANDENMATTEN. No, my brother is my co-owner with Cargo 

Tank Concepts. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We are going to start with Mr. Casey. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM CASEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY 

GENERAL COUNSEL, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA; MARK ROGERS, DIRECTOR, DANGEROUS GOODS 

PROGRAM, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; BARBARA WINDSOR, HAHN TRANSPORTATION, 

NEW MARKET, MARYLAND, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN 

TRUCKING ASSOCIATION; LAMONT BYRD, DIRECTOR OF 

SAFETY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; JOHN F. CANNON, VICE 

PRESIDENT - SALES & MARKETING, WALKER GROUP HOLDINGS; AND MR. RON ANDENMATTEN, OWNER, CARGO TANK 

CONCEPTS, LTD 

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, I appreciate the opportunity to join you this afternoon. 

As the Chair said, I am Jim Casey, the Deputy General Counsel 

and Vice President for Industry Services at the Air Transport Association. 

ATA’s members, which are the largest U.S. passenger and allcargo airlines, strongly support efforts to assure the safe transportation of hazardous materials. As in other areas of civil aviation, 

success in these efforts depends on the collaborative work of government, labor, manufacturers, shippers, and airlines that are committed to a disciplined data driven approach. No one has a monopoly of knowledge in this area. 

We appreciate that the sponsors of H.R. 4016 want to improve 

the safety of the carriage aboard aircraft of lithium batteries and 

the electronic devices that use them. Legislation, however, is not 

the best way to pursue that goal. Instead, a notice and comment 

rulemaking proceeding is a far better means to examine facts, 

bring necessary expertise to bear, and develop whatever changes 

such an empirical focus shows are needed. 

The opportunity to do so is before us. A proposed lithium battery 

rule is under review, as you have heard earlier this afternoon, at 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Shortly, therefore, all interested stakeholders should have the 

opportunity to contribute to an examination of the carriage aboard 

aircraft of lithium batteries. That is the way to proceed and will 

allow a timely exploration of the subject. 

We emphasize this point in our November 4 letter to Chairman 

Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica. In contrast, the legislation 

under consideration, which would not be enacted into law for some 

time and by its own terms, would not require a final rule until 2 

years after its enactment but could have the unintended but very 

real consequence of interrupting the anticipated rulemaking proceeding. 

A rulemaking proceeding would enable the various interested 

parties to participate in assessing the need for and implications of 

additional regulatory requirements. Such wide-ranging participation is essential. This is a complex area where the benefit of experVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:10 May 17, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53678 JASON
29 

tise and illuminating its different facets is a critical ingredient in 

the decisionmaking process. 

Safety is a dispositive consideration of any such undertaking. We 

nevertheless must recognize that government action in this area 

could have serious effects on airlines and the welfare of their employees, as well as on the manufacturers, shippers, and retailers 

that depend on air transportation. With respect to airlines, both 

passenger and cargo airlines transport devices containing lithium 

batteries. 

Moreover, because lithium batteries are indispensable to so much 

of what today we take for granted, those entities that are involved 

in the manufacturer, distribution, and sale of electronic devices 

have an unmistakable stake in the outcome in this legislation and 

any rulemaking procedure. 

This is not, therefore, an insular subject. Ill-conceived requirements could have serious adverse results throughout our economy. 

As we also noted in our November 4 letter, maximizing harmonization of any new U.S. requirements with International Civil Aviation Organization standards is an important concern for two reasons. First, most ATA members transport cargo internationally as 

well as domestically. Neither safety nor efficiency will be advanced 

if unnecessarily disparate HAZMAT requirements govern their operations. 

Second, we believe that the United States must maintain its 

leadership role in ICAO by advancing harmonized international 

standards. That role will not be advanced by a legislatively mandated unique U.S. rule, which we fear would signal to ICAO members that they should feel free to take the same approach. That 

would be a serious blow to what we believe should be a common 

goal of seamless requirements. 

Congress’ interest in this important matter is very understandable. It is most helpful response, however, would be to urge the executive branch to accelerate the initiation of expected rulemaking 

proceeding rather than pursuing this legislation. 

Thank you for your attention. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. Before Mr. Rogers begins, 

let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules oral 

statements must be limited to 5 minutes, but the entire statement 

will appear in the record. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Brown, 

Ranking Member Shuster, Members of the Subcommittee and 

Member Edwards. 

I am Mark Rogers. I am an airline pilot and Director of the Dangerous Goods Program for the Air Line Pilots Association, International. 

ALPA represents nearly 53,000 pilots who fly for 36 passenger 

and all-cargo airlines in the United States and Canada. On behalf 

of our members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide 

our perspective on the carriage of lithium batteries on airliners and 

specifically on H.R. 4016, the Hazardous Material Safety Transportation Act of 2009. 

ALPA strongly supports this legislation and believes that it will 

help enhance safety. If lithium batteries shipped aboard airliners 

30 

are damaged, defective or improperly packaged, a fire may occur, 

leading to potentially catastrophic consequences. 

To mitigate this risk, it is necessary to remove the exceptions in 

place today and regulate lithium batteries as a hazardous material, 

including provisions for enhanced marking, labeling, testing and 

packaging requirements. It is also necessary to ensure that if a fire 

does occur, the results are not catastrophic. 

This is accomplished by restricting the loading of lithium batteries to cargo compartments equipped with a fire suppression system capable of extinguishing a lithium battery fire, or when this 

is not possible, by placing the batteries in the fire-resistant container or in locations accessible to the crew. To further reduce the 

possibility of an uncontrollable fire, the total quantity of lithium 

batteries at any one location on the airplane must also be restricted. This bill accomplishes each of those important goals. 

I would like to deviate from my prepared statement just a little 

bit to address some of the things I have heard this afternoon in the 

opening statements and what I have heard from a few other presenters, and just talk about this idea of crew accessibility and the 

fire suppression systems on aircraft. 

To talk first about the passenger airliners, the under floor cargo 

compartments have a halon suppression system that the FAA has 

shown through testing at the Atlantic City fire lab is capable of 

suppressing a lithium ion battery fire. So that would be all the batteries equipped in things like cell phones, laptops, everything like 

that. The halon suppression systems on those passenger aircraft 

are capable of suppressing that fire. 

They are not capable of suppressing a lithium metal battery fire. 

However, those lithium metal batteries are already prohibited on 

passenger aircraft. So for passenger aircraft there wouldn’t be 

much of an impact on that particular portion of the regulation. 

On cargo aircraft, while they are not required, most cargo aircraft actually do have the halon suppression systems under floor, 

because these were originally passenger aircraft. Some carriers do 

remove them because they are not required, but most have them. 

The lithium ion batteries on the laptops, the cell phones on cargo 

airliners, if they were shipped under floor, would be capable of 

being extinguished by the halon suppression system. For those that 

don’t have that system, you also have the main deck. 

Contrary to what I have heard in some of the statements, it is 

not just the forward position that can be accessible. Airlines 

throughout the world use the side of the aircraft to be accessible. 

So it wouldn’t unnecessarily limit that. Also the NTSB has heard 

testimony, and the major cargo carrier in the United States, the 

one that transports the most cargo right now, just recently a few 

months ago, announced that they are going ahead with the installation of a cargo suppression system that is for the entire main 

deck and will puncture a cargo container and fill it with a foam 

that their testing has shown will put out either a lithium ion fire 

or a even lithium metal battery fire, which is something very new, 

and they are going ahead with that even though it is not required 

by regulation. 

So in any of those cases where none of that is possible, having 

crew accessibility is kind of the last line of defense to allow quick 

31 

recognition of a fire and at least to have the crew to be able to do 

something about it by being able to access it and trying to put it 

out. 

In terms of there being no fire resistant containers in the market 

today, that is true. However, we just enacted legislation following 

the ValuJet accident 10 years ago for oxygen cylinders, and that 

mandates packing that can withstand a 1,700-degree fire for 5 minutes, which is the initial fire, and then 400 degrees for 3 hours, 

which is the diversion time with the halon suppression system in 

place. 

So the rulemaking came about that mandated that, and the industry responded and they are going to build these containers. I 

think the same thing could happen with lithium batteries. If we 

put the requirement in place, there will be a market to put these 

containers and you will be able to have some kind of metal packaging or do testing that would show maybe this would help reduce 

the risk of a fire. I think ultimately the answer is in the correct 

fire suppression on the aircraft, but there are other alternatives. 

To get back to what I had prepared then, thank you, and it is 

important to note that the total quantity of lithium batteries at a 

single location cannot be restricted if the batteries are not first 

treated as fully regulated hazardous materials. With the exceptions 

in place today packages containing lithium batteries are handled as 

general freight and are not subjected to the acceptance check and 

loading restrictions applicable to other hazardous materials. 

The flight crew is currently notified when thousands of batteries 

are loaded into an airliner cargo compartment, and as a result they 

are not able to pass that information on to emergency personnel responding to an incident. 

ALPA is very pleased this bill will align the regulations regarding lithium batteries with the risks they pose to transportation and 

restrict the quantity of batteries at any one location. 

We are also pleased that the bill addresses the issues of special 

permits and approvals. These regulations will help ensure that batteries are transported safely aboard airliners. Deviation from these 

requirements should only be granted when an equivalent level of 

safety is achieved, and those deviations are clearly in the public interest. 

At least 6 additional fires involving lithium batteries aboard aircraft were in packages prepared for transport—— 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Rogers, are you almost finished? 

Mr. ROGERS. I have just about a half page left. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We are going to have questions and answers, and we will give you a chance to finish. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Windsor. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Shuster, of course, from my home State of Maryland, Congressman Cummings and Congresswoman Edwards and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for having this opportunity to be with 

you. 

My name is Barbara Windsor, and I am President and CEO of 

Hahn Transportation, a trucking company headquartered here in 

New Market, Maryland. My company hauls petroleum products 

32 

and other hazardous materials in bulk. My family built and grew 

this business over the past 75 years, and today we operate 100 

tank trucks and employ over 150 individuals. 

I appear before you representing not just my company, but also 

the American Trucking Association and the National Tank Truck 

Carriers. Today I will focus my remarks on the provisions of H.R. 

4016 that would ban the transportation of flammable liquids and 

external product piping of cargo tanks, or called wet lines. 

We believe that the industry’s safety record clearly demonstrates 

that a mandate for wet lines purging equipment is not justified. 

Earlier this year, the DOT examined the HAZMAT incidents database and reported that over the past 10 years there were six fatalities that were directly attributable to wet lines releases. 

By contrast, more than 50,000 cargo tank shipments of flammable liquids occur each day and over 180 million shipments have 

occurred over that same 10-year period. These government statistics indicate that the risk of the fatal wet lines incident is approximately one in 30 million. 

We recognize that the NTSB has recommended that wet lines be 

banned. However, the NTSB recommendations are based upon the 

review of only three wet lines incidents. The NTSB did not consider 

the infrequency of wet lines incidents, the risks to workers that 

would have installed the wet lines purging systems, nor the costs 

that are involved in the purging of the wet lines. 

In light of this, we recommend that Congress require the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an in-depth study of wet 

lines, the risks that they present, and the costs of addressing these 

risks, including the viability of having the shipper of the product 

purge the lines during the loading process rather than putting the 

purging system on each trailer. 

Having discussed a very mall risk associated with the wet lines, 

we now turn our attention to the cost of the wet lines purging system. Perhaps the greatest cost associated with the wet lines ban 

would be the additional lives lost as a result of retrofitting a large 

number of tank trucks. 

We are aware of the 20 fatalities that have resulted from welding 

operations performed on cargo tanks during the past 10 years. We 

believe this number is significantly understated as it is based on 

the Internet news search that was unlikely to reveal all the cargo 

tank shop incidents. This rudimentary analysis makes it clear that 

the mandate to install wet lines purging systems will result in an 

overall increase of fatalities as even the best repair facilities have 

experienced these types of accidents. 

We also understand that the manufacturer of the only available 

wet lines purging system is working on a system that does not 

have to be welded. Unfortunately, this system would still require 

cutting metal and replacing cargo tank valves. 

Putting the human cost factor of retrofit aside, the capital costs 

associated with retrofitting a cargo tank is approximately $8,000 

per tank. This figure does not include the costs associated with 

down time of the equipment during the retrofit process, the costs 

associated with the loss of productivity waiting for purging systems 

to operate on the ongoing maintenance of this system. 

33 

The cost of retrofitting of my own fleet would exceed $800,000. 

This is an enormous expense for a family-owned business such as 

ours. Given my company’s limited access to capital, the requirement of investment in purging systems would prevent me from deploying other proven safety technologies. By prohibiting the transportation of flammable liquids in the wet lines, H.R. 4016 prevents 

the development of alternatives to the purging system that could 

provide an adequate level of safety. 

A wet lines ban essentially requires the use of wet lines purging 

and prevents cargo tank manufacturers from pursuing alternatives 

such as under ride protection, modification to wet lines that could 

prevent releases from impact, or other measures to provide an adequate level of safety. 

We also believe that any potential wet lines ban should require 

petroleum terminals’ loading racks to be retrofitted to assure that 

the product is removed during the loading process. It is much more 

cost-effective to retrofit a couple hundred petroleum terminals than 

to require tens of thousands of cargo tanks to be equipped with a 

purging system. 

ATA, NTTC, and Hahn Transportation appreciates this opportunity to offer our insight of these measures to improve the safe 

transportation of hazardous material. On May 14, ATA testified before the Subcommittee on six key issues for Congress to consider 

as it reauthorizes the Federal HAZMAT transportation law. In lieu 

of restating our prior testimony, I ask that the chairwoman incorporate ATA’s prior testimony in the hearing record. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to answering any of your 

questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Byrd. 

Mr. BYRD. Good afternoon. My name is LaMont Byrd, and I am 

the Director of the Safety and Health Department at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

I would like to thank Madam Chairwoman Brown, Ranking 

Member Shuster, Members of the Subcommittee, and Congresswoman Edwards for the opportunity to comment here today concerning H.R. 4016, reauthorization of the DOT’s Hazardous Materials Safety Program. 

The Teamsters Union represents approximately 300,000 workers 

in the United States who handle and transport HAZMAT or respond to accidents that may involve the release of hazardous materials. Today I will briefly comment on transporting lithium batteries on aircraft, external product piping, special permits, and 

OSHA jurisdiction. My written statement also includes our position 

regarding training for HAZMAT workers and emergency responders. 

The Teamsters Union represents approximately 2,550 cargo air 

pilots who are employed at 15 different cargo airlines. We are very 

concerned about transporting lithium batteries on aircraft, but we 

think that if precautions are taken such transport could be safely 

accomplished. 

The Teamsters Union agrees with the safety recommendations 

that the National Transportation Safety Board issued regarding 

this matter. We also strongly support the provisions in section 201 

34 

of this legislation that encompasses those recommendations and 

further addresses the dangers associated with the transport of lithium batteries in aircraft. 

Limiting stowage of lithium batteries to crew-accessible locations 

is essential to protecting crew members from certain disasters 

should a fire occur on board the aircraft. With no way to access an 

area where an explosion and or fire could erupt, and no certainty 

that the crew could land the airplane quickly, we think that it is 

absolutely necessary that short of a fire suppression system or storage in fire-resistant containers lithium batteries be stored in crewaccessible locations. It is also important to establish load limits for 

batteries on board aircraft and ensure that batteries are properly 

labeled and packaged. 

Because of the competitive nature of the tank haul industry, the 

Teamsters Union initially had significant concerns about how some 

proposed changes in the legislation might affect the job security of 

our nearly 11,000 members who were employed in this industry. 

But we want to make it perfectly clear to every Member of this 

Subcommittee that we support the provisions outlined in section 

202 of the bill. We firmly believe that the Committee has struck 

a fair balance between the safety of workers and the motoring public and costs to carriers. We agree that prohibiting the transport of 

Class 3 flammables and wet lines on vehicles manufactured 2 years 

after the enactment of the legislation and giving the industry 10 

years to bring existing vehicles into compliance will be both protective to workers and achievable by industry. 

With respect to the concerns expressed for the safety of workers 

who perform jobs to retrofit vehicles, we support the worker safety 

provisions in this legislation that require a review and appropriate 

update of existing worker safety standards by the Department of 

Transportation and the Labor Department. 

With respect to special permits, the Teamsters Union has always 

been concerned about the issuance of special permits, especially relating to the transport of HAZMAT. In many cases, special permits 

are routinely renewed or modified without adequate review. In 

some cases these permits have been granted to umbrella groups for 

an entire specialized industry without examination of the specific 

carriers involved. 

It is only common sense that the safety history of a carrier be 

examined and a determination made that they meet the safety 

standards necessary to qualify to receive a new permit or have an 

existing permit renewed or modified. Therefore, we strongly support the provisions contained in section 401 of the legislation. 

The Teamsters Union is aware of ongoing efforts to eliminate 

OSHA’s authority to protect workers who load, unload, and handle 

HAZMAT. This is a critical issue for the Teamsters, and we recommend that any such attempts by industry during this reauthorization period be rejected. Based on our experience working with 

OSHA on HAZMAT transportation issues, it is our opinion that the 

agency has the experience, commitment, and track record to effectively protect transportation HAZMAT workers. 

The Teamsters Union commends the Committee for having concern about the safety and security of the traveling public and 

HAZMAT workers. As the amount of HAZMAT being transported 

35 

on our Nation’s supply chain increases, so does the risk to our safety and security. 

Enhancing the Federal HAZMAT laws and reauthorizing the 

Federal safety HAZMAT program are important steps that this 

Congress can take to protect HAZMAT workers and the general 

public. We look forward to working with you on this important endeavor. 

I am available to answer any questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Cannon. Thank you. 

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Shuster, 

Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you on the important subject of wet lines. 

My name is John Cannon. I serve as Vice President - Sales & 

Marketing for Walker Group Holdings. We are a company of over 

a thousand employees, and in a typical year we produce 3,000 

cargo tanks. 

I am a professional engineer and a design certifying engineer in 

accordance with U.S. DOT rules, so I feel I am qualified to testify 

about some of these matters. Today I speak to you on behalf of not 

just my company but also the industry. As Congressman Petri 

pointed out before, I have had the privilege of serving in leadership 

positions on several industry groups. 

Allow me to preface my remarks by indicating that I share concerns that have already been shared here today about whether this 

wet lines ban can be justified, and I am especially sensitive to the 

issue as far as the risk of retrofit. My company operates a number 

of repair facilities across the country. While we would stand to benefit economically from performing this repair, we would rather not, 

because the risks involved are so great. 

For your consideration today, I would like to offer comments on 

four specific areas, first of all, the scope of any wet lines ban, 

should your Committee decide to move forward with wet lines legislation. 

Secondly, I would like to comment on the need for flexibility. 

Third, I would like to offer a few comments on time required for 

coming up with alternative solutions. 

And, fourth, I would like to speak about the importance of allowing alternative solutions on both existing tanks as well as new 

tanks. 

First, regarding scope, I would ask that all of you please know 

that not all tanks are the same. As many of you may have seen 

today, a typical DOT 406 tank can have up to 50 gallons of product 

piping. In contrast, a 407 tank can have less than 1 gallon. So the 

risks involved with these two different vehicles is considerably different. 

Secondly, I ask you to take into account that a DOT 407 by its 

nature might haul a different chemical every day of the week, one 

day a Class 3 flammable like xylene, the next day it might haul 

caustic soda. As a result, this type of trailer is cleaned almost 

daily. The presence of a purging system or some other internal 

mechanism would create a serious cleaning issue, a contamination 

issue, and an unintentional hazard as far as the hazardous material reaction. 

36 

The second area I would like to comment about is flexibility. I 

believe the free market is best served if your Subcommittee will 

allow for different innovations to be brought to address this potential issue. A strict wet lines ban would stymie innovation, in my 

opinion. Our industry cannot be limited to just one solution. One 

feasible alternative approach I would like to discuss today is what 

we call the encapsulated wet line. 

But let me make a very important distinction. This is an encapsulated wet line that would also include piping that is much 

stronger than the tank itself. The idea behind this is in the event 

of the extremely rare event of a side impact the piping may be dislodged but no contents would escape and become fuel for ignition. 

As far as time, 2 years has already been provided for in H.R. 

4016. For various reasons that are outlined in my written testimony, we would respectfully ask that 3 to 4 years be provided. In 

my experience, developing several products over the last 22 years, 

all of these steps have to be followed to ensure the best possible 

products are brought to market. 

Finally, I would ask that whatever is allowed on a retrofit basis 

also be able to be allowed to be applied to new equipment that 

would allow fleets large and small to have commonality of parts 

and the same procedures to ensure the safety of their workers. 

In conclusion, I ask that you carefully consider what, if any, 

cargo tanks should be subject to a wet lines ban and, if enacted, 

a wet lines regulation should allow alternative approaches for both 

new and retrofitted equipment. 

Thank you, and I am available for any questions you may have. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. All right, Mr. Andenmatten. 

Mr. ANDENMATTEN. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Brown and 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for your gracious invitation for us to testify before you on the hazards of wet lines practices and on our wet line technology that has been proven in the 

field over the past 11 years to eliminate these risks in a simple, 

efficient, and an economical way. 

My name is Ron Andenmatten. Together with my brother, Roy 

Andenmatten, we are co-owners of Cargo Tank Concepts and we 

are the co-owners of the wet lines purging system. This system was 

demonstrated on the Dateline NBC episode reporting on the hazards of wet lines and entitled Wet Lines Running on Empty. That 

episode first aired in May of 1999. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. DOT 

responded to the NTSB that a rulemaking would be shortcoming. 

It is a travesty of both public safety and common sense that gasoline tanker trucks continue to transport up to 50 gallons of gasoline and frail 4 inch diameter outlet pipes that are actually designed to fail if impacted in an accident. These pipes, commonly 

known as wet lines, were never designed to carry gasoline. Thus, 

with the exception of Sunoco and a few others, gasoline tanker 

trucks that are daily being operated in a way that they were never 

originally designed. 

You have heard the testimony from the NTSB that wet line incidents are underreported. The opposition has stated that these are 

rare events, but they continue to base those arguments on a database that the NTSB has shown provides no means for indicating 

whether or not a wet line incident may have actually occurred. 

37 

Many of the noted wet line fatalities were never originally reported as wet line incidents, nor were they uncovered through this 

very same U.S. DOT database that the opposition uses to compute 

this alleged rarity. 

In light of the foregoing, we believe the burden of proof here 

should not belong to the public safety. 

I would like to ask the Members of Subcommittee to ask themselves this simple and obvious question: Is it logical to assume that 

outlet piping designed to fail if impacted in an accident will rarely 

do so? 

Of even greater importance than the misrepresentation of the 

frequency of wet lines incidents are the understatements of the potential consequences. It is important for the Members to understand that wet line hazards are not limited to the gasoline in the 

wet lines, but rather they also involve the entire load of the cargo 

tank once the wet line gasoline pool ignites. 

An NTSB report concluded that a non-traffic accident resulting 

in a wet line release of just 28 gallons of gasoline was sufficient 

to cause the entire tanker to burn out of control and destroy a $7 

million thruway overpass. It is absurd that this $7 million figure 

has been used in cost/benefit analyses as a worst case scenario. 

This accident could just have easily occurred on a suspension 

bridge. The heat generated would be more than adequate to compromise the main cable and bring down the bridge. I ask the Members of the Subcommittee to seriously consider how much that 

might cost. 

All too frequently we have seen how regulatory action can stall 

on a safety issue until the worst finally does happen and the wet 

line issue has been stalling for decades. 

In light of the foregoing and in the interest of public safety and 

our national infrastructure, I implore the Subcommittee to act now 

on behalf of public safety where others have failed, to stop the endless cycle of revisiting the same old issues and to address the facts, 

concerns, and recommendations on wetlines, as addressed by the 

National Transportation Safety Board. 

Sunoco has identified two accidents in the Philadelphia area 

where it believes purged lines may have prevented the destruction 

of its trailers. With Sunoco’s estimate of the cost of each combined 

tractor-trailer exceeding $200,000, the benefits of the system has 

already potentially paid for the cost of Sunoco’s entire fleet on this 

basis alone. Remember that this figure has not even factored in the 

savings of the other costs normally associated with such an incident, such as the cost of emergency response, environmental response, collateral damage to the public infrastructure, injuries, fatalities, lawsuits, etc. 

Sunoco has also stated they have reaped substantial serendipitous benefits through increased driver awareness. 

One of the biggest complaints voiced by the opponents to a wet 

line prohibition is the misconception that welding is required for 

retrofits on existing tank equipment. This is not so. As you should 

have witnessed earlier this morning, a non welded option is available where a smaller check valve is easily installed by drilling and 

tapping a small hole through the emergency valve flange. 

38 

We also wish to announce to the Subcommittee that we are now 

offering to any customer, who is willing to convert their fleet, the 

installation of our automated purging system at their facility absolutely free. 

There are two misconceptions I would like to address. The first 

is that our purging system is the only one available. In the February 2002 edition of Modern Bulk Transporter, one of the most 

prominent industry journals, the marketing of three different purging systems that were demonstrated at the October 2001 NTTC 

cargo tank maintenance seminar, were described and compared in 

detail. In the article they state, ‘‘Mechanical purging systems are 

available from three companies, Civacon, EBW, Incorporated, and 

Syltone Industries. Representatives from the three companies discussed the features of their products at the cargo tank maintenance 

seminar.’’ 

Another myth is that accidents that show a release of more than 

50 gallons of gasoline cannot be considered wet line incidents. One 

of the biggest benefits of the purging system is that it prechecks 

the integrity of each emergency valve on each and every load. This 

is important because the emergency valve is what controls the entire contents of the compartment. When installing our system we 

have found on average that about 1 in every 10 emergency valves 

is either leaking or stuck open and needs servicing and/or replacement. That amounts to about one in two trucks having a leaking 

valve. 

One of the reasons for this development is that when the industry switched to bottom loading there was no longer any continual 

way of telling when the emergency valve was leaking. It is important to understand that an emergency valve that is leaking or 

stuck open will discharge the entire contents of the compartment 

if the outlet piping is damaged. Consider the consequences of 2,500 

gallons of gasoline pouring out within a city, near any of the many 

subway ventilation gratings within the subway system and streets. 

A resulting explosion in this scenario would be catastrophic. It is 

important to note that no product would be released in this case, 

had a purging system been installed. The faulty valve would have 

been discovered before leaving the terminal. Thus this scenario represents a wet line accident with a faulty emergency valve. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We have to get into the questioning, and 

we will give you an opportunity to answer your questions and finish your statement. 

Mr. ANDENMATTEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I am still very 

interested in the lithium battery transportation, and one of the 

things that was not brought up was any training to personnel, 

whether loading, off-loading, any of the personnel. Is OSHA involved in being able to establish that or is there anything that protects them and protects the passengers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. We do feeling training is a very important part of the issue. And currently no training is required for carriers that accept or transport these batteries because they are not 

considered as part of the hazardous materials regulations. They are 

accepted from the majority of the requirements. 

39 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Wouldn’t the bill of lading be able to determine or the pilot—you know, trucks have to carry a bill of lading, 

trains have to carry a bill of lading. Why wouldn’t there be one afforded the pilot so they would know what you have on board? 

Mr. ROGERS. We strongly agree with that. What we have is a notice to pilot command of the dangerous goods hazardous materials 

that are on the aircraft. Lithium batteries are specifically exempted 

from that requirement. So we could have 5 pounds of dry ice—— 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. And the reason it is exempted? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it goes back to the history I think a lot, because batteries, before lithium batteries came into the market, they 

generally weren’t a problem with the alkaline batteries. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So there hasn’t been an update on the regulations is what you are saying? Because I am concerned, and Ms. Edwards is saying when there is fire in there, there is very little you 

can do about it unless you are trained to be able to do something 

about it or with it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Right. And let me make clear the legislation here 

and what is being proposed would require training for people. It 

would bring them into the fully regulated dangerous goods scheme, 

hazardous materials scheme. So anybody who would transport 

these would be required to then have training. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. On both the lithium and the wet lines is 

Homeland Security involved in any of this? Because that could pose 

a big problem for any major site where a truck would be taken in 

the area, in your area. 

Mr. CASEY. Not on lithium batteries. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No, no, I am talking about the wet lines specifically. 

Mr. CASEY. Don’t know. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody? 

Mr. BYRD. There is, not wet lines specifically, but for drivers of 

HAZMAT laden cargo tanks, they would have to get background 

checks per TSA, Homeland Security requirement. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That brings the point for the fire protection. 

Are the fire departments trained in HAZMAT or the areas where 

these trucks may be carrying flammables? 

Ms. WINDSOR. I would say most of the time that there is emergency response within an area that would be able to handle any 

existing emergency with them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will save my 

questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The question of the lithium batteries, Mr. Casey 

and Mr. Rogers seem to have two very different views on what is 

out there. First question is the fire suppression, Mr. Rogers said 

that it is on most planes. Can you respond to that, Mr. Casey? 

Mr. CASEY. It is in the lower decks of passenger aircraft. And as 

he mentioned, many cargo aircrafts there are fire suppression systems. One of the questions that some of our members raised was 

under the legislation would those systems be regarded as meeting 

the criteria of the legislation. We know there is suppression systems, but whether it meets the intent of the legislation, at least for 

some of the members, that is a genuine question. 

40 

Mr. SHUSTER. The government would say not up to standard, not 

up to what we would want—you would have to retrofit them. 

Mr. CASEY. We don’t know what would emerge from the legislation in a rulemaking proceeding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The other question on true accessibility, I mean I 

have talked to some folks who say these things are more like a 

truck, you pack it full of stuff and there is not really an opportunity for the crew to get back into the cargo area. 

Mr. CASEY. Well, a narrow bodied aircraft there is obviously a 

consideration, yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Say that again. 

Mr. CASEY. A narrow bodied aircraft, like 737, something like 

that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. There is not room to get back to—— 

Mr. CASEY. As I understand it, typically not. 

Mr. ROGERS. Can I address that too as well? In the dangerous 

good scheme there are many, many commodities that are required 

to be crew accessible. That is not a new provision. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Say that again. 

Mr. ROGERS. There are many commodities that are required to 

be crew accessible. That is not a new provision for the HAZMAT 

regulations. They are applying something that is already in place. 

Mr. SHUSTER. For cargo planes? 

Mr. ROGERS. For cargo aircraft. And I think it is important to 

keep in mind that if this fire becomes uncontrolled there is no way 

to put it out and we risk losing the aircraft. So we need to have 

some way of addressing the issue, and whether that is a fire suppression system in the lower holds or something they are putting 

on the aircraft or developing new packaging that would prevent it. 

The very minimum is at least having the crew be able to access 

this commodity and fight the fire. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And the third question is on the international, the 

ICAO rejected what we are proposing and the Secretary seemed to 

say it is not going to affect our industry, our air cargo industry. I 

can’t imagine that it’s not going to have some kind of impact on 

it. Could you both talk a little bit about what your view is, what 

you think is likely to happen? 

Mr. CASEY. It clearly will. If you have disparities, that is a problem. Harmonization is a topic that whether it is HAZMAT, whether 

it is safety, or whether it is security, we keep trying to achieve in 

the international arena. And the reason for it is both for safety or 

security, but also because of operational considerations. If you get 

disparate regimes out there you have got a problem on your hands. 

Moreover if you have disparate regimes there are other jurisdictions out there that have shown a desire to regulate, a real willingness to regulate, and we don’t want to encourage that kind of individual regulation outside some sort of an international framework. 

It is not an easy issue, not easy to achieve, there are frustrations 

along the way. But from our perspective, whether we are talking 

about HAZMAT, whether we are talking about aircraft certification 

issues, or whether we are talking about civil aviation security 

issues, we want a seamless international environment. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think that is an excellent question, and I actually 

am the panel member for the pilots at the ICAO Dangerous Goods 

41 

Panel. I participated fully in those discussions last month. It was 

our proposal that was ultimately not accepted. I think it is also important to point out that whether we allow this process to go forward though an NPRM or a legislation there will be a lack of harmonization. So that will happen regardless. 

The question comes up why didn’t ICAO adopt these provision. 

Well, one of the reasons is the U.S. has the best reporting system 

in the world and they would—almost all of the incidents involve 

U.S. carriers or in the United States. I don’t believe that is because 

the United States is doing this any worse than anybody else. But 

one instant came from Macau to Hong Kong and then was picked 

up by a U.S. carrier. The fire actually occurred on a previous flight, 

but the Chinese didn’t report it to anybody. It was only the U.S. 

carrier that picked up the package that was burned and they found 

it, so they reported it. So the visibility of the problem is much 

greater in the U.S. and we have had the accidents. 

Also a lot of the other ICAO panel members pointed out to the 

United States that they haven’t even adopted the proposals that 

were enacted in 2007. So it is difficult to say that they would want 

to agree to something new. But as the U.S. pointed out at the 

meeting, the reason why is because PHMSA didn’t believe that 

they went far enough and they are wanting to create additional 

regulations here. 

So I think to be able to be a leader in the international community this legislation is important because it will put these rules in 

place in the United States and then the rest of the world will have 

the ability to follow and come forward. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Why did they reject it? I am not quite sure. They 

rejected it because ours are too strict and they didn’t—I am not 

sure I follow why they rejected it. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am sure there are a lot of different reasons, it is 

hard to summarize a 2-week meeting in 30 seconds. But basically 

they are worried about the cost. Since I last testified here in May 

we have had six fires in the U.S. just involving lithium batteries. 

And so I think at some point you have to take action to protect the 

traveling public and not worry quite as much about total cost. 

Mr. SHUSTER. We certainly do, but when the international community is rejecting us outright, that says to me that it is going to 

cost jobs, there will be U.S. pilots that aren’t going to be flying 

planes because the U.S.—we have imposed a standard on our fleet 

that they aren’t doing on theirs. So it will cost us jobs, pilots will 

be out of work and people on the ground will be out of work. So 

is there some way we can find a compromise that the international 

community will say, yes, we can go along with that or are you just 

telling me they don’t—from what it sounds like, they don’t care. It 

is not that our planes are not falling out of the sky because of this. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, let’s be clear they have adopted some of the 

proposals, it is not like they rejected everything outright. They just 

haven’t taken all the steps that we feel are necessary. 

This lithium metal battery ban on passenger aircraft, that is 

clearly something different than the rest of the world, more restrictive, and that hasn’t cost American jobs. I don’t think the market 

for computers or cell phones in the U.S. is diminishing rapidly because of these. 

42 

Mr. SHUSTER. I am not so much talking about the passengers, because I understand they have a hundred people up there. Every life 

is precious, but it seems to me that we have to find a balance here 

again. 

Mr. CASEY. I am not sure we are even at the point where we 

have to talk about a balance. We are at the point where we have 

to acknowledge that we want to be leaders in this effort, number 

1, but number 2, we also have to acknowledge among ourselves at 

least that we don’t have unique insight into these issues. If at least 

some members in the international community don’t share our 

views, we ought to sit back and take that into account. It doesn’t 

mean that the rulemaking isn’t going to proceed along its own way. 

I don’t mean to suggest that it shouldn’t, but the rulemaking ought 

to take into account the fact that expertise in this area isn’t limited 

to those here in the United States. There are some countries out 

there with very sophisticated expertise in this area, very sophisticated air carriers, and homeland is where people don’t want to be 

exposed to unnecessary, unsafe conditions. If they don’t share our 

view at an international forum designed to explore these issues, 

that is a consideration. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I think most of the questions are pertaining to the wet lines. Let me just ask the question, because both 

of you represent the industry and seems like it is a conflict there 

because Mr Casey you indicated that you think that we need to 

stand down and let the rulemaking process go forward. If we pass 

legislation, then that would throw it behind additional time. So 

seems like it is a conflict right here. 

Mr. CASEY. I am not sure it is a conflict and the desire to get 

the same result, at least from the airlines’ perspective, from ATA 

members’ perspective. We are familiar with the rulemaking process. We use it in other areas, not just for HAZMAT. We think it 

is effective because of the involvement of whole spectrum stakeholders, which I think in this area is particularly important. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I think so. 

Mr. CASEY. There is an entity, PHMSA in this instance, that has 

a statutory responsibility to regulate in the public interest. We recognize that. So we are not trying to slow down the process. To do 

that I suspect we would be advocating that you to tell PHMSA not 

to do a rulemaking right now, but we are not. What we are saying 

is it is teed up, let’s get on with it, let’s put it in a forum where 

everybody has access, where it is data driven, where we can go 

through the record and figure out what has happened and we can 

formulate, if it is necessary, changes in the regulatory environment 

that advances safety considerations that have been spoken about 

this afternoon. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Rogers, what problem do you have 

with that? Because if we pass the bill, you know given that I always see a bill passed as amazing and the President sign it. You 

have to go through the House, the Senate, committees. It may happen 2 or 5 years from now. You know the rule is getting ready to 

happen. 

43 

Mr. ROGERS. I think it is an excellent question. In fact, that 

sums up the rest of the remarks I was going to make. We think 

the legislative process is important in this case, mainly because we 

have known about this problem for over 10 years and PHMSA has 

still not acted and taken decisive measures. The last time of the 

issue of lithium battery rulemaking was 2003 and it took over 4 

years for that to come into place and then it still didn’t go far 

enough. It has been over 2 years since the NTSB issued the recommendations and they still haven’t enacted the NPRM process. 

So I think with the legislative process it would ensure even with 

that 2 years a much faster track and would also ensure that there 

wasn’t such this delay from the issuing of the NPRM through all 

the comment period lawsuits, everything else, until the actual rule 

is taken into place. Because when the requirements would be set 

down here through the legislative process it would be much clearer 

what had to be done and the process could go forward much more 

quickly. It would also ensure that the rule that is ultimately published by PHMSA would meet the standards Congress is establishing here. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you all again for your testimony and your 

expertise, it is truly appreciated. We have all talked about striking 

this balance between safety and making sure that we are competitive. But I have to tell you I simply don’t fully embrace this. If others don’t do it, we can’t because we are at a competitive disadvantage. We have child labor laws, and that probably puts us at a competitive disadvantage, but I am not about to roll that back. I have 

also flown on one of those regional carriers from Guangzhou to 

Chengdu, and I was never so damn happy in my life to get on the 

ground. 

So there are reasons here and there are things that we can lead 

on. I don’t want to put an undue burden on this, but I am looking 

at this legislation again, proper labeling, testing of batteries, proper packaging. Why is that so burdensome, Mr. Casey? Why does 

that pose a burden? Why shouldn’t we lead on this issue? Because 

you are hearing from the pilots. I am concerned about this from the 

pilots perspective. They are saying it is a danger to them and they 

are in the plane. 

Mr. CASEY. I understand the concern. No one is disputing that 

this is not a serious issue. We think though that the rulemaking 

proceeding is the best way to get it out on the table, it is transparent as all get out, it is public record. 

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Roger’s concern that we are dragging on feet on 

this is another way to drag it out, do you feel that is warranted. 

Mr. CASEY. From our perspective it is just the opposite. What we 

have heard this afternoon is we are about to see a rulemaking proceeding come out of the OMB process. So it is there. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. 

Mr. CASEY. We are all going to be involved in it when it comes 

out. We don’t have to wait until—no offense, until there is congressional action. It is going to be there. 

Mr. SHUSTER. None taken. 

Mr. CASEY. It is going to be something that anybody, anybody 

with an interest, including those who may be very strident on the 

44 

issue, have the opportunity to express themselves and try to persuade the decision maker about it. So we don’t have any concern 

about getting involved in that kind of a process. We think it is the 

optimum way to proceed, particularly given the concerns that have 

been expressed this afternoon. 

Mr. WALZ. Does it concern you that the lithium manufacturer 

told Chairman Oberstar that they would get this thing killed at 

OMB? Does that kind of stuff matter? 

Mr. CASEY. I—— 

Mr. WALZ. I know you can’t speak directly for them. That is one 

of my concerns. I wouldn’t argue that there is faster ways. 

Mr. CASEY. We didn’t try to get it killed, and that is my whole 

point today. We are not trying to object the rulemaking process. We 

are willing to accept it. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I appreciate it. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would like to point out again that the Department 

of Transportation indicated that this is not inconsistent with what 

they are trying to do. We are not interfering with the goals of the 

rulemaking process, but your concern about what was said to Mr. 

Oberstar is exactly my concern. The last time any lithium battery 

regulation was proposed in 2003 it was delayed and delayed 

through lawsuits and different tactics to from prevent that from 

ever reaching the light the day. And I think in light of the fact that 

these are clear safety priorities, we are talking about labeling and 

limiting the quantity on the aircraft, and that is consistent with 

what DOT wants to do, then I think this is important and will help 

the process along and it won’t hinder it. 

Mr. WALZ. You mentioned other products. Could you name one 

for me? Other products that are done that way, that are done that 

way, things that are shipped and already labeled and already have 

this. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yeah, there has thousands of them, ethanol, fuel 

cells, hydrochloric acid, all kinds of things. But I will point out that 

if we have 5 pounds of flammable paint on the aircraft the pilots 

are notified that it is there, and that 5 pounds of flammable paint 

could be located next to a thousand computers or a thousand lithium batteries on a pallet and will have no idea that they are even 

there. 

Mr. WALZ. Very good. I am going to switch gears. 

Ms. Windsor, thank you for your testimony and your real world 

experience. This does matter to us and you have heard us all express concerns in trying to get this right. I want to be really, really 

sensitive to cost, because you have your costs that are already associated with your business. 

Any chance we get any savings on insurance by doing this, by 

putting these purges in there? Is that a silly question dealing with 

insurance companies? 

Ms. WINDSOR. I wouldn’t be able to see it. No. 

Mr. WALZ. You quote a number of $800,000, you are figuring $800,000 per retrofit. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Correct. 

Mr. WALZ. I am hearing from the other industry folks, Sunoco 

folks, that said it was about 4,000 for them. It matters and I am 

not saying that is a small—400,000 is still big. How would the 

45 

800,0000 compare to your general maintenance like tires and other 

things that you do? Is that a big percentage? 

Ms. WINDSOR. It is major, it is a large number, yes. 

Mr. WALZ. This is a major purchase. 

Ms. WINDSOR. It is a major purchase and then it would give us— 

we would not be able to put other safety items on there that I 

would rather invest in. 

Mr. WALZ. Is the compromise that everything new because I am 

assuming you are figuring this retrofitting every one of yours. 

Some of your trucks will be off the road by 2020, right, new ones 

will come on? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Very few, because cargo tanks last forever. They 

really start and through the years they go from a gasoline tanker 

to hauling diesel fuel to jet fuels down to deicer—— 

Mr. WALZ. So some type of solution with all these others still 

needs to be there whether it is a mandated standard, not a retrofit, 

if it is the dumping at the rack or whatever. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Right. 

Mr. WALZ. But we are still going to have to deal with all those 

because you very well could have a good percentage of those on. 

Ms. WINDSOR. That is right. 

Mr. WALZ. So if you are looking out at 2020 and figuring your 

budget and everything, this is a big hit. 

Ms. WINDSOR. It is a major hit, especially for a small company. 

Mr. WALZ. Compared to anything else that we have done that 

looks like this to you? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Currently, no, this is major. 

Mr. WALZ. I yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just have one or two questions, Mr. Casey—I 

am sorry, Mr. Cannon. You talked about a year being needed to 

bring about the manufacturing of alternative approaches. Are there 

things under development now with regard to wet lines? Do you 

have something in mind there? I know you talked about 2 years of 

getting things to market. Do you have something in mind? Is there 

research being done, alternatives that we need to know about? 

Mr. CANNON. Well, Congressman Cummings, there were several 

different alternatives that were being pursued the last time the 

U.S. DOT considered a wet lines ban, but all of those were ultimately shelved. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You said shelved? 

Mr. CANNON. Shelved. Once it was concluded by the DOT that 

the cost/benefit analysis did not suggest going forward. That having been said, we think that there has to be at least 1 year for research and development once legislation is enacted and rules are 

promulgated by the U.S. DOT because we have to know what the 

standards are before we can actually develop products that are 

going to meet the various standards, and hopefully it is a performance standard that will allow many different solutions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. When you look back at those things that have 

been shelved, are you familiar with them? 

Mr. CANNON. One of them is what I have described for you here 

today, Congressman Cummings, the encapsulated wet lines. There 

46 

had been quite a bit of work done on that. In fact a prototype valve 

had been developed and so forth. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is all I have. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Casey, I want 

to go back to your testimony. In your written testimony and also 

in the presentation you indicate, and I quote, the legislation under 

consideration which would not be enacted into law for some time 

and by its own terms would not require a final rule until 2 years 

after its enactment could have the intended but very real consequence of interrupting the anticipated rulemaking proceeding. 

And my question is whether that conclusion changes based on 

the testimony that you heard from the earlier panel and Deputy 

Secretary Porcari, who indicated that there was nothing really inconsistent in what they were doing in the rulemaking process and 

this legislation. 

Mr. CASEY. I don’t think it does, because if legislation is enacted, 

they are going to have to refashion whatever the rulemaking looks 

like to fit into the legislative demands. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, let me just go to that. Can you just tell me 

if you would in the process that is going on now whether the list 

of requirements, as I read the list of requirements in the bill numbers 1 to 8, that those are entirely consistent both with the Deputy 

Secretary’s testimony here in September and what he said today. 

And so it seems to me—and also the window is not a finite 2 years, 

it says within 2 years. 

Mr. CASEY. Yes, that is true. 

Ms. EDWARDS. If that rulemaking is proceeding and we pass legislation, there is nothing at all that says that the rulemaking 

couldn’t proceed or it couldn’t be simply refashioned or restructured 

given that they believe that they are the same requirements. So I 

am really unclear about your resistance to the legislative process, 

merely clarifying that the Department has the responsibility to 

produce rules for the transportation of lithium batteries and also 

the wet lines issue. 

Mr. CASEY. We agree that they do clearly. What we haven’t seen 

is the rulemaking. So I can’t tell you whether there is going to be 

an exact match or not. I think that anybody involved in regulatory 

proceedings if they have a piece of legislation that is enacted after 

the proceeding begins is going to take a look at refashioning the 

proceeding in light of the legislation. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Or making sure that is it is consistent, and certainly the Department is aware of this legislation, they have testified before this Subcommittee and the Full Committee about the 

legislation. You heard the Deputy Secretary say here today that indeed what they are pursuing is really consistent with the legislation. 

So again I am really unclear about the resistance. And so I would 

also—I also want to ask Mr. Rogers if you would. There are instances where the United States in the international environment 

actually leads and instances where if there are changes that are 

made to our law here that that actually becomes a standard in the 

international community. And so I just wonder in the process that 

47 

you have been involved in, has that been part of the discussion as 

well? 

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, absolutely. And I know in speaking with, it was 

brought up earlier what would happen perhaps with Canada and 

Mexico, and I know Canada is following extremely closely what is 

happening in the United States with relation to lithium batteries. 

Without speaking for the Canadians, I think they would find it 

very difficult to justify to their constituents why they wouldn’t 

adopt something that has been proven successful for the United 

States. And if this rulemaking, as I believe it will, helps result in 

fewer instances and risk to the traveling public then I think that 

will serve as a role model and certainly a very strong argument for 

other states in ICAO to adopt the same provision. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And of course risk to workers as well. 

Madam Chair, I just have one last question. It actually goes to 

Ms. Windsor and Mr. Andenmatten, because I am really curious 

about the disparity in the dollar figures that are cited for the purging systems. I don’t really know that I quite understand it, it is on 

one hand $8,000 per and another $4,000 per. I thought I understand from earlier testimony that there was only one system available, but in your testimony, Mr. Andenmatten, you indicate that 

there are several technologies available. 

Mr. ANDEMATTEN. Yes, as I testified, I don’t know what the 

present status of the technology is but they were certainly demonstrated back in 2001. So it was not just our own purging system, 

I believe, as they said, Civacon and EBW also had a system. So 

there are at least three purging systems that were demonstrated 

at that time. 

The other issue regarding this concern is about us being the only 

manufacturer. In fact this process has dragged on now for so long 

our patent was filed in 1992, it expires in 2012. So our—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. So by 2020—- 

Mr. ANDEMATTEN. By 2012 I believe—my estimation and I know 

business fairly well, I can tell you that there are going to be so 

many people ready to pounce on and just copying our system, I believe, because I think it is a good system, but others will come up 

with their own systems. They are going to be—it is extremely aggressive in development. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So even for some of us who don’t believe the free 

market drives everything, in this instance the free market actually 

could really drive additional technologies and production. Ms. 

Windsor, and I will conclude. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Again, our numbers are approximate numbers, because we are taking the approximate cost of the product, the only 

system currently that is on the market, and that we understood 

was between 3,000 and 3,200 to the shops themselves and then obviously there is a markup. Then the trailer has to be cleaned, 

which is another cost. We have understood from Superior Tank 

that they said the average cost is approximately 2,700 to 3,000 for 

installation. We are talking about approximately 4 days of down 

time and I am unable to use the equipment at all, and taxes, and 

then reinforcement of different hoses and gaskets could be another 

additional thousand dollars. We know seriously there is only one 

system on the market. The other systems are not yet been marVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:10 May 17, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53678 JASON
48 

keted. I understand it is only to a private fleet. There is not a common carrier that is using the system. 

It adds additional issues that once the system is put on and you 

have loaded this product and you don’t have what we call green 

light or you haven’t purged all the lines and you are at a loading 

facility, can you go to the street then with one line still having 

product in it. And if you can’t then it has to be pumped off at the 

loading facility, and then who owns the gas? Do I then own it if 

they are not going to take it back at the loading facility? 

So we are talking about as future times go on there could be additional costs that are going to be put on to the common carrier 

versus a private fleet who owns the gas the entire time they are 

transporting it. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And was your $800,000 estimate over a 10-year 

period? 

Ms. WINDSOR. It was if we did it immediately, yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. In terms of the lifetime. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Well, our trailers, we keep them in service for well 

over 10 years. 

Ms. EDWARDS. How long do you keep them in service? 

Ms. WINDSOR. We have some 30 and 40 years old. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. I have a couple of questions 

and I think Ms. Windsor and Mr. Cannon—— 

Mr. ANDENMATTEN. Andenmatten. 

Ms. BROWN. No, no. Your question is different. You two have 

some of the same issues, the costs. This is a major issue and I 

think we can break it down. For example, the cost on a new truck, 

I think that is one issue. Let’s talk about that. If you are going to 

buy an additional truck and if the wisdom of the Committee is that 

we want to add the system, would you look at it differently as buying a new truck? I understand the cost on a new truck could be 

1,500 to $3,000. 

Ms. WINDSOR. We understand it could be at least that if not 

more. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. On a new truck. 

Ms. WINDSOR. On a new trailer, yes. It could be anywhere from 3 maybe up to $5,000 on a new one. And once again if I were to 

purchase one trailer tomorrow, do I then make a decision if I am 

going to put that device on or an anti-roll device, because there is 

more trailers that are rolled—— 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I understand, the roll is the real issue. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Yes. Again the six deaths that have occurred 

have—on a normal day a tractor and trailer going down the road 

does not have people running up underneath of them. It is when 

they are stopped or someone runs a red light or unfortunately 

drunk drivers. Cars do not end up underneath tractors and trailers 

under normal operation. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. I agree with Ms. Windsor, those figures. New 

equipment, once Federal excise tax is figured in, the cost would approach $5,000 per unit. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. And how many trucks are we talking 

about? We understand the new trucks, but the retrofitting is the 

49 

one that we have the serious issue with and how many trucks are 

we talking about? 

Mr. CANNON. Conservatively as far as gasoline tank trailers, 

there would be over 30,000 that would have to be retrofit. Our concerns with that again we are a major repairer of cargo tanks. Our 

concern with that is having to do any work with inside the tank. 

There are very many cavities that contain vapors within a gasoline 

tank. Those cavities cannot always be completely purged. And to 

whatever extent there is any welding arc or any spark from working on metal there is a chance of a catastrophic failure. I would 

suggest to the Committee the risk is far greater than the 20 deaths 

that have occurred in the last 10 years. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Byrd, I find your comment, reading 

your testimony, at first you were against it because you felt it 

would affect the job retention in the industry, but—and it might 

threaten jobs, but now you say your issues have been addressed. 

By whom? What has changed? 

Mr. BYRD. Well, actually I testified before this Subcommittee 

back in May, as I recall. I think my position was consistent with 

what I presented today. There was some discussion at the Teamsters Union with our tank haul director and it is my understanding 

that our tank haul director had had some conversations about some 

carriers and there was some confusion, misinformation or what 

have you, and that issue has—after having some discussions with 

Committee staff those issues were—the concerns were resolved. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am sure. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Does the chairwoman yield? 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Windsor, I want to go back to something, 

you said there were—- part of the whole balancing act is trying to 

figure out how to strike a balance, but you said something very interesting. You said that doing this would cause you perhaps not to 

be able to do other safety things? Other than rollover, what other 

types of safety things might you be doing? 

I am trying to see—if we are trying to do this. In dealing with 

the wet lines. I am trying to figure out are other things that are 

just as significant or more significant or more likely that you 

wouldn’t be able to do. So I am just curious—I take it that rollover 

is a big deal. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Rollover is a big deal. There are numerous items 

coming out now for tractors and trailers, lane departure warning 

systems now, systems that tell you when you are getting approximately too close to something that an alarm will go off. So there 

is multiple safety equipment that is coming out that will assist the 

driver and help a tractor and trailer, because there are so many 

issues when they are in that truck around them. And you know 

again the lane departure and the anti-roll device would be two that 

I would offhand say that are on the market and could be put on 

a tractor and trailer. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I have been pressed that we are going 

to have to hear from the 1 minutes, because we have to leave about 

4 o’clock. 

50 

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Windsor and Mr. Cannon and Mr. Byrd have 

been pretty consistent. There has been a complete disregard for the 

loss of life that occurs in the presence of these vapors. Three times 

as many people have left their lives working around the vapors. 

You said you believe, and Mr. Cannon also, that the deaths in the 

shops were undercounted or under recorded. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Yes, yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. What—— 

Ms. WINDSOR. We believe there has been 20 because of the welding that we know of. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. 

Ms. WINDSOR. That is not welding to put this device on, that an 

is normal every day welding. If we take 30,000 cargo tanks now 

and have to weld on them, can you imagine the number that would 

increase? 

Why is it understated? Probably Mr. Cannon could says something. You have a welding shop, and I imagine not all of them 

would be reported. 

Mr. CANNON. Right, I don’t have specific knowledge about the extent of the underreporting of the 20, but I would like to echo what 

Ms. Windsor said, if you have people welding on 30,000 cargo tanks 

the risk of having much more than 20 deaths is substantial. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Even in light of OSHA coming out with new regulations. I talked to a gentleman today who said we were OSHA 

compliant, it was the individual did something wrong and then of 

course OSHA came in and said oh, you are not in compliance and 

that is what happens on all these deaths. As OSHA rules you think 

it will make people smarter and follow the rules better. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Well, as Mr. Cannon said, some of these trailers 

have hauled product and have absorbed the fumes and the vapors 

for many years. So they could be doing everything by an OSHA 

regulation, but then all of a sudden there is a pocket or a pit that 

has absorbed the products or the fumes so when they start the 

welding it is just enough that it would ignite and explode even following directions. 

Mr. BYRD. If I might, in terms of the underreporting of fatalities—— 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Byrd, I think you would report it 

because your drivers are trained, is that correct? 

Mr. BYRD. Our drivers are trained as drivers, yes. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. That is what I mean, as drivers. If they 

have an accident or if there is an incident don’t they report it? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, yes. There is a requirement that if you are involved in an accident, so yes, they would report that per regulations and per contract obligations. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Why is it such a concern on the underreporting if the drivers, that is their responsibility; if they are involved in an accident, they report it? 

Mr. BYRD. I am not sure that—I am certain that all drivers are 

not unionized drivers. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Okay, okay. 

Mr. BYRD. They may not have the same—feel the same obligation 

to report. 

51 

But if I might, in terms of underreporting of OSHA of fatalities—— 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. It is not fatalities, it has to be accidents. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, we are talking about the shops, the shops. 

Mr. BYRD. We are talking about the shops. OSHA has a very, 

very rigorous reporting system in place in term of fatalities. So I 

would find it very, very difficult to believe that there would be fatalities that would go unreported in an OSHA covered facility. I 

think I needed to make that statement. 

The second thing is the Congressman Shuster made the comment 

that people do dumb things, and that is one of the reasons why. 

We trying to engineer those human factors out of certain situations 

to reduce risk of accident. So I just wanted to state that for the 

record. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The Teamsters’ view on this is three times as 

many fatalities in the shops. 

Ms. WINDSOR. And the 20 that we are using came from an Internet based search. It did not come from OSHA because we do not 

have access to OSHA records. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. We have 10 minutes and 10 people. In 

Congress we have what we call 1 minutes. So anyone that wants 

to go to that mike you are going to have one minute, that has not 

gotten a chance to testify may come to the mike right here. 10- 

minute—— 

But first Kenan Advantage Group from North Carolina that flew 

in give him a chance. 

Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. MOULDER. Well, thank you, good afternoon, and thank you 

for the opportunity to speak on the potential wet lines ban contained in H.R. 4016. My name is R.J. Moulder. I am the Vice President of Fleet Services for the Kenan Advantage Group. The Kenan 

Advantage Group is the largest petroleum carrier in the United 

States. We employ 5,500 individuals and operate 2,612 cargo tanks 

for delivery of gasoline and other flammable liquids in 38 States. 

This year we will deliver over 18 billion gallons of refined petroleum products by truck. This equates to a load of fuel delivered 

every 15 seconds, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We currently do 

not operate any purging systems on any of our transports. However, as we have with other safety devices we may choose to continue to field test observations as technology evolves. 

The Kenan Advantage Group has never had a wet lines incident 

that has resulted in an injury or death. We also invest in the latest 

safety technologies such as truck and trailer roll stability systems, 

collision warning technologies, and wheel off prevention devices. 

Unfortunately, a wheel line retrofit requirement, which will cost 

this company over $18 million, will divert funding and delay the 

deployment of these already safe proven safety technologies which 

are far more likely to save lives than a wet lines purging system. 

Thank you, and I will be able to answer any questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. Would your put your testimony in the record. 

Mr. MOULDER. Yes, I will provide that. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much for coming, too. 

Yes, sir. 

52 

Mr. BOLLING. Glen Bolling, and I am from the battery industry 

representing SAFT. I think the reason we would like to see the section 201 either deleted or modified is because today it only represents only one side of the situation, and the rulemaking process 

allows all sides to present themselves. 

I will save the rest. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTER. Welcome to Maryland. I am Dennis Coster, Fireworks Productions, Incorporated from Maryland Line, Maryland. 

For the past 20 years I run a small family owned fireworks display 

company which puts on fireworks displays primarily to celebrate 

our Nation’s independence on July 4 throughout the State of Maryland, but also Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, West Virginia, 

and New Jersey. 

Our company business, like many across America, is facing tough 

economic times. We struggle constantly to keep up with the ever 

changing regulatory burdens imposed on our small company. We 

have an impeccable safety record with regard to the 300 displays 

we conduct annually as well as during the transportation process. 

We are pleased that we have had no serious injuries or deaths in 

our company operations, and we wish to emphasize that we have 

approximately 2,500 different types of fireworks products in our 

current inventory, each of which requires a DOT approval before 

it may enter commerce. 

My company, the fireworks industry as a whole, and many more 

industries across the country have been heavily impacted by the 

difunction in DOT’s special permits and approvals program. Section 

401 of H.R. 4016 takes steps to remedy some of the deficiencies. 

However, the remedies do not go far enough. 

I have a statement of concern from a coalition of associations, including the America Pyrotechnic Association that I am an active 

member of, which recommends several perfecting amendments to 

section 401. I am requesting it to be included in the official record 

on this hearing. We urge you to incorporate these amendments into 

H.R. 4016 before the committee’s upcoming markup. 

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to participate 

today. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. TRAYLOR. Sam Traylor, Eastern Petroleum Corporation in 

Annapolis, Maryland. I have been a fleet manager and safety director there for 20 years. Of those 20 years our trucks have traveled 

probably 40 million miles on Maryland roads and never once have 

we had an under ride collision that has involved anything other 

than a small spill in one of our trucks. To implement of this evacuation thing under the trucks would cause welding, drilling, lines, 

fitting hoses. And through the course of those 20 years had we had 

all of that on there, when they weld and they drill, it affects the 

integrity of the tank. You have got hoses that could leak when the 

pump kicks in. We are going to have products spewing all over the 

place. Just for the bang and buck. At Eastern Petroleum we do everything we can to be as safe as absolutely possible. And the rollover stability systems are 500 bucks a piece or so, and these will 

dramatically increase the safety of our fleet. Not only will you 

sense when you are going around a roll, that the truck is going to 

53 

roll and pulsate you brakes to bring your trailer back down. We 

can also record that engine and we can take that with our GPS and 

see where that incident happened, what curve it was on and know 

where we have dangerous curse. We can know what drivers are 

giving us problems. There are many things that we can do to make 

us much more safer than the outrageous amount of money we are 

going spend on the system. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Sir, let me ask you a quick question. 

The rollovers I understand is the major problem in the industry, 

725 a year. How much did you say it would cost to install that system? 

Mr. TRAYLOR. The rollover systems? I think they are like 5 to 700 

bucks per trailer. 

Mr. CANNON. On the trailer they are just under a $1,000. 

Mr. TRAYLOR. I want to say one more thing before you kick me 

out here. 

Let’s put the under ride protection, let’s keep the cars out from 

underneath the trailers. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I agree. 

Mr. TRAYLOR. That is right. We can do that a lot cheaper. That 

will give you safety not only when they are loaded but also when 

they are unloaded. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. How do you keep—— 

Mr. TRAYLOR. A lot of things we can do. There are a lot of things 

we can do. They say about weight and all that on here. But we can 

put some hose tubes on the other side of the trailer, put some hoses 

in them tubes that will absorb the impact and the energy from the 

car going underneath the trailer, and we easily protect under ride, 

all around the trailer, and all the spots where the valves are. It 

would be a little tricky to protect that one area, you would have 

to have a bull’s eye to get it. 

Let’s keep the cars out from underneath of it. This is very cheap, 

low maintenance, no problem. Put it on there once, you are done. 

This is just completely outrageous, the amount we are going to 

spend, the effort that we are going to have to put into this, the 

problems we are going to have with this system. It really baffles 

me. There are so many things we can do to be much more safer, 

much more cost efficient. Make the rollover stability—that is bang 

for your buck, that is bang for your buck. Make them get under 

rider protection. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. You stay around. I want to talk to you 

when we finish. 

Mr. COBBS. Drew Cobbs. I am the Executive Director of the 

Maryland Petroleum Council, which is an arm of API which represents 400 companies and all aspects of petroleum industry. API 

members own less than a thousand tanker trucks and trailers. This 

number is shrinking as trends and industry change. Most of these 

vehicles are owned by smaller companies, by trucking companies, 

which you have just testified, by jobbers and distributors, which 

also have testified, and smaller local companies that really operate 

these. 

Obviously there are concerns about what is being proposed in 

House bill 4016. We are concerned about a number of issues, but 

we think the points that were raised today about the reporting 

54 

issues, and it is interesting your own bill, this bill section 203 addresses reporting issues that you guys try to grapple with today, 

as far as what the figures really are. I think long term that a very 

important element that is supposed to provide you all with information and these Federal agencies as we go forward. 

The under ride protection as we just mentioned obviously of concern that Congressman Cummings, who snuck out, in our former 

lives with the Maryland General Assembly we dealt with this 

issue, and there was a big concern about the safety. As we move 

forward there is just concern and stress that the balance it is a fact 

based process as you go forward. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Last person. 

Mr. MOLNER. My name is William Molner. I am President of Baltimore Tank Lines, also Chairman of the Tank Council of the 

Maryland Motor Truck Association. I have with me gentlemen in 

the back, if they could stand up. These gentlemen represent tank 

carriers and distributors in the State of Maryland from the Eastern 

Shore to around Baltimore and out into western Maryland. 

We obviously stand in support of ATA’s and National Transport 

Carriers’ position on the wet lines issue. I feel that the Committee 

here, the Subcommittee here, has brought up very interesting 

points today and asked some really good questions in regard to our 

particular issue. 

One of the things that I guess we haven’t pushed as hard as we 

should have pushed and that is why isn’t this being done at the 

terminal level rather than having to equip at least 30,000 trailers 

and maybe more with equipment that may or may not work as it 

should. It kind of reminds me a little bit when we talk about equipment for the trucks of the anti-skid devices that were placed on 

trucks back in 1973 that for the most part the mechanical stuff 

worked but the computer things didn’t work. So they finally had 

to be unplugged, they had to be put away. 

In 1977, industry went out, we developed what was good for the 

industry, we came back in the early 90s, just about every trailer 

has them on right now, they work great, they have spawned antirollover, one has built on the other, and we have some really good 

systems out there. But I don’t think we are at that point right now. 

There are other things we can do. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much. It was a great 

hearing and it is officially over. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

55 


Insert offset folio 8 here 53678.008
56 


Insert offset folio 9 here 53678.009
57 


Insert offset folio 10 here 53678.010
58 


Insert offset folio 11 here 53678.011
59 


Insert offset folio 12 here 53678.012
60 


Insert offset folio 13 here 53678.013
61 


Insert offset folio 14 here 53678.014
62 


Insert offset folio 15 here 53678.015
63 


Insert offset folio 16 here 53678.016
64 


Insert offset folio 17 here 53678.017
65 


Insert offset folio 18 here 53678.018
66 


Insert offset folio 19 here 53678.019
67 


Insert offset folio 20 here 53678.020
68 


Insert offset folio 21 here 53678.021
69 


Insert offset folio 22 here 53678.022
70 


Insert offset folio 23 here 53678.023
71 


Insert offset folio 24 here 53678.024
72 


Insert offset folio 25 here 53678.025
73 


Insert offset folio 26 here 53678.026
74 


Insert offset folio 27 here 53678.027
75 


Insert offset folio 28 here 53678.028
76 


Insert offset folio 29 here 53678.029
77 


Insert offset folio 30 here 53678.030
78 


Insert offset folio 31 here 53678.031
79 


Insert offset folio 32 here 53678.032
80 


Insert offset folio 33 here 53678.033
81 


Insert offset folio 34 here 53678.034
82 


Insert offset folio 35 here 53678.035
83 


Insert offset folio 36 here 53678.036
84 


Insert offset folio 37 here 53678.037
85 


Insert offset folio 38 here 53678.038
86 


Insert offset folio 39 here 53678.039
87 


Insert offset folio 40 here 53678.040
88 


Insert offset folio 41 here 53678.041
89 


Insert offset folio 42 here 53678.042
90 


Insert offset folio 43 here 53678.043
91 


Insert offset folio 44 here 53678.044
92 


Insert offset folio 45 here 53678.045
93 


Insert offset folio 46 here 53678.046
94 


Insert offset folio 47 here 53678.047
95 


Insert offset folio 48 here 53678.048
96 


Insert offset folio 49 here 53678.049
97 


Insert offset folio 50 here 53678.050
98 


Insert offset folio 51 here 53678.051
99 


Insert offset folio 52 here 53678.052
100 


Insert offset folio 53 here 53678.053
101 


Insert offset folio 54 here 53678.054
102 


Insert offset folio 55 here 53678.055
103 


Insert offset folio 56 here 53678.056
104 


Insert offset folio 57 here 53678.057
105 


Insert offset folio 58 here 53678.058
106 


Insert offset folio 59 here 53678.059
107 


Insert offset folio 60 here 53678.060
108 


Insert offset folio 61 here 53678.061
109 


Insert offset folio 62 here 53678.062
110 


Insert offset folio 63 here 53678.063
111 


Insert offset folio 64 here 53678.064
112 


Insert offset folio 65 here 53678.065
113 


Insert offset folio 66 here 53678.066
114 


Insert offset folio 67 here 53678.067
115 


Insert offset folio 68 here 53678.068
116 


Insert offset folio 69 here 53678.069
117 


Insert offset folio 70 here 53678.070
118 


Insert offset folio 71 here 53678.071
119 


Insert offset folio 72 here 53678.072
120 


Insert offset folio 73 here 53678.073
121 


Insert offset folio 74 here 53678.074
122 


Insert offset folio 75 here 53678.075
123 


Insert offset folio 76 here 53678.076
124 


Insert offset folio 77 here 53678.077
125 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 78 here 53678.078