U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–230 PDF 2015

THE STATE OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES 

(114–23) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 24, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JANICE HAHN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

WITNESSES 

Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Charles Mathias, Associate Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, U.S. 

Federal Communications Commission: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Frank Lonegro, Vice President of Service Design, CSX Transportation, Inc.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement, including white paper from Association of American 

Railroads entitled ‘‘Positive Train Control Implementation Challenges,’’ 

June 22, 2015 ................................................................................................ 56 

Donald Orseno, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Metra Commuter Railroad: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Russell Kerwin, Deputy Project Manager of Positive Train Control, Southern 

California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink): 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Report, ‘‘San Francisco/Silicon Valley Corridor Investment Strategy for HighSpeed Rail,’’ June 2009, by San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 

et al., submitted by Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California ......................................................................................... 108 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Letter of June 23, 2015, from Eric Garcetti, mayor of the city of Los Angeles, 

to Chairman Jeff Denham and Ranking Member Michael E. Capuano, 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials .................. 136 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 95230.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95230.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95230.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95230.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95230.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95230.006
(1) 

THE STATE OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. Our hearing today will focus on 

the implementation of PTC, Positive Train Control, in the United 

States, one of the most complex and costly safety mandates ever 

taken by the railroad industry. 

Positive train control is a radio or GPS-based [Global Positioning 

System-based] system designed to automatically control trains to 

follow speed limits and avoid train-to-train collisions. Following the 

deadly commuter train crash in southern California, Congress 

mandated the installation of PTC on lines where certain hazardous 

materials are carried and any line on which passenger or commuter rail services operate. 

The recent tragic Amtrak crash in Philadelphia has reminded us 

that, while these accidents are rare, they can happen, and PTC will 

make our rail network safer. This mandate was included in the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and Congress set an implementation deadline of December 31 of this year. 

From the beginning, the PTC mandate was going to be a 

daunting undertaking to consider. What completely implemented 

PTC will require is 38,000 wayside interfaces, 18,000 locomotives 

to be upgraded, and 12,000 signals will need to be replaced. 

While similar systems exist in Europe and on some portions of 

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, PTC has never been implemented on 

such a scale and has never required such a high level of interoperability. Since the 2008 mandate was enacted, freight, passenger, 

and commuter railroads have spent the last 7 years working to implement PTC. According to the Association of American Railroads, 

freight rail has spent $5.7 billion to date on PTC and is expected 

to spend a total of $9 billion to fully implement it. 

The American Public Transportation Association has estimated 

that commuter and passenger railroads will have to spend nearly 

$3.5 billion on PTC. In addition to the sheer cost and complexities 

2 

of the system, there have been many unexpected delays. The process of approving PTC poles along railroad right-of-way was delayed 

significantly when the Federal Communications Commission mandated that each pole go through an extensive review process. 

The FCC eventually created a more streamlined process for those 

approvals, and we will hear from them today about how it is working. Commuter and passenger railroads have also struggled to buy 

the necessary radio spectrum for PTC, especially in our dense metropolitan areas. 

Today we will discuss how long it will take to get PTC implemented across the country and what it will take to meet this current deadline. In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding these issues. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Michael Capuano 

from Massachusetts for any opening statement he may have. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome the panel. I am looking forward to your testimony and the discussion we have. I think the chairman has said 

pretty much everything there is to say about PTC from our end of 

it. 

Honestly, this is long overdue, in my estimation. And, honestly, 

I would like to find out—we all know where we are today. Tell me 

how we get to where we want to implement as quickly as we can 

because that is what America wants, that is what I want. And if 

you think you need Federal assistance, please say so. Be clear. 

I say that because we have our own differences of opinion in the 

House and the Senate as to whether we should be putting funds 

up or not. And if you think we should, you should say so. I would 

like to hear that. 

With that, I yield back. And I look forward to the testimony. 

Mr. DENHAM. I now call on the full committee chairman, Mr. 

Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman Denham, for holding this 

hearing today. I think it is important to start off by saying that the 

number-one top priority of this committee and the Department of 

Transportation is safety. 

In general, rail safety trends have gone in the right direction 

over the past years. However, the terrible Amtrak incident in 

Philadelphia last month showed us that we should always remain 

focused on our efforts to improve rail safety. 

As Chairman Denham said—and I believe it is worth repeating— 

Positive Train Control is one of the most ambitious, complex, and 

costly safety enhancements the railroad industry has ever undertaken. 

I was the ranking member of the subcommittee in 2008 when 

Congress enacted the PTC mandate. We knew the mandate would 

be challenging, but we hoped that railroads would be able to meet 

that deadline 7 years into the future. Unfortunately, we know 

today that that will not be the case. 

With a few exceptions, most railroads, including the largest Class 

I freight railroads, will not meet December’s deadline. This has 

happened for a few reasons. 

Technology has been more complicated especially to ensure interoperability between the railroads. Spectrum has been harder to acVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
3 

quire particularly for commuter railroads that serve in densely populated metro areas. And, finally, the Federal Communications 

Commission’s approval process for new telecommunication poles 

was not set up to handle the tens of thousands of poles needed to 

deploy PTC. 

So I am looking forward to hearing from you today, the witnesses, where the PTC implementation stands, and your testimony 

will help us to consider how we move forward to deal with the 

mandate in an appropriate fashion. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. And I will call on Mr. DeFazio for any opening 

statement he may have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Are you sure your microphone is working? I couldn’t hear you. 

Jeff doesn’t need a microphone, the chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding the hearing. 

We are going to focus on the extension of the deadline today. It 

is clear that the Class I’s aren’t going to be able to meet the deadline. Some passenger rail is not going to be able to meet the deadline. 

But this was not a knee-jerk reaction to Chatsworth, and this 

has been something that has been a very, very long time in the 

making. 

It was 45 years since NTSB [National Transportation Safety 

Board] first recommended the idea of Positive Train Control. And 

they have had it on their most wanted list for many years. It was 

temporarily removed after the passage of the legislation in 2008, 

but it was put back on when it was clear that the deadlines weren’t 

going to be met. 

Just to revisit why we did this, Chatsworth actually took place 

right before the House and Senate had acted. And it was a compilation of accidents over the years, including, in particular, one in 

2005 that was a release of chlorine gas. Five thousand people were 

evacuated. Eight people died. Five hundred fifty-four were injured. 

And the NTSB at the time said they had never seen anything 

like it, this was caused by human error—improper alignment of a 

switch—and, had PTC been installed, it wouldn’t have happened. 

And then they went back over a litany; this again is, at the time 

of passage: 145 accidents, 296 fatalities, and 6,700 injuries over the 

past 45 years since their first recommendation would have been 

prevented with PTC. So we passed it. 

Chatsworth took place, actually, right before House passage, 

which led the Senate to change its position. They started out, I believe, with 2018 as the deadline, and they were pushing, at the behest of the two California senators, 2014. We compromised on 2015 

as something that could be achievable. Unfortunately, we aren’t 

going to meet that deadline in many cases. 

Congress was helping some of the passenger rail folks with 

grants. The President has asked for $1 billion. We got one $50 million grant. But, since 2010, nothing has been allocated by Congress. 

Now, for freight, it is a heavy expense, but at least it is a business expense. For nonprofit passenger rail, you know, it is an expense which is hard to pass on to the customers, but that is pretty 

4 

much what they have to do, or the local operating jurisdiction. So 

grants could be helpful, I believe, and we hopefully will hear more 

about that today. 

And yet, our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee—it 

doesn’t quite take the same view of these issues as we do—we are 

a little more enlightened on this committee—actually cut Amtrak’s 

capital grants by $290 million the day after the accident. 

And among other things that those grants fund is Positive Train 

Control in addition to other critical infrastructure, which is likely 

to cause other accidents, derailments, bridge collapse, tunnel collapse. The system is decrepit, needs an incredible amount of investment. Very, very shortsighted. 

So I have observed that we got a man to the moon after President Kennedy issued the challenge. It only took 8 years, and that 

was 1 year after the NTSB first asked for Positive Train Control. 

I know we can do it. We just need to hear today what impediments remain and what can we do to expedite the installation 

across all of the system in the critical categories. 

We defined toxic-by-inhalation routes included in addition to the 

passenger and the other very heavily used routes. 

So I look forward to the testimony. And, if necessary, I would 

urge the committee to take further action if we hear testimony 

today that says we need to take steps to get this done. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

I would now like to welcome our panel of witnesses. First, Ms. 

Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA. 

And I want to pay a special thanks. You have continued to come 

before this committee. There have obviously been a number of big 

issues that this committee is addressing, and you have not wavered 

as far as coming before us and answering some very difficult questions. So we thank you for being here again with us this morning. 

Also, Mr. Charles Mathias, Associate Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 

FCC; Mr. Frank Lonegro, vice president of service design, CSX 

Transportation; Mr. Donald Orseno, executive director and chief executive officer of Metra Commuter Railroad; and Russell Kerwin, 

deputy project manager of Positive Train Control, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink). 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record, 

the subcommittee would request that you keep your statements 

limited to 5 minutes. 

With that, Ms. Feinberg, you are recognized. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF SARAH FEINBERG, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; CHARLES MATHIAS, 

ASSOCIATE CHIEF, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; 

FRANK LONEGRO, VICE PRESIDENT OF SERVICE DESIGN, 

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.; DONALD ORSENO, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, METRA COMMUTER RAILROAD; AND RUSSELL KERWIN, DEPUTY 

PROJECT MANAGER OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (METROLINK) 

Ms. FEINBERG. Thank you. 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the 

implementation of Positive Train Control in the United States. 

PTC technology is arguably the single most important railroad 

safety development in more than a century. The technology is not 

new, though. Elements of PTC have existed since the early 20th 

century. In fact, regulators and safety advocates have been calling 

on the rail industry to implement some form of PTC for many decades, the NTSB, since 1969. 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required the current 

functionality of Positive Train Control to be fully implemented by 

December 31, 2015. PTC is required on Class I railroad main lines 

where any poisonous or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are 

transported. It is also required on any railroad’s main line where 

regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger service is 

conducted. 

Following passage of the PTC mandate in 2008, railroads submitted their PTC implementation plans in 2010. These plans laid 

out a path forward that would allow each railroad to meet the 

deadline. 

As I have stated to this committee before, safety is the Federal 

Railroad Administration’s top priority. The rail system is not as 

safe as it could be without the full implementation of PTC. 

A safe rail system requires the full implementation of Positive 

Train Control, and that is why FRA will enforce the December 31, 

2015, deadline for implementation just as Congress has mandated. 

For several years, FRA has been sounding the alarm that most 

railroads have not made sufficient progress in implementing PTC. 

In the 7 years since passage of the PTC mandate, FRA has dedicated significant resources and worked closely with the railroad industry in order to assist and guide implementation. 

We have hired staff to assist and oversee implementation. We 

have worked directly with the FCC to resolve spectrum issues and 

improve the approval process related to PTC communication towers. We have built a PTC system test bed at Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. We have provided approximately $650 million in grant funds to 

support PTC implementation. This includes American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act grants as well as Amtrak grants and other 

annual appropriations. We have requested $825 million to assist commuter railroads, and we have issued a $967 million loan through the RRIF [RailVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
6 

road Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing] program to New 

York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Nation’s largest 

commuter railroad. 

I have also established a new PTC task force team within the 

FRA. That team is aggressively managing and monitoring each individual railroad’s progress, tracking data, ensuring we have the 

most accurate and up-to-date information, and reporting in to me 

multiple times per week. This team is working in close collaboration with the many individuals at FRA based here in Washington 

and in offices around the country already working on this challenge. 

But, unfortunately, despite FRA’s financial support, technical assistance, and warnings, many railroads have stated publicly that 

they will still not meet the December 31 deadline. Recently, FRA 

received updated information about PTC implementation from 32 

of the 38 railroads that we are currently tracking for enforcement 

purposes. 

Initial analysis indicates that Class I railroads have completed or 

partially completed installations of approximately half of the locomotives that require PTC equipment, deployed approximately half 

of the wayside units, replaced approximately half of signals that 

need replacement, and completed most of the required mapping for 

PTC tracks. 

By the end of the year, AAR [Association of American Railroads] 

projects that 39 percent of locomotives will be equipped, 76 percent 

of wayside interface units will be installed, 67 percent of base station radios will be installed, and 34 percent of required employees 

will be trained. 

According to APTA [American Public Transportation Association], 29 percent of commuter railroads are targeting to complete 

installation of PTC equipment by the end of 2015. Full implementation of PTC for commuter lines is projected by 2020. 

FRA continues our work to finalize an enforcement strategy for 

those railroads that will miss the deadline. As with any regulatory 

enforcement posture, our ultimate goal is to bring all railroads into 

compliance as quickly and as safely as possible. 

Starting on January 1, FRA will impose penalties on railroads 

that have not fully implemented PTC. Fines will be based on FRA’s 

PTC penalty guidelines, which establish different penalties depending on the violation. The penalties may be assessed per violation 

per day. 

The total amount of penalty each railroad faces depends upon the 

amount of implementation progress the railroad has made. FRA is 

also planning for what will come after the January 1 deadline. 

In both 2014 and 2015, the department and FRA asked Congress 

to provide FRA with additional authorities that would address the 

safety gap that will exist on many railroads between January 1, 

2016, and each railroad’s full PTC implementation. 

These additional authorities would provide FRA with the ability 

to review, approve, and require interim safety measures for individual railroads that may fail to meet the PTC deadline. These interim safety requirements would be to ensure railroads are forced 

to raise the bar on safety if they miss the deadline, but will not 

and cannot be used to replace or extend the deadline. 

7 

In conclusion, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to 

this committee for its attention and focus on achieving implementation as efficiently and quickly as possible. We look forward to working with you. And I am happy to respond to your questions. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Feinberg. 

Mr. Mathias, you may proceed. 

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, 

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished 

members of this subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

here today. 

Mr. DENHAM. Can I ask you to pull your microphone a little closer. 

Mr. MATHIAS. Promoting the safety of life and property through 

the use of wire and radio communication is a top FCC priority. As 

the Nation’s communications agency, the FCC helps coordinate 

spectrum acquisition by freight and passenger railroads. We also 

manage the statutorily required historic preservation and environmental reviews of the poles, antennas, and associated infrastructure used to support Positive Train Control, or PTC, systems. 

Because the FCC was given no mandate to set aside spectrum for 

PTC purposes, the FCC has been working closely with the railroads 

since 2008 to identify available spectrum on the secondary market. 

The FCC has acted swiftly upon request to approve multiple 

spectrum transactions, including the freight railroads’ acquisition 

of spectrum nationwide, Amtrak’s acquisition of spectrum in the 

Northeast Corridor, as well as requested waivers to better enable 

and test PTC deployment. To be clear, the Commission plays no 

role in designing or assessing the railroad’s choice of PTC technology. The railroads are responsible for PTC design and deployment. 

The country’s major freights have led the way in securing spectrum for PTC. Through private transactions, they acquired nationwide spectrum in the commercial 220- to 222-megahertz spectrum 

band just months before the act became law. These railroads quickly focused on utilizing this spectrum when the PTC mandate was 

established. 

When they did, the freight railroads effectively drove other railroads, including Amtrak and commuter rails, to spectrum in and 

around the 220-megahertz band for their PTC operations as well. 

For most of the country, this strategy appears to have been successful. 

The FCC has proactively facilitated and continues to facilitate 

freight and passenger railroads’ successful acquisition and lease of 

spectrum on secondary markets. We have also granted the railroads extensive technical waivers, more transmitter power, for example, to facilitate the use of this spectrum for PTC purposes. 

Spectrum acquisition in the Northeast Corridor differs from the 

rest of the country because Amtrak and the freights are deploying 

two different PTC systems that were not from the outset engineered to be compatible in the same spectrum band. 

So unlike in a market such as Chicago, where the freight railroads tell us that 11 different railroads can share the same block 

8 

of spectrum using a single PTC system, in the Northeast Corridor, 

the choice to deploy 2 systems requires 2 blocks of spectrum far 

enough apart to avoid interference. 

FCC staff will continue to work with Amtrak, the commuter rails 

that use the Amtrak system in the Northeast Corridor, and the 

freights to help identify solutions to these problems. 

PTC infrastructure deployments are also a priority. Federal environmental and historic preservation law requires the FCC to assess 

the potential impacts of agency ‘‘undertakings,’’ including potential 

impact on properties significant to tribal nations. 

To facilitate this process, in May 2014, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation issued streamlined rules for future PTC pole 

deployments. Under this streamlined approach, the majority of proposed rules are exempt from historic preservation review. 

The Commission has the capacity to receive 1,400 exempt and 

nonexempt pole applications from the major freight railroads every 

2 weeks. By the middle of June, the freight railroads could have 

submitted as many as 40,000 poles for review. In fact, the railroads 

have only submitted around 8,300 poles, or about 21 percent of our 

total capacity. 

Going forward, issues in the Northeast Corridor remain complex 

and pose significant challenges. We stand ready to work with Amtrak, the commuter rails, and the freight rails there and across the 

country to help them meet their evolving deployment needs. 

We appreciate this subcommittee’s commitment and leadership 

on this issue and its efforts to ensure the successful deployment of 

PTC systems. 

The FCC is committed to working collaboratively with Congress, 

our Federal partners, and the railroads to get the job done. I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Mathias. 

I would now like to call on the representative from Florida, Ms. 

Brown, to introduce our next witness, Mr. Lonegro. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to introduce Mr. Frank Lonegro—and you can correct that name, Frank, when it is your time—who will be testifying 

today for CSX railroad located in my hometown of Jacksonville, 

Florida. Frank has worked for CSX since 2000, focused on technology issues, and has taken the lead for the Class I Positive Train 

Control initiative. 

CSX is an employer that plays a major strong role in the Jacksonville community. The company and its CEO, Michael Ward, 

have been a long advocate for veterans in Florida and throughout 

the United States. 

Let me just say that I am very proud of the Wounded Warrior 

program. They gave the first million dollars, and they have received 2 years in a row the top award from the President for over 

33 percent of their employees are veterans. 

So, with that, I want to welcome Frank and the other panelists. 

And thank you for joining us today. 

Mr. LONEGRO. Thank you, Member Brown. 

And, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am Frank 

Lonegro, vice president of service design at CSX. And since the 

9 

passage of the PTC mandate, I have been the project owner for 

PTC at CSX. I also chair the industry committee that is tasked 

with achieving PTC interoperability across 60,000 miles of railroad. 

Given the recent Amtrak tragedy and remembering all of those 

who have been impacted by PTC preventable accidents, I believe 

four issues are presented for resolution by this committee: 

Number 1, why are most railroads unable to meet PTC by 2015? 

Number 2, why are a few railroads able to make 2015 while the 

remainder cannot? 

Number 3, what happens if a PTC extension is not passed? 

Number 4, what is the path forward? 

Since PTC was mandated, accidents have happened that were 

PTC-preventable. A turnkey system did not exist in 2008 and had 

to be created by the rail industry. That task continues. 

As one of the many railroaders working on PTC every day, let 

me reflect briefly on accountability. I am ultimately responsible for 

PTC at CSX. And, unfortunately, it will not be completed by the 

deadline. This is not the result of lack of will or lack of commitment. 

To the contrary, CSX has provided people, allocated ample funding, and ensured executive support. We are hundreds of millions of 

dollars over budget, yet CSX has never hesitated to provide the required capital. With these ingredients of success, companies do not 

fail at delivering projects that are achievable from the outset. 

Congress shares in this responsibility. The 2015 PTC deadline 

was not grounded in fact. It was a political compromise reached 

after Chatsworth. Various constituencies in the House and Senate 

advocated for 2012, 2014, and 2018. The compromise halfway between those extremes gave us 2015, a political date, not necessarily 

an achievable date. 

Other responsible stakeholders are FRA, FCC, and the supplier 

community. The industry has thousands working on PTC. The FRA 

has about a dozen. The PTC final rule was published in August of 

2014, hundreds of pages of regulations, 6 years after the mandate. 

FRA is requiring significant documentation, validation, safety assessments, and fault analyses. All are geared toward deploying a 

safe and reliable system, but also require a tremendous amount of 

time and effort on both sides. 

No one anticipated the regulatory requirements relating to PTC 

towers. When FCC realized they would have to clear 20,000 towers, 

they imposed a moratorium to develop a better process. That moratorium impacted the PTC timeline by over a year. The resulting review process appears to be working. 

FCC has also recently approved the antenna height waiver, J 

Block swap, and Canadian border agreement. While each of these 

is complicated, we do need a greater emphasis on speed, given that 

much work remains, especially solving the PTC radio interference 

in the Northeast. 

Lastly, given the complexity of the technical task, our supplier 

partners have yet to hit a major deadline or deliver software that 

is free from defects. In the beginning, I think we all believed PTC 

was further along. 

A few railroads have indicated that they will make 2015, most 

notably, Metrolink in the L.A. Basin and Amtrak in the Northeast 

10 

Corridor. Importantly, both railroads have previously promised 

completion in 2012. 

I remind us of that not to denigrate their great work, but to illustrate the challenges of PTC even for small deployments. Successful 

completion in 2015 will be a testament to 7 years of hard work by 

those railroads and great leadership by PTC veterans like Darrell 

Maxey and Keith Holt. 

There are two main reasons why some railroads will make 2015 

while others will not. The first is scale. The Amtrak and Metrolink 

deployments are very similar in size, 100 to 150 engines and 300 

to 500 miles of railroad. In contrast, deployment at CSX involves 

3,900 engines and 11,000 miles of railroad, about 25 times larger. 

More engines and more miles means more time. 

The second is the state of the legacy infrastructure. PTC is 

brandnew technology that does not interface with legacy signaling 

and dispatching systems. At CSX, PTC is requiring us to completely replace 7,500 miles of wayside signals, geospatially map 

21,000 rail miles, and enhance our dispatching system to a precision of one ten-thousandth of a mile, all while delivering the Nation’s freight and passengers. Once we are finished, it will no 

longer be our fathers’ railroad. 

If no extension is passed, the railroads have a serious legal dilemma. Does the PTC mandate make it illegal to transport TIH/ 

PIH [toxic by inhalation/poisonous by inhalation] commodities irrespective of our common carrier obligation? 

Similarly, we are also required to allow commuter and interstate 

passenger agencies to run on our lines. Which law should we violate? The passenger requirement or the PTC mandate? 

If we cannot transport TIH/PIH commodities or passengers by 

rail, the outcome is not good for the American people or the American economy. If we continue to haul the commodities and the passengers which trigger the PTC mandate, we will be in violation of 

the law and run the risk of regulatory enforcement, potential uncapped liability, and questionable insurance coverage, an untenable 

situation for CSX and its employees and shareholders. 

The need for an extension is clear. The question is how to fashion 

the extension that recognizes the enormity of PTC, rewards railroads that will make 2015, hold the remaining railroads accountable to complete the project expeditiously, and provide legal certainty for shippers, passengers, and railroads alike. 

We look forward to working with you to forge that path ahead. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Lonegro. 

Mr. Orseno, we have met several times already. But if I have 

butchered your last name as I have twice already and been corrected by colleagues, please let us know. 

Mr. ORSENO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Denham, and members of this subcommittee. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Lipinski. You are our 

representative on this subcommittee, and we appreciate your championship for transportation. 

I am Don Orseno, executive director/CEO of Metra as well as the 

chair of the APTA Commuter Rail Committee. I was lucky enough 

early in my career to be a card-carrying engineer that I was very 

11 

proud of. I operate trains every single day. It is an enormous responsibility that I didn’t take lightly, as no engineer does. 

A few years ago I was appointed executive director/CEO of 

Metra, and I took those experiences with me early in my career to 

my position now. Let me be clear. Safety is paramount at Metra 

and, to that end, we are committed to implementing PTC. But let 

me also be clear on another item. It is not without challenges. 

Metra is one of the largest commuter rail systems in the country. 

Last year we provided over 83.4 million passenger trips. We primarily serve customers commuting from the suburbs to work in 

Chicago. We operate 11 lines with 241 stations. Four of those lines 

are owned and operated by the UP [Union Pacific Railroad] and the 

BNSF [Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway]. Chicago is the Nation’s busiest rail hub and the most complex, with six of the seven 

Class I railroads operating throughout the network. 

Coordination of PTC implementation must include all of these 

railroads. The BN and UP were further along with PTC installation than us. So we directed all of our resources to put equipment 

on the trains that will be operating on the BN and the UP so we 

could be compliant when they were. 

Those lines, once they are operational, will be—40 percent of 

Metra’s fleet will be PTC-compliant, covering 50 percent of our passengers. The BN equipment installation will be complete September of 2015, with the UP following closely behind it, the second 

quarter of 2016. 

We have also made significant progress on Metra-owned lines. To 

date, we hired a system integration team, Parsons Transportation 

Group, awarded contracts to engineering firms to design signal system upgrades, and continue to hire the necessary staff, including 

leadership positions in the field installation crews. 

Even though we have made substantial progress, challenges still 

remain: the limited number of signal design systems, spectrum 

availability. In Chicago, it is undetermined if we have enough spectrum for PTC needs in the region. We won’t know that answer 

until the spectrum study is completed. 

Continuous verification and validation is part of the testing process to test the reliability and accuracy of PTC. So far, only testing 

of individual segments has taken place. The FRA must also review 

and certify the railroad’s plans. Interoperability is a huge challenge 

for Chicago, given the complexity and the integration of the system. 

Metra’s costs are approximately $350 million. APTA estimates 

approximately $3.5 billion for all commuter railroads. We receive 

$150 million per year in Federal formula funds. These are the 

same sources of funds that are used for other safety-related critical 

infrastructure projects, such as bridges, tracks, and rolling stock. 

Metra has allocated $133 million over the last 2 years for PTC 

between our State and Federal partners. The Metra board approved a $2.4 billion modernization plan last year, which included 

$275 million to complete PTC, which is a combination of borrowing 

and fare increases. The balance would need to come from our State 

and Federal partners, which is uncertain at this time. There is also 

a significant operational and maintenance cost. These are estimated to be $15 million annually for Metra. 

12 

Given these substantial challenges, it is no surprise that no commuter rail system has fully implemented PTC today. Metra is estimating 2019 for full implementation. Metra, along with APTA, is 

asking Congress to provide FRA the authority to grant individual 

waivers for the deadline as long as the agencies show a good-faith 

effort as determined by the FRA. 

Metra is also asking for funding from Congress. On that note, I 

would like to thank Representatives Lipinski and Quigley for introducing H.R. 1405, which reauthorizes the safety technology program for PTC, which is $200 million annually for the next 5 years. 

Even though PTC will not be fully implemented by the deadline, 

Metra, however, has taken significant steps to provide safeguards 

for our passengers. For example, we have reviewed the FRA 2015– 

03 safety advisory and are in the process of implementing automatic notifications through our GPS system. 

This system will notify the conductor in advance where the speed 

is reduced by greater than 20 miles per hour for a bridge or curve. 

The conductor will then communicate and remind the engineer of 

the restriction. 

We have also instituted the C3RS program, which is the Confidential Close Call Reporting System, in conjunction with our 

labor unions at FRA. 

Before closing, I wanted to bring to the committee’s attention 

that, recently, a question was raised at the APTA Rail Conference 

with regards to the commuter rail industry’s ability to continue to 

operate past the PTC deadline as it relates to insurance liability. 

The commuter railroads are currently investigating this matter. 

It is Metra’s commitment, along with the rest of the commuter 

rail industry, to implement PTC as expeditiously as possible. With 

that said, we ask Congress to grant the FRA authority to provide 

waivers based on good-faith efforts and the funding to support the 

implementation of PTC. 

I want to thank the committee for inviting me here today, and 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Orseno. 

Mr. Kerwin, you may proceed. 

Mr. KERWIN. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, 

and members of the committee. My name is Russell Kerwin, deputy 

project manager of Positive Train Control for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, a.k.a. Metrolink. 

I appreciate the invitation to testify today to update the subcommittee on the most significant investments Metrolink is making 

to increase the safety of our passengers—PTC. I am proud to report 

that, as of June 14, Metrolink has fully implemented PTC in revenue service demonstration, RSD, across the entire 341-mile network of Metrolink-owned lines. 

In addition to this major accomplishment, we will submit our 

PTC safety plan to the FRA next week, on June 30, seeking FRA 

certification by the end of the year in accordance with the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 

Metrolink operates on 7 routes through 6 counties in southern 

California, carrying over 43,000 weekday riders. We are also a dispatching hub for about 350 trains that traverse Metrolink property 

13 

on a daily basis, including trains from BNSF, UP—Union Pacific, 

that is—and Amtrak. 

Metrolink’s PTC program is a locomotive-centric overlay system 

based upon the interoperable electronic train management system, 

a.k.a. I–ETMS software. The full build-out and testing of 

Metrolink’s PTC infrastructure was completed over the past 6 

years, which includes PTC onboard equipment installed and tested 

on all 109 locomotives and cab cars, all antennas, wayside devices, 

and PTC radios installed and operational, a robust communication 

network built out and tested, and a new hardened dispatch and operations facility for PTC constructed and put into service under the 

project. 

In addition to our network of owned lines, we are also working 

closely with our railroad partners—BNSF, Union Pacific, Amtrak, 

and the North County Transit District—to ensure PTC implementation is achieved throughout the region. 

We have been very fortunate to have tremendous support from 

our local freight partners, and we appreciate the many challenges 

to implementing PTC, most of which have also impacted our program. 

They include the prolonged nationwide development of this interoperable technology and the need for ongoing software upgrades, 

development of our back-office server and dispatching systems, relentless testing, impacts to operations, challenges in acquiring 

spectrum, and funding constraints. 

In regards to spectrum, Metrolink has been working with the 

FCC through many challenges to secure approval of the spectrum 

that we entered into purchase agreement for in 2010. Currently, 

Metrolink is trying to follow the same procedures under which the 

FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau recently granted Amtrak’s application. 

Through our partnership with the freight railroads, Metrolink 

has been fortunate to execute a 5-year lease for spectrum from 

PTC–220, LLC. This lease enables us to meet our near-term needs. 

However, for long-term needs, we are attempting to acquire our 

own spectrum. 

Our current PTC program costs the agency $216.4 million. To 

put that in context, it is roughly equivalent to Metrolink’s entire 

annual operating budget of $221 million. The majority of our PTC 

funding, about 85 percent of it, came from State and local sources. 

The investment in our PTC program has been very significant for 

the agency. However, it was the priority of the Metrolink board and 

our funding partners to implement this lifesaving technology. 

Moving forward, the agency will be required to continue to 

prioritize funding as we transition into operations. The ongoing 

costs for project staff, contractors, consultants, and vendors to operate and maintain PTC will increase our budget costs. Metrolink is 

proud to be leading the industry on PTC implementation. Despite 

the many challenges, we have maintained our unwavering focus on 

advancing our PTC program. 

I would like to thank Chairman Denham and Ranking Member 

Capuano for the opportunity to testify and share our experience. I 

will close my remarks by stating that, at Metrolink, we continue 

to believe that safety is foundational and our investments in PTC 

14 

as well as a number of other safety technologies are evidence of 

this unyielding commitment to the safety of our passengers. Thank 

you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Kerwin. 

Our first round of questioning will be 5 minutes. I would ask 

members to keep their questions to 5 minutes. 

I will start things out this morning, first of all, with Ms. 

Feinberg. Again, let me thank you for your response. The last committee meeting, we did something somewhat out of the ordinary 

and asked you for a quick response with some of the questions that 

this committee had on the Amtrak crash. 

I think that those issues are important to resolve and understand quickly. And this committee thanks you for your rapid response. We are getting those answers to those questions back out 

to committee members this morning. 

But I did want to continue on an exchange that you and I have 

had several times now. I pressed FRA on: If Positive Train Control 

is such a big priority, why are you not using California high-speed 

rail dollars to upgrade not only the corridor, but those connecting 

routes in California? 

In California, obviously, where PTC was started, it is a big concern for those that ride the rail in California. It is a big concern 

for those that live by rail in California. You know, this is a national 

issue. But in our home State, we are looking to provide leadership 

to resolve the safety concerns that people have quickly. 

And the California High-Speed Rail Authority continues to have 

its challenges. And certainly, by their current burn rate of dollars, 

they do not appear to be able to spend the money that has been 

allocated to them by the deadline. 

And so, in our ongoing exchanges, what else could you use that 

money for? Could it be used for safety in California? 

And I got your written response that it wasn’t possible, but I 

wanted to bring one issue to your attention. 

Under California High-Speed Rail Authority’s investment strategy for phase 1, they specifically state, ‘‘Electrifying the entire 

Caltrain corridor so as to replace outdated diesel technology with 

electric locomotives or electric multiple-unit train sets and introducing Positive Train Control will not only speed up Caltrain’s 

service, but pave the way for high-speed rail. Positive train control 

is a Federal mandate that will reduce the potential for train-totrain collisions and improve signaling at crossings so as to allow increased train frequencies while enhancing safety.’’ 

This money was taken from California high-speed rail. They approved the grant agreement to put it in a different corridor to upgrade Caltrain and put PTCs. Obviously, by their own words, this 

is a priority for them. 

Also, previously FRA has diverted funding from the Central Valley with $400 million that went to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority to construct the foundation for high-speed rail service at the 

Transbay terminal. 

Again, you are moving money out of California’s Central Valley 

hours away to where it may connect some day, if it ever gets built, 

to San Francisco and to L.A. through Caltrain. 

15 

And under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, the 

following activities are expressly eligible for grants, as noted in the 

Federal Register: acquiring, constructing, improving or inspecting 

equipment, track and track structures, highway rail grade crossings, improvements related to intercity passenger rail service, including communication and signalization improvements. 

That sounds a whole lot like PTC to me. Positive train control 

affects each one of those areas. So I understand by this they would 

be able to use these same dollars. 

So I know from your response you say the grantee would have 

to approve this process. The grantee in this case would be the California High-Speed Rail Authority. 

But, again, if they are not spending the money and they already 

have the precedent of transferring money and safety is all of our 

number-one concern, why would we not take money that is available to be spent in a corridor that is available to be spent under 

Prop 1A and address safety for our State? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, we have gone back and forth 

about this a lot, and I am happy to continue to go back and forth 

with you, and I know our staffs have had many conversations 

about it as well. 

As I said in my letter to you earlier this week, we do not believe 

that we can take California high-speed rail money and put it in 

other priorities. I explained—— 

Mr. DENHAM. But you have done that a couple of times already. 

They requested that you change the grant approval, and you have 

granted that request. And they have done it several times for PTC, 

for Caltrain, and for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, $400 

million, $171 million, and another grant for PTC. It has been done 

several times already. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I join you in a concern that the California HighSpeed Rail Authority is not burning through ARRA [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] money in a sufficiently fast manner, 

and we are working with them very closely to make sure that they 

meet all of their obligations to do so. 

Our legal analysis of where we are at this moment is that we 

cannot shift money that has already been obligated to California 

high-speed rail and move it to another priority. Even if we were 

willing to take money away from California High-Speed Rail Authority, it would go back to the U.S. Treasury. But we will continue 

to engage with you on this and talk through it with you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

That appears to be a change in policy, since it has already happened several times. I would understand if you need them as the 

grantee to make the request to FRA, then my question would be 

to the California High-Speed Rail Authority: If they have already 

spent money on PTC, why, if this is a priority for FRA, the administration, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority, are they 

not improving safety in California? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I do not believe it is a change in policy, but we 

can continue the conversation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

My time is expired. We will have a second round because I have 

got many other questions from a more national perspective. But, as 

16 

you know, California is a big concern of mine and so is California 

high-speed rail. 

I now go to Mr. DeFazio for 5 minutes. And I would recognize 

the fact that Mr. Capuano once again has been very gracious to our 

colleagues on the other side to skip his time so that others may go 

first. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I don’t think ‘‘Capuano’’ and ‘‘gracious’’ go together 

in the same sentence, but certainly I would defer to your judgment, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Feinberg, you heard what CSX raised about the potential 

conflict with the hard deadline and whether or not their continued 

carriage of inhalable and other hazardous and passenger—can you 

resolve that or do we have to statutorily resolve that? 

Ms. FEINBERG. The Congress is going to have to act. I cannot 

make a legal decision for CSX based on their liability. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And you can’t give relief because of the hard deadline that was set. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I cannot extend the deadline. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Now, you talked about enforcement and you 

talked about penalties, and I would just like to get a little insight 

into that. 

We are looking forward now, and there is a lot of history here, 

a lot of questions about how we got to this point and how some people are much closer to meeting the deadline than others, et cetera. 

So are you looking at penalties that exact funds from the railroads? You know, wouldn’t it be better if you mandate everybody 

puts together a schedule that you would approve or not approve in 

terms of how quickly they can implement, put in benchmarks, and 

then look at assessing penalties going forward? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, that would really be extending the deadline. 

That would be our view. I mean, the deadline is the deadline. And 

if we then communicate to railroads, ‘‘If you don’t like the deadline 

that we have, why don’t you come up with a plan that involves a 

new deadline for yourself,’’ that would actually, in my opinion, be 

extending the deadline. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. FEINBERG. So we would not want to go about that. 

But in terms of the penalties, there is, you know, three or four 

pages of specific fines and penalties that were finalized back in 

2010 that, you know, go from everything from not equipping a locomotive to failure to have PTC in a certain segment, so quite detailed in the public realm. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah. But what I am trying to get at here is everybody here wants to get this done as quickly as possible. There is 

a lot of history. 

And in order to go forward, I am wondering if we give you flexibility from the deadline, but we give you a mandate that it will be 

implemented as soon as technologically and physically practicable, 

you know, by each of those who do not meet the deadline and then 

you set benchmarks and then they violate the benchmarks, that is 

when I think fines might be appropriate. 

Would that be a way to go forward? 

17 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, you know, I take my cues from the Congress, and I enforce what the Congress mandates. So if the Congress instructs us to enter negotiations like that, we would do that. 

But, again, my concern would be entering into brandnew negotiations with each individual railroad based on what they would like 

their new deadline to be. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I am not thinking so much what they would 

like. I am saying that is why as soon as practicable physically and, 

you know, I mean, not something that meets their convenience or 

their capital outlays or whatever. It is just like—anyway, this is a 

difficult issue. 

Quickly to the FCC, you now have the capacity to deal with these 

pole applications and approvals in a streamlined way. And, as I understand it, there are quite a few that have not been applied for 

and you aren’t pushing your capacity here. Is that correct? 

Mr. MATHIAS. That is correct, sir. Thank you. Since our streamline process was put into place, we have had the capacity to review 

about 40,000 poles. To date, we have only received applications to 

review about 8,300. So we are ready for more work. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. That is something to take into account as we 

are moving forward. 

This is off the subject, but I have got to ask you very quickly. 

Mr. Mathias, 5.9 gigahertz—part of the problem here was you have 

to go out and buy spectrum and negotiate and Amtrak had to negotiate and I am really concerned about what you might do with the 

5.9 gigahertz for smart cars and communication between vehicles 

of the future. 

There are some proposals to maybe parcel that up a little bit, 

which might lead to interference, which might lead us to a point 

where smart car manufacturers of the future are going to have to 

go out and buy spectrum as opposed to having something reserved. 

And I just hope you would take that under advisement. 

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah. OK. 

And then to CSX, how soon can you get it done? 

Mr. LONEGRO. At CSX, our plans call for us to be hardware-installed, meaning all of the wayside interface units, all the, you 

know, obsolete signal replacement work that we are doing, all the 

locomotives equipped, all the technology hardware installed by the 

end of 2018 with full deployment by 2020. 

And, as I say that, though, I think it is important to know that, 

by the end of 2018, we will have a significant portion of the system 

operable. So it is not as if we get to 2020 and then we turn on the 

11,000 miles that we have under our PTC footprint. 

It is a very methodical, you know, almost linear implementation 

pretty much from here on out. We will have about 500 miles in 

place by the end of the year, which is about the size of the corridor 

and about the size of the Metrolink deployment. And then we get 

into the thousands of miles per year that ramps us up through 

2020. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, again, that seems like a long time. And that 

is why I was proposing the idea that the Administrator—I don’t 

think we should be giving people a blanket exemption till 2020 beVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
18 

cause some people are going to take till 2020 who don’t need to. 

Maybe you do. 

But I think there needs to be some level of review of that, and 

I think that is something the committee will be looking at. Thank 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Feinberg, you have testified and others at FRA have testified 

before Congress that, if the December 31 deadline is not extended, 

that you will use all the enforcement powers, including warnings, 

emergency orders, enforcement fines, to encourage PTC to be 

adopted. 

But will you share with Congress a transparent policy with regard to how you will determine who the good actors are, the bad 

actors are? I think you have categorized them that way. And what 

I am looking for is metrics. Are there ways to measure it so that 

it is not arbitrary, so everybody knows going into this? 

And I see you have some bullet points I have here on things you 

intend to do, but I am really looking for how we measure CSX 

versus BNSF versus UP versus Metrolink to be able to determine 

that. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Absolutely. And we would not want to be arbitrary or subjective. We would want this to be quite black and white 

so that railroads would know what to expect and that the Congress 

would know what to expect. 

What was summarized in my oral testimony was an attempt to 

be quick and to move through the 5 minutes quickly. But our plan 

is to take the penalty and fine schedule that is already laid out and 

to be very transparent about what our approach will be and to communicate it both to the Congress and to railroads so that everyone 

knows what to expect. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Will that be seen? Will we be able to see that 

shortly? When do you expect to have that done? Because the deadline is getting awfully close and we want to make sure that there 

is a transparent—because, again, I have seen agencies in the past 

be very arbitrary, don’t like one person over another. 

Ms. FEINBERG. No. No. That would not be our approach, and that 

would not be the way we would go about it. We will be very transparent about it. 

We owe the Congress an update on PTC implementation on how 

railroads are doing in implementing PTC. Due to recent feedback 

we have gotten back from the Congress, it is clear that the Congress would like that report to also include very specific information about how each railroad is doing individually, but also what 

our enforcement strategy will be. So we are now including that in 

the report and plan to get it to you as quickly as possible. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And if you could go to levying fines against people, 

will that be on a daily basis? Monthly? Weekly? How would you 

levy those? 

Ms. FEINBERG. The statute lays out that it can be per violation 

per day, but there is some amount of discretion there. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And would you consider shutting down a railroad? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I think that would be actually up to—the railroad’s own lawyers would probably make the determination. 

19 

We have certainly heard from railroads that their lawyers are 

making that determination based on both their liability and the 

likelihood of the magnitude of fines and penalties. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

And in terms of transit systems and commuter rails, my understanding is you folks are having a very difficult time. I know that 

SEPTA [Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority] 

down in the Southeast has to make some real tough decisions on 

whether they are going to repair, replace cars, track, because there 

is just only so much money in the budget. Can you tell us a little 

bit about Chicago? 

Mr. ORSENO. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Shuster. 

That is definitely a major challenge for us. As I stated earlier, 

we get about $150 million through our Federal formula funds. PTC 

alone is $350 million to $400 million. 

You know, we have to balance using that money for other safetysensitive concerns like bridges. I mean, bridges are very important. 

We have got many bridges that were built in the 1800s, and we are 

in the process of doing those projects. 

It is very important for us to find the funding and make sure we 

can get this implemented. It is a very significant safety enhancement. There is no question about it. But it also competes with 

every other safety issue that we have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And you have got to be the most challenged of all 

the systems because you have all Class I’s coming in around Chicago. So that interoperability—is that a significant challenge or is 

that something you are moving towards working out? 

Mr. ORSENO. That is a huge significant challenge for us because 

you have got six of the seven Class I railroads coming in and out 

of Chicago that have to communicate between each train, all the 

signal locations, and the back office. That has been probably one 

of the most significant challenges for the industry, is the interoperability. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

Now go to Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Feinberg, first of all, let me just say that every last one of 

us supports safety in the industry, but I think you are leaving me 

when you talk about daily fines. The industry itself has spent over $5 billion on Positive Train 

Control, and I don’t feel that the Federal Railroad Administration 

or the U.S. Federal Communications Commission—we have had 

daily—not daily—but we have had meetings where we have discussed spectrum, and we don’t think—I don’t think that the administration has done all they need to do to move us forward. 

And to sit here and say that we are going to have daily fines and 

we may have to shut down the industry is not going to fly. And so 

I would like for you to respond to that 

Ms. FEINBERG. Ma’am, I was responding to the question about 

what our authority is in terms of fining. We are now working on 

our enforcement strategy and will communicate it to you. 

Ms. BROWN. No. No. I am not talking about enforcement. I am 

talking about support, what we have done to help the industry, for 

example, with the spectrum. 

20 

Amtrak had to purchase it. How come we did not provide it for 

the industry? But I—and they had a hard time getting it, and that 

delayed the projects. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I will let the FCC answer the spectrum question, 

but I can tell you from the FRA’s perspective, we have hired a significant staff. One of the witnesses previously said there is only a 

dozen staff at FRA working on PTC. That is absolutely incorrect. 

We have staff in Washington and across the country. We have offered loans. We have asked for grants. We have offered financial 

assistance. We have offered assistance across the board. We are 

still waiting for safety plans to come in from railroads based on implementation—— 

Ms. BROWN. I hear what you are saying. But as far as I am concerned, you all have been the caboose as far as helping and assisting us moving forward. And I don’t mean it in a negative sense, 

but we have had—you haven’t been here the entire time—we have 

been going over this for years. And we just have not gotten the administration where it needs to be as far as assistance moving forward. 

I mean, when we say Positive Train Control, it is a combination. 

What happened at Amtrak, it wasn’t just: didn’t have Positive 

Train Control, didn’t have the proper equipment as far as the cars 

are concerned, had to purchase the spectrum. It is just a whole list 

of things that I feel that the administration should have worked— 

and I don’t mean this administration, I am saying it has been a 

multiplicity of administrations that haven’t done everything that 

they need to do to get us where we need to be. 

Now, even if they come up with, well, here we are, even if they 

come up with it in 2018, then it still would take 2 or 3 years to 

determine whether or not the system is working together. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Ma’am, I can only speak for this administration. 

I can’t speak for previous administrations. But this administration 

has done a great deal to try to bring railroads along and into compliance with a mandate that was passed by this Congress in 2008. 

And we have been sounding the alarm for years about our concern 

that railroads were not going to meet the deadline. And so I believe 

this administration has done a great deal of work to bring railroads 

along, but we have not seen the progress that we need to. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. I am just letting you know you are leaving 

me. But go ahead to the next person. 

Mr. MATHIAS. You are asking about the question of the Amtrak 

spectrum? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you. 

The way the railroads approached this process initially, they selected a spectrum band in the 220 to 222 megahertz, I am sorry 

to get technical on you. But it is a part of the spectrum that was 

already owned by other people. It has licensees. 

Unfortunately, in that case what we would have had to do to give 

that spectrum to anyone else is we would have had to have taken 

it away from the existing owners through a process that would 

have required compensation, finding them additional spectrum, 

and also potentially would have led to litigation. So what we 

thought would be a more productive approach would be to actively 

21 

work with Amtrak to find spectrum on the secondary market that 

they could use for PTC in the same spectrum block. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, as we move forward, that is an issue that the 

Congress needs to address. 

My next round I will go to you, Frank. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

Mr. Rice, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Feinberg, and you may not have been around when all this 

started, but why is there the need to create this new system? I 

mean, it seems to me that there are so many systems that are 

similar to this that would be incredibly cheaper and quicker to institute. Why did we settle on creating this entire new system? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, I think PTC is actually an overlay of some 

other systems. But if you are referring to ATC [Automatic Train 

Control] and some of the technologies we have talked about in this 

committee previously, it is basically a step beyond that. But it 

would assist in taking human factors off the table. It is one of the 

most important technologies that we believe can be implemented 

for rail safety. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Kerwin, I am going to switch over to you because 

maybe you know more about the technical aspects. You are a 

project manager, right, you are putting this stuff in. 

Mr. KERWIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. I know that there are GPS systems out there that you 

can buy for a thousand dollars that will control the motion of a vehicle, right, stop it, start it, and all that kind of thing. 

Mr. KERWIN. It tells you where you are at, but as far as controlling the vehicle—— 

Mr. RICE. I have had one on my boat that cost $900 that would 

steer my boat to a point. Why is this so much more difficult than 

that? 

Mr. KERWIN. The key to PTC is it is not a specific technology as 

much as a specification that it prevents train-to-train collisions—— 

Mr. RICE. Well, I mean, as long as the GPSs were connected, it 

seems to me that it could do that very, very easily. I mean, this 

seems to me that this is light years easier than a Google car, or 

whatever you call the thing, because a Google car has got to sense 

people walking in front of it and obstructions appearing, and this 

doesn’t have to do any of that. This just has to control motion. I 

mean, all it can do, it can’t steer, it has got to go how fast, how 

slow, or stop, right? 

Mr. KERWIN. Yeah. 

Mr. RICE. It is not that complicated. 

Mr. KERWIN. I understand and appreciate your point. It is much 

more complicated than it would seem. One of the key factors is 

interoperability. The PTC mandate requires seamless transition 

from one railroad to another railroad’s property and the communication between different railroads. 

Mr. RICE. No, I understand that. But, I mean, this GPS technology exists today. 

Mr. Lonegro, I am going to switch over to you. Do you have technology today before this technology we are talking about here that 

22 

you know where all your locomotives are? I mean, can you tell 

where they are at any time when they are running? 

Mr. LONEGRO. We have had GPS on our locomotives for, I would 

say, the last half a dozen years or so. But I think it is important 

to understand GPS is one of, I will say, 100, just for raw numbers, 

inputs into PTC. It simply provides one input, and that is where 

the train itself is. It is not an indicator of speed, it is not an indicator of grade, it is not an indicator of where the red signal is, it 

is not the indicator of where the work zone is. And I could go on 

and on, but I know you don’t want me to. But that is just one input 

into it. 

The technology you referred to earlier about ACSES [Advanced 

Civil Speed Enforcement System] is based on a cab signal method 

of operation. At CSX we only have about 400 of the 11,000 miles 

uses cab signal as a method of operation. And then ATC is built 

on top of that, and the ACSES system that Amtrak is using is built 

on top of that, and it is not a system that we utilize to run our 

trains. 

Mr. RICE. All these other guys up here are dealing with taxpayers’ money and you are not. Did you all do an analysis of 

whether it would be cheaper to use some of these legacy systems 

that could control the train or to create this entire new system? I 

think this says they are doing 23,000 locomotives that cost $9 billion. That is about $400,000 a locomotive. Did CSX do an analysis 

to determine whether it would be cheaper to modify the existing 

legacy systems or to create this entire new system? 

Mr. LONEGRO. So there are a couple answers to your question. 

In the beginning, yes, we did an analysis about whether we should 

go the Amtrak route and the ACSES system or whether we should 

go with the system that the freight railroads had been working on 

since the mid-1990s which the precursor was known as CBTM, 

which was Communications-Based Train Management. 

The thing that is important to know is that there are generally 

three or four methods of operations that freight railroads use to 

navigate their trains. A very small proportion of that is cab signal, 

as I mentioned, signal territory, and then nonsignal territory, and 

there are permutations of all of that. The only thing that ACSES 

works on is that first method of operation, which is cab signal territory. 

So we would have had to change the entire method of operation 

of the entire railroad to cab signal which would have required both 

wayside changes, technology changes, as well as locomotive 

changes. And, yes, we did look at the two and believe that I–ETMS 

or the freight version of PTC was the right way to go, and still believe that today, sir. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Kerwin, you said you spent $216 million on PTC. You have 

got it fully installed now? 

Mr. KERWIN. We have it fully deployed on our network of owned 

lines. We are working with our freight partners and Amtrak to get 

those systems in service. 

Mr. RICE. How many locomotives do you have? 

Mr. KERWIN. 109 locomotive and cab cars that need to be 

equipped. 

23 

Mr. RICE. OK. So you spent about $2 million per locomotive 

then? 

Mr. KERWIN. Our total cost is—our budget is $216 million and 

we have spent about $200 million of that. That is not just installations on locomotives. There is a tremendous amount of back-office 

components and wayside components as well. 

Mr. RICE. Sounds ridiculously expensive to me. He is messing 

with his dollars, I believe, if he says he did the analysis that came 

in cheaper that way, I understand. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. Obviously, we all want to make sure that we do everything we can for safety. It has been a very difficult issue. I want 

to thank Ms. Feinberg for her work on this and other things. A 

very difficult time coming into the position as Administrator here. 

I just want to first make sure that we are all clear. You are saying that FRA doesn’t have the authority to shut down railroads. It 

is the fines that are what the FRA is able to level if the mandate 

is not extended. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Ultimately, if we needed to take the action to 

shut down a railroad, I think we could do that. But my point was 

that I think what we are hearing from railroads is that is a decision that they are making in consultation with their lawyers on 

how they would operate on January 1 if they are not fully implemented. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. That makes sense to me. Mr. Lonegro, Mr. Orseno, 

I don’t know if you want to add anything to that in regard to the 

fines and the impact that they could have on you. 

Mr. ORSENO. Yes, thank you, Congressman Lipinski. Being in the 

commuter side of the industry, we depend very heavily on tax dollars. What the commuter rail industry has advocated for was an 

extension, not a categorical extension, but an extension based on 

good faith efforts based on the railroad’s ability to complete PTC. 

I don’t think, personally, it would be in the public’s best interest 

to fine railroads that typically don’t have the funding to implement 

PTC. I think we need to find a solution where we can implement 

PTC as expeditiously as possible and not fine the railroads, because 

it is just coming right out of our pot that we use for bridges and 

cars and everything else it takes to operate the railroad. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Lonegro, do you have anything you—— 

Mr. LONEGRO. Yes, sir, if I may. It doesn’t matter how big the 

bear chasing you is or how big the cattle prod is, if you are running 

as fast as you can, you can’t run any faster. And so the fines—I 

mean, we have spent $1.2 billion. We have got 1,000 people working on the project. It is hard to say that we haven’t put the best 

foot forward that we possibly could. 

And so we have supplied the FRA with both an aggregate level 

of information in terms of where we have been. We have done that 

on an annual basis since the end of 2012. The NTSB has asked for 

it in the interim 6 months. We have provided that information. We 

24 

have given a prognosis on a railroad-by-railroad basis about when 

we will be done. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I don’t have much time, and I don’t want to—— 

Mr. LONEGRO. So I don’t believe the fines would be helpful. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. First of all, we all want to sit up here 

and find villains. And in this situation I think it is very complex, 

and there are not easy answers to this. We just want to move forward as quickly as possible. I have been in favor, I have tried, I 

have worked on getting more Federal funding, especially for commuter rail. 

Mr. Orseno, so you are saying about $350 million to finish by 

2019. Is that the—— 

Mr. ORSENO. That is correct. That is a conservative number, as 

we get moving into the process further along, as all these things 

have a tendency to change. But that is a conservative number. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And did you receive any funding from the Railroad 

Safety Technology Grant Program or any other FRA grant programs? 

Mr. ORSENO. No, we have not. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And would additional Federal funding help expedite the safety efforts and help Metra invest in its infrastructure? 

Mr. ORSENO. There is a very strong possibility that additional 

funding would help us move the project along faster. But I also 

want to be very clear that there is only a limited number of resources that are available for installation and purchasing things 

and the supply and demand chain. 

We definitely can look at moving it quicker, and if we had Federal funding we could take the funding that we are using for that 

right now for other things. Like I explained before, we have got 

cars that are 60 years old. We have got bridges that were built in 

the 1800s. We could address some of those issues. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I just want to also make the point that Metra has 

significantly increased—has needed to increase fares as a long-term 

plan of increasing fares. So you are doing your part in regard to 

that. 

Very quickly, before I conclude, I want to touch on one other 

safety-related issue with Administrator Feinberg. Regardless of 

whatever plan FRA chooses or is mandated to use moving forward, 

I hope your agency keeps careful tabs as I do on CN’s [Canadian 

National Railway’s] PTC efforts and the reports they submit. We 

already know from CN’s reports that they have the least ambitious 

and aggressive timeline for finishing their PTC installations and 

some other issues we have had with them, which we have discussed, and I think we need to make sure we follow up and keep 

the rails as safe as possible. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Certainly. And if I could just make one point in 

response to the back and forth, we have asked for a sum total of 

$2 billion to go towards PTC implementation and technologies, 

$825 million in GROW AMERICA, but altogether $2 billion. So we 

are absolutely in favor of additional Federal funding going to PTC 

implementation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. Perry, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

25 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Ms. Feinberg. I have got a question here for you. 

Start out with a little bit of a statement. Just to make sure I am 

clear, it is my understanding the FRA—and this comes from testimony—FRA will use all its enforcement powers, including warnings, emergency orders, and enforcement fines to encourage PTC 

adoption. Do we know how the FRA would assess the fines? Would 

they be assessed daily? Is there a policy that has been defined yet 

regarding that? 

Ms. FEINBERG. So the goal of our enforcement actions, and I 

think probably any safety regulator’s enforcement actions, is to 

bring about compliance and implementation as safely and efficiently as possible. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand the goal. Do you have a policy? Do we 

know what is coming? 

Ms. FEINBERG. As we discussed a little bit earlier, we are finalizing that now. Most of the enforcement policy is public and has 

been public since 2010. There are various fines and penalties based 

on whether it is locomotives or segments of track. But most of it 

has been public since 2010. And we are, in response to the Congress’ request, finalizing our strategy now so that we can be completely transparent about what railroads and the Congress can expect. 

Mr. PERRY. So it might be daily, it might be otherwise? 

Ms. FEINBERG. That is correct. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. So a few weeks ago when you were here shortly 

after the horrible mishap in Philadelphia, I asked you how much 

of the $1.3 billion in stimulus money that was received some time 

ago—because it was such an issue, right, and there were questions 

about Congress and one particular party not being responsive and 

cutting money for PTC—so how much of the stimulus money, when 

everything was in one hand in this town, was spent on PTC for 

Amtrak, in particular in the Northeast Corridor, right? Do you remember that question? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I do remember that question, and it is $400 million of ARRA went towards PTC. That is not Amtrak specific. And, 

I am sorry, I didn’t realize you wanted just Amtrak specific. But 

it is $400 million total. 

Mr. PERRY. $400 million. All right. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I believe it is $36 million for Amtrak. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. All right. So right now, and that is Federal funding, we are looking at $9 billion is what the estimated cost of 

freight railroads. Right? We spent—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. Total. 

Mr. PERRY. Yeah. Total. Right? With this deadline. But you can 

see the dichotomy, you can see the difference, right? We don’t have 

PTC where we have money, and we are asking for exponentially 

more. We’re not asking—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. We are asking. 

Mr. PERRY [continuing]. But it is the requirement for, right, in- vestor owned? This is private money, $9 billion. Let me ask you 

about the arbitrary—the deadline. I am calling it arbitrary. What 

is your opinion about the deadline? Does it take into account the 

technical aspects? Does it take into account the frequency spectrum 

26 

aspects? Does it take into account the timeline where the FRA took 

nearly a year to approve one of the single plans, one of the plans 

that is required by each railroad? Does it take into account those 

things, the deadline? 

Ms. FEINBERG. It is your deadline. It is the Congress’ deadline. 

Mr. PERRY. I am asking your opinion. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I believe it is a good deadline. And, in fact, it was 

the deadline that was reached during negotiations. It was preferred 

by the railroads. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand. So you say it is good, but does it take 

into account those things? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I believe that in 2008, when you passed this deadline, you took those things into account. 

Mr. PERRY. You think we did. OK. And we foresaw all the things 

that might occur or not occur regarding frequency spectrum, regarding approvals, regarding finances. That was all known. There 

was no political solution to the two sides, one wanting earlier, one 

wanting later. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I think there was an understanding in 2008 that 

while this would be complicated, it had been called for since 1969 

and would not be so complicated it would be missed. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. Well, I asked for your opinion. I appreciate it. 

So under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2015, FRA was directed to provide a report to Congress on implementation within 

180 days. Do you know what the status of that is? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes. Previously we had a quick discussion about 

it. It was due to the committee, I believe, a week ago. In recent 

weeks we have gotten additional requests from the Congress about 

additional information they want in that report. We are updating 

it now and should have it to you in days. 

Mr. PERRY. But was it on time or wasn’t it? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, sir, it was due last week, 1 week ago. 

Mr. PERRY. So it is not in yet? 

Ms. FEINBERG. That is correct. It is supposed to be an update on 

where the railroads are in implementation. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand. But Congress also approved that, gave 

180 days. Everybody agreed. There was a negotiation. 

Ms. FEINBERG. But Congress has asked for it to now include our 

enforcement strategy and railroad-by-railroad information. 

Mr. PERRY. Things changes, right? Things change. So who should 

we fine at the FRA when they are not timely? 

Ms. FEINBERG. You can feel free to hold me accountable for the 

fact that the report is a week late. 

Mr. PERRY. What should the fine be? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I will leave that to you. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Perry. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I travel on the Northeast Corridor constantly back 

and forth, and I am still trying to get this idea with the spectrum, 

how we end up with two. And places like Chicago, they only have 

1 and more than 11 companies use it. I just don’t understand why 

we just can’t come up with one system. 

27 

Now we have to worry where one is going to interfere with the 

other? To me, it just doesn’t make sense when other parts of the 

country use one system. Could somebody address that? How did we 

get to this? How did we get to this point? 

Mr. LONEGRO. I think it goes back to the conversation we had a 

few minutes ago where the ACSES system for Amtrak was really 

developed for passenger rail, and specifically for high-speed passenger rail. There is a certain way that passenger railroads run 

their operation, and they utilize certain technologies to run their 

trains, dispatch their trains, and the freight railroads have, literally, a different way of running the railroad. And so those two 

systems—— 

Mr. SIRES. But is this a company not making a concession to the 

other or Amtrak not making a concession to you? I mean, I don’t 

understand it. 

Mr. LONEGRO. Well, we are all making concessions, candidly. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, how did we end up with two if we are all making concessions? 

Mr. LONEGRO. The systems are separate. They rely on communications as a fundamental aspect. And so what we are really doing 

is the data transmission is using two radios, which are going to use 

two separate but close pieces of spectrum, and the closer those 

pieces of spectrum are the more interference there can be. But I 

would say that we are actively working between Amtrak, the 

Northeast commuters, as well as the FCC to solve that problem, 

and we believe we have line of sight to that. I don’t know if Mr. 

Mathias would like to comment on that. 

Mr. SIRES. The FRA states that 40 percent of all accidents are 

a result of human performance failures. The railroads, however, 

claim that PTC would only prevent 4 percent of all accidents, inferring that the cost outweighs the benefits. How did we come up with 

4 percent? 

Mr. LONEGRO. We looked at all of the accidents over, I believe 

it was either a 10- or a 12-year period, all accidents. Right? And 

I am not sure that the FRA looked at all accidents. They may have 

looked at a subset of all accidents. 

Accidents are generally caused by a couple of things, either the 

conditions or the behaviors. Right? The conditions could be track 

related, signal related, how the car operates or some of the components on that, and the same on the locomotive side, and then you 

have behavioral based. So is there something that happened in the 

cab of the locomotive, the human factor side of things. 

We looked at the entire portfolio of accidents and did the math 

on things that we thought were PTC preventable and were not, and 

came up with that 4 percent. At CSX it is actually only 2 percent. 

Mr. SIRES. Two percent? 

Mr. LONEGRO. Yes, sir, 2 percent of all accidents PTC preventable. 

Mr. SIRES. So, in other words, in your eyes you don’t think it is 

worth it to make this investment? 

Mr. LONEGRO. You know, I think we are well past that conversation, to be honest with you, Member. We have already spent $1.2 

billion on it. We have good line of sight to completion of the hardVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
28 

ware by 2018 and full deployment by 2020. I think we are well past 

that conversation. 

Mr. SIRES. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hardy, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Feinberg, I read your testimony clear through, and it states 

in your testimony it seems that FRA is ready to act, directing penalties on PTC if not implemented. Also you state that FRA is ready 

to act in the interim to bring railroads into safety compliance. You 

suggest that Congress should authorize FRA to require railroads to 

use alternative safety technology on specified lines. You also say, 

and I quote: ‘‘These requirements will likely be costly to railroads.’’ 

Can you share with me your ideas on this alternative technology? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Sir, what I was referring to was what I would 

refer to as the safety gap that will exist between January 1, 2016, 

so the day after the deadline, and when PTC is actually implemented by each railroad, and what, if anything, should be done to 

raise the bar on safety during that gap. 

So whether it is additional communication between crewmembers, an additional person in the cab, we have not made final 

determinations. I think they would be railroad-by-railroad specific. 

But it would be how do you increase safety between the date of the 

deadline that is missed and when PTC is actually implemented. 

Mr. HARDY. In your testimony you stated that these will be costly 

to railroads. So you have clearly run the numbers on how much it 

will cost. Can you share with me those calculations or how you 

come to that point with that statement? 

Ms. FEINBERG. We just frequently hear from railroads that items 

like additional crewmembers are quite costly. That is based on that 

assertion. 

Mr. HARDY. OK. 

Mr. Orseno, with safety being paramount, I would like you to 

delve into the costs a little more. In your testimony that the commuter and the freight rail industries will have spent over billions 

of dollars on PTC implementation, although progress has been substantial, but it remains to be done before PTC can be safely implemented nationwide, companies, on how much money have they 

spent out of pocket, do you believe these costs will be passed down 

to consumers, which is naturally what happens, but I just want to 

hear from you. 

Mr. ORSENO. In my opinion, yes, they would be passed down to 

consumers. When we raise our fares in order to cover PTC costs 

and other items, we have to pass those costs on, and we only have 

X amount of State and Federal funding. 

The challenge that we have on the commuter rail side is the 

higher you raise the fares, the less likely you are going to retain 

all of your ridership. At a time when we want to get more people 

on our trains and off the roads, that is a big challenge for us. So 

it is a very difficult balancing act to still be able to provide safe, 

valuable service for our customers. 

Mr. HARDY. Do you believe that we have done all that we can 

as a committee, as Congress, to help move this process forward? Do 

you feel like you are being penalized for our lack of action or inacVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
29 

tion or FRA’s actions or inactions? I would like to hear your opinion 

on that also. 

Mr. ORSENO. That is a challenging question. 

Mr. HARDY. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ORSENO. The answer is this is a very expensive proposition 

for all railroads, especially commuter railroads where we don’t 

have the type of funding that we need. I believe that Congress 

needs to fund the PTC project. It is important. It is important for 

the safety of our customers, our employees, and the communities 

we operate through. So it is very important to me that the Federal 

Government supply some funding for it. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. 

Mr. Lonegro, you made the statement that the immediate impact 

of the deadline will be that RSIA [Rail Safety Improvement Act] 

has the potential of making certain rail operations illegal. Can you 

discuss these ramifications a little bit more, if you would, please? 

Mr. LONEGRO. Yes, sir. We are in a legal dilemma, as I mentioned in the opening testimony. We have a law that requires PTC 

to be implemented on lines that carry passengers and lines that 

carry certain commodities, TIH and PIH commodities. And so the 

transport of those after January the 1st of 2016 would run in contravention to the Rail Safety Improvement Act. Yet we also have 

a common carrier obligation that requires us to haul freight that 

is tendered on reasonable requests and at reasonable terms and 

conditions. 

And so we are in a situation of which law do we violate. And we 

have that same conundrum on the passenger side. I mean, Amtrak 

runs over us, a law that is 40, 45 years old, and so we are required 

to allow Amtrak to run as well as a number of other commuters, 

including Mr. Orseno. 

And we also have this obligation under the Rail Safety Improvement Act which requires us to complete PTC on those same lines. 

And so if we are not able to meet it on those lines, do we need to 

tell Mr. Orseno that he can’t run? 

I mean, these are the challenges that many, many lawyers right 

now are trying to resolve, and we don’t have the answer to that 

quite yet. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hardy. 

Ms. Esty, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Chairman Denham, and thank you for, remarkably gracious Ranking Member Capuano, for waiting so long. 

I want to thank both of you for holding today’s hearing. This subcommittee’s work is extremely important to the thousands of folks 

in my district in Connecticut who ride these rails every day and to 

the businesses who rely on the freight service, as well, in northwest 

and central Connecticut. And I hear from a lot of those commuters 

that they are very concerned about rail safety, as you can imagine, 

with the last 2 years. 

And we have been talking about, ever since the fatal collision in 

1969, we have been talking about Positive Train Control. And as 

you can sense from today’s hearing, there is increasing impatience 

and concern about how long that is taking. 

30 

Now, I think we really need to get down to brass tacks of what 

are the carrots and sticks? What are the incentives at this time, 

recognizing the difficulty with spectrum, the difficulty with interoperability, and with the budget challenges, what do we do now to 

move this forward as expeditiously and safely as possible? And that 

is where I would like to start from. The past is the past. We are 

here now. We are in June of 2015. How do we get this moving forward to keep people safe? 

So first, Acting Administrator Feinberg, again, thank you for 

your patience and your transparency and your exceptional availability to us on the committee. We value that quite a lot. In your 

testimony, you noted that you think FRA needs the authority, 

given the situation right now, over PTC control systems, to test 

them, as well as to provide for interim safety measures when they 

do not meet that deadline, which it is all very clear most of them 

will not be meeting that deadline. Could you expand and say what 

should we be doing in this committee, what should this committee 

of jurisdiction be doing to give FRA authority, and why? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Thank you for the question. 

I think the most important thing that we can do starting now 

and going forward is to provide railroads with the resources that 

they need to implement PTC. So this administration has asked, the 

FRA has asked for significant resources for the commuter railroads 

so that they can implement PTC. I think that is the most important thing that can happen. 

But additionally, in terms of our authority, the statute is quite 

narrow. And so, as others have discussed, we really do run into a 

problem on January 1 where the law is the law, and despite the 

preferences of railroads, I can’t give waivers, I can’t base waivers 

on good faith, I can’t extend the deadline, and I won’t extend the 

deadline. And so we have to figure out how to move forward past 

January 1 to make sure that passengers, folks who live near and 

along rail are safe. 

And so I am happy to continue to work with the Congress on 

that, but the most important thing is to make sure that we are providing resources so that we can actually bring this technology online quickly. 

Ms. ESTY. A quick followup question. Do you believe that the 

railroads that fail to meet that deadline, and I am asking now 

under current law, will be subjected to increased tort liability? Because the insurance issues were already raised here today. That is 

obviously a very, very big stick that, again, I think this committee 

needs to understand what is the legal opinion of FRA about that 

as well as the railroads. 

Ms. FEINBERG. The opinion of the FRA—look, I don’t want to give 

the railroads legal advice, and I am probably the only person in 

this room who is not a lawyer, but we are certainly hearing from 

the railroads that they absolutely believe that they are increased 

liability as of January 1, and we would—we agree with them. 

Ms. ESTY. Well, I think we need to get to work on that because 

that is not in anybody’s interest as we move forward. 

Mr. Mathias, good to see you. We went to college together. So 

thank you for being here. I am hearing from the railroads, and particularly in the Northeast Corridor, we hear other Members refVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
31 

erence this, the difficulty about spectrum. What is it from your perspective, from the FCC’s perspective, that we can do, particularly 

in a very congested space—and that is spectrum space, as well as 

physical space—that we should be doing to expedite the safety in 

the Northeast Corridor, the most heavily trafficked area in the 

country? 

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you. And it is good to see you too. Thank 

you for your question. 

We have an increasingly good news story in the Northeast Corridor with regard to spectrum. It is my understanding that currently Amtrak has the spectrum it needs to deploy, which would 

be relevant for Connecticut. In addition, we currently have in front 

of us a proposed transaction that would provide the MTA additional spectrum to provide coverage between New York and New 

Haven, which would fill a gap in their spectrum coverage, and we 

also understand that the MBTA has the spectrum that we need. 

So what our job will be is to ensure that we are working as 

quickly as we can and are fully engaged to make sure that those 

transactions are completed as quickly as possible as soon as we 

have the information and to be ready in case something changes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Let’s go right to Mr. Mathias. You were talking 

about the Connecticut connection, putting PTC in from Boston to 

New Haven. Isn’t that most of what Amtrak doesn’t own? 

Mr. MATHIAS. No, sir. The Amtrak has spectrum—— 

Mr. MICA. But that is where it was installed. It is installed there, 

isn’t it? Last hearing you gave us a map, and that one was—that 

was pretty much complete. 

Mr. MATHIAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Right. But that is really mostly under a private operation. Amtrak runs trains over it. They don’t own that part of the 

line. I am telling you that they don’t own it. I know. OK? All right. 

Just interesting that they could get it done. OK. 

Let’s go to the Acting Administrator. Here she is back asking for 

money again. And last question I asked, how many RRIF loans had 

been given since 2012, and first I got an answer of until last year 

two, and then add one, we got to three. Is it still three RRIF loans 

since 2012? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. OK. How many of those were for PTC? 

Ms. FEINBERG. One. 

Mr. MICA. One. OK. You could say 33 percent of them. It sounds 

more impressive. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Good idea. 

Mr. MICA. Let’s go back to our communications guy. There was 

an 11,000 backlog you took care of. At one time I thought there 

were as many as 20,000 applications. 

Mr. MATHIAS. We understand from the railroads that their total 

deployment would be approximately 30,000—— 

Mr. MICA. What is your number of applications approved and 

what is your backlog at this point? 

32 

Mr. MATHIAS. We have had before us for review 8,300. We have 

no backlog today. 

Mr. MICA. No backlog. They are all approved. And you are expecting more. In the past, and I gave you credit, before your average processing was about 2,000 a year. Is that correct or did I lie? 

Mr. MATHIAS. I think we are able to do more. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Where is my guy from—OK, Metrolink. When 

was the accident at Metrolink? 

Mr. KERWIN. 2008 was the Chatsworth. 

Mr. MICA. 2007? 

Mr. KERWIN. 2008. 

Mr. MICA. 2008. Mr. Oberstar, we did the bill. You still don’t 

have Positive Train Control in all of Metrolink service, or do you? 

Mr. KERWIN. We have our entire system of Metrolink-owned lines 

in service. 

Mr. MICA. By what? 

Mr. KERWIN. Metrolink-owned lines are all in service. 

Mr. MICA. With Positive Train Control. 

Mr. KERWIN. With Positive Train Control. 

Mr. MICA. OK. What is missing then? 

Mr. KERWIN. The lines that we run on with our freight partners 

are not currently PTC operational with our trains. 

Mr. MICA. But Ms. Feinberg, we will go back to here, she just 

testified she is going to hammer those freight people and the hammer is coming down the end of the year. Right? Is that what you 

said? I heard you in the beginning. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I said we would enforce the deadline. 

Mr. MICA. You are going to enforce it, right. Well, that is kind 

of interesting because then I see you submit a budget that proposes 

a 6-year schedule, 2016, of funding commuter railroads to implement PTC. So is it going to take another 6 years? 

Last I checked, there are not a lot of passengers on freight 

trains. Isn’t that right? I mean, most of them I know they are carrying freight not people. But I would think people would be pretty 

important. Most of those people that were killed out there in that 

incident were people. It might have disrupted some freight traffic, 

but it was people. So is this the new policy: On people and commuters we are going to take 6 years, but we are going to hammer 

those freight people, aren’t we? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, no. So, first of all, we will enforce the deadline against all the railroads, not just the freights. 

Mr. MICA. OK. But then we have a plan to go forward with—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. If they can implement it sooner, that would be 

great. Happy to use those resources for other items. 

Mr. MICA. Cameras. Metrolink, you got them? Are there cameras 

in the cabs? 

Mr. KERWIN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. All of them? 

Mr. KERWIN. We have all inward facing cameras in all of our 

cabs. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Because that has been a recommendation of 

NTSB for some time since that accident, and I cited all the other 

times back to 1973, and they weren’t implemented in most instances. 

33 

Mr. KERWIN. Ours have been implemented since 2009. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Last thing. Is TIFIA [Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act] eligible for use of installation of 

Positive Train Control? Does anybody know? 

Ms. FEINBERG. TIFIA, not RRIF? 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Do we know? Does anybody know? Staff know or anybody? Come 

on. Some of you guys are brilliant on the other side. You don’t 

know? It is? OK. 

They think it is. So that is a mechanism for funding. But let me 

tell you the last thing before I conclude. I have 7 seconds. 

I was flying up here and I met a guy on a plane. I didn’t know 

him from Adam’s house cat. 

‘‘What are you doing on the plane, Mr. Mica?’’ 

‘‘Well, I am coming back to DC.’’ 

I said, ‘‘Why are you coming back to DC?’’ 

He says, ‘‘Well, I am with some kind of a project, and we finance 

projects.’’ And he says, ‘‘It took us between 60 and 90 days to get 

approval for financing under TIFIA, the private sector.’’ 

I said, ‘‘Well, what are you doing here?’’ 

He says, ‘‘It has taken us a year.’’ He says, ‘‘These guys are 

screwing around with the paperwork for a year.’’ 

So you can go out and get private sector financing while they 

screw around in DOT, and here is a mechanism that may be available and is available, and you have huge capacity at RRIF, and 

both of them don’t work. 

Did you want to respond on your own time, because I am over? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Sure. I believe that under Secretary Foxx both of 

those programs have moved along much faster than they have previously. There is always room for improvement. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have got to go to the medical center. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Mica. 

And the previous chairman did say that the witness’ time was 

also the Member’s time today. 

Ms. Hahn, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Thank you to my colleague Mr. Capuano for yielding to the rest 

of the committee. 

First of all, I want to commend Metrolink, the second-largest rail 

system by size in the country, for the outstanding work that they 

have done in meeting our PTC deadline. I like it that you worked 

closely with your railroad partners, BNSF, Union Pacific, Amtrak, 

to make sure that their technologies were interoperable and 

worked hard to acquire the funds needed to fund the implementation of your system. I want to point out that 85 percent of the 

funds that Metrolink used to fund the rollout were from the State 

of California and local sources, only 15 percent were Federal. 

PTC is clearly a top priority for me, and it really is for the American people. I think when the American people hear that we can 

prevent train accidents and deaths of people by the implementation 

of PTC, they are also very frustrated that many railroads are not 

going to be meeting our deadline. But I will say, I would like to 

go on record and agree to disagree with Chairman Denham, that 

I don’t think we should take money from the California High-Speed 

34 

Rail Authority to pay for PTC. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has it within their budget to make sure that there is PTC 

on the California high-speed rail project. We need to find money for 

both. 

I am going to ask Mr. Mathias my first question, and we have 

heard from testimony a major part of the process to implement 

PTC is acquiring the spectrum. According to Metrolink, the process 

of acquiring spectrum has been trying and prolonged. It purchased 

the license for spectrum 5 years ago, and before they can use it, 

they need FCC’s approval. In order to meet the deadline, Metrolink 

is currently leasing spectrum at the rate of $50,000 per year from 

freight railroads while awaiting the approval. 

I think everyone is going to want to know, why has it taken 5 

years to approve the use of spectrum? Is this normal? And 

shouldn’t we have, in light of the recent accidents and in light of 

this urgency to prevent future accidents, shouldn’t there be an expedited process for approval for projects that deal with our public 

safety? 

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you for that good question, and I can appreciate your concern. We are very glad that Metrolink actually has 

been able to negotiate a lease and that they will be able to have 

spectrum necessary to provide the PTC service. 

We understand their concern and frustration that the spectrum 

that they had intended to purchase has taken so long to acquire. 

Unfortunately, it has been mired in Federal litigation, as well as 

in a closed proceeding at the Federal Communications Commission, 

so unfortunately I can’t provide details. 

But what we are trying to do is as much as we can to keep that 

process moving. We have taken the extraordinary step of taking 

the spectrum that they wish to acquire out of our closed proceeding 

so that we can move forward. They have several waiver requests 

that they need that would facilitate their use of the spectrum that 

are pending before us. We understand they need to update those. 

We look forward to receiving that information. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. But, again, I think the American people 

are not going to be very sympathetic with excuses for the FCC not 

approving spectrum applications as quickly as possible. And I sort 

of agree with my colleague Ms. Brown on it is sort of difficult to 

be fining and enforcing the deadline when some of our own agencies are not moving as quickly as most of us would like. So I am 

just going to say that. 

OK. Mr. Kerwin, you are a model, as I said. I am very proud of 

Metrolink in California. Maybe since you have been able to meet 

the deadline and you have been able to jump over obstacles and 

through the hoops to actually make this happen, what advice 

would you give other commuter rail lines in this country who are 

trying to meet the deadline by the end of the year? 

Mr. KERWIN. Sure. Thank you for that question. 

I would like to actually thank Mr. Lonegro for his shout-out to 

our project director, Darrell Maxey, who has been just diligent in 

pushing this project forward. That sentiment has come all the way 

from the top ranks of Metrolink. The board, our grantors have 

made a very, very strong commitment to this project. So the funding that they provided has been really the crucial element in getVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
35 

ting this project going, along with that adamant support from our 

board to really get this project started. 

So we started early and made a very concerted effort, around the 

clock been working very hard at it for many years. So it is hard 

to give—I wouldn’t say there is a silver bullet for other commuter 

railroads to accomplish it. It has been a very challenging process. 

So we do sympathize with the many challenges which we have also 

encountered. 

So I would say that the funding is a key element and having a 

close working relationship with your freight partners that you operate with, because really that was the other key element for us, was 

the strong support that we had from our freight partners. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. And, again, you have been a model for the 

country, and we applaud you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry 

I had to be at another hearing until just a few minutes ago. 

But, Ms. Feinberg, maybe you have covered this, but let me ask 

you this. It has taken these railroads several years to get to the 

point where they are now, and apparently there is still a pretty 

good ways to go. And I am wondering, do you have any estimate 

of how long it is going to take your agency to certify a railroad 

after this process? 

Ms. FEINBERG. So the step is first a safety plan is submitted to 

us. So it is basically the railroad’s plan for how they will implement PTC and how they will ensure that the system is working. 

We have received one of those and have turned it back around to 

the railroad. 

They take a while to go through because you are not only reading 

the plan, but you are in close consultation with the railroad talking 

through it, offering edits and changes to make sure that the system 

is going to work. So it takes a while. 

But we feel pretty confident that as they roll in, we will be able 

to staff up and turn them around in the kinds of time periods that 

we have laid out for the railroads. But as of now, we have just received one. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are you satisfied with the progress that the railroads have made thus far? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I am not satisfied. I would not be satisfied unless 

the deadline were going to be met. 

Mr. DUNCAN. My dad told me years ago, and I don’t remember 

what he was talking about at the time, but he said everything 

looks easy from a distance. 

And I was reading over Mr. Lonegro’s testimony. Just for CSX 

it says the tasks are still monumental. And it said CSX has to do 

‘‘a complete airborne-laser imaging survey of our entire 21,000-mile 

network’’ to have ‘‘all assets mapped to within 7 feet of their precise location, installation of 5,202 wayside units, replacing signals 

along 7,500 miles of track, installing 1,285 base stations, equipping 

3,900 locomotives, training 16,000 employees.’’ I mean, these tasks, 

monumental is being conservative when you say that. 

And, Mr. Lonegro, tell me about the safety record of CSX so far. 

36 

Mr. LONEGRO. We have been an industry leader for the last 2 or 

3 years in safety, sir, and the whole industry, if you go back and 

look at especially the train accident statistics, has seen significant, 

40 to 50 percent reductions in train accidents since the 2000 time 

period. 

Safety is a core value of CSX. Safety is a way of life. It is the 

first core value that we have, and it is very similar at every other 

railroad. So, I mean, every day we live and breathe safety, whether 

it is to improve conditions along the railroad, the track infrastructure, the signaling infrastructure, the equipment side of the house, 

cars, locomotives, and the human factor side of the house, the 

training efforts that we do. 

We have a technology called ERAD [Event Recorder Automated 

Download], which is a virtual road foreman that looks exactly how 

that train was handled to figure out whether there are any anomalies in that train handling and then have a coaching session with 

that employee. If they were over speed, right, we have a conversation with them. If they happen to breach a red signal, they are 

taken out of service and decertified. 

We have lots of things that we are doing. We are starting down 

the inward facing camera path a la Metrolink to understand the 

exact behaviors in the cab that contribute to accidents. 

So I would say we are doing an awful lot on safety, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, the committee staff gave me a statistic a few 

minutes ago, and they said that the freight rail system is 99.995 

percent safe based on the number of trips that are taken. I don’t 

know, that seems to me to be a phenomenal safety record. My staffer Don Walker told me a short time ago that the Wall Street Journal said that 2014 was the safest year ever for the rail industry. 

Now, I mean, everybody has tremendous sympathy for these families that lost loved ones in the Amtrak accident, but, my goodness, 

now we are going to be spending billions, already have spent billions and going to be spending billions more to try to make something that is already one of the safest things in the entire world. 

And I am thinking that we would be far better off to spend those 

billions in many, many other ways, cancer research and everything 

else. 

My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you for being so gracious with your time. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Gracious. Get that Pete? Gracious. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah. Twice. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I want to thank the panel too. 

Ms. Feinberg, we are all here today because we think PTC can 

save lives. I think everybody agrees with that. If you are a week 

or two or a month late with a report, does anybody die? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Are there any major property losses? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. OK. If one of the major railroads came to you and 

said, ‘‘We are not going to make December 31, but we are going to 

make January 15, we are going to make February 1,’’ are you likely 

37 

to be imposing big fines on somebody who is going to be a few 

weeks or a month late? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Highly unlikely. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I didn’t think so. 

Mr. Kerwin, it cost roughly $200 million, a little over $200 million to institute the PTC on your system. Is that right? 

Mr. KERWIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. How much did the Chatsworth accident cost? 

Mr. KERWIN. In excess of that amount, I would say. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So in hindsight, knowing what that accident cost 

versus what the system cost, the system has already paid for itself. 

Mr. KERWIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. If it has paid for itself on your line, do you think 

it is a reasonable thing to say that it would pay for itself on any 

other line in avoided accidents? 

Mr. KERWIN. Yes, I would agree with that. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I think so too. 

I guess nobody here believes—nobody wants any fines. There is 

no reason to have fines. We all understand that, Mr. Orseno. We 

have a commuter rail system too. We get that. But at the same 

time, we are sitting here 7 years later with some of the major railroads having done virtually nothing. How would you suggest, let’s 

assume that we could come together as a Congress—by the way, 

Ms. Feinberg, who set this December 31 deadline? 

Ms. FEINBERG. The Congress. 

Mr. CAPUANO. And are you empowered to ignore that? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Are you empowered to change that deadline? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So it is only us? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Correct. 

Mr. CAPUANO. OK. I think that any reasonable person here understands the deadline is not going to be met. Any reasonable person understands the deadline has to be extended. We are not looking to do fines. 

Now, if we don’t, I would not ask Ms. Feinberg or anyone else 

to ignore the law. I would hope that Congress can come together 

and do this. At the same time, once we do it, how do we avoid a 

bad actor from simply ignoring it again for any reasonable period 

of time, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, without a stick? 

Mr. Orseno. 

And I don’t want the fines, but how do I do it any other way? 

Mr. ORSENO. Well, I think, as was brought up here today on 

many occasions, I believe that at the onset from the 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act, that was a date that was agreed upon. I think 

once we got into the significant challenges that it—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. I understand how we are today. Let’s assume 

today, right now, if I said to you write a law that says in some period of time, some reasonable period of time, 2, 3, 5 years, pick a 

timeframe, we are going to have this done, how do I then enforce 

it if I don’t have fines? 

Mr. ORSENO. Well, I think we would need to look at it at that 

time. But I think the key issue is right now we aren’t going to meet 

38 

the deadline. And it is not from lack of effort. If it was from lack 

of effort—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. I respect that. But the bottom line is I don’t know 

any other way to enforce it amongst bad actors. Good actors don’t 

need an enforcement, bad actors do, which is why fines are in 

place. My presumption is you have contracts with suppliers that 

give them fines if they don’t meet their requirements. We have to 

have the same thing if we really think that PTC is important. 

By the way, I also fully agree that we should—the Federal Government should be participating in paying for this. But we are having that argument. You know the arguments we are having here. 

I am with you, but I need 217 other Members to agree with that. 

In the meantime, we can’t do anything. 

So I think that it is pretty clear to me that we have to do something, but to pretend that we do nothing or to pretend that somehow goodness will simply overcome the lack of goodness is ridiculous and unenforceable. We need to come up with a reasonable 

timeframe. We need to allow Ms. Feinberg to enforce the law, 

whatever it might be. I don’t expect you to break the law. I also 

don’t want to fine anybody. So we have to act. 

And we can do it all day long, we can play games, we can dance 

around, we can point fingers, we can show what happened 5 years 

ago, 7 years ago, 10 years ago. But since 1969, according to the 

NTSB, according to their own figures, preventable accidents have 

killed 296 people and it injured 6,732. And I don’t know how much 

money has been lost because no one has put that number together. If the cap, the $200 million cap, which, by the way, would have 

cost Metrolink more if it wasn’t for the cap, it is hard to tell, but 

it seems to me just rough numbers, it looks like the cap probably 

would have cost—even with the cap, it would have been about $20 

billion that these accidents would have cost. 

This is a doable action, and it is an action that pays for itself as 

proof positive by Metrolink. Help us work with you to get it done. 

And by the way, Mr. Mathias, earlier you said you had 8,500 

poles agreed to, but that doesn’t count the 11,000 that you did previously. It is my understanding you are closer to 20,000 poles 

across the country that have been approved. Now, that 20,000 is 

about out of 30,000, 35,000 that they will need. So we have already 

got two-thirds of the locations approved and ready to go. Is that 

right? 

Mr. MATHIAS. Correct. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Safety is my first priority, there is no question, and Positive 

Train Control is a necessary tool to improve safety. But the fact of 

the matter is that most railroads will not have the technology installed by the December 31, 2015, deadline. Today I am wondering 

what happens on January 1, 2016, if the deadline remains. 

Mr. Lonegro, today Ms. Feinberg again committed to hold the 

railroads accountable for not meeting the PTC deadline, including 

potential fines and restrictions of service. If the deadline is not exVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
39 

tended, what actions will the railroads likely take? I want to know 

what is going to happen on January 1. 

Mr. LONEGRO. Well, sir, there is one way to be compliant with 

the deadline, and that is not to move TIH/PIH commodities or passengers, which is an untenable situation if you are a passenger 

agency or a TIH/PIH shipper. So the railroads right now are in a 

very difficult place with a deadline that can only be congressionally 

moved. 

So we again have a lot of folks that are evaluating how we look 

at the common carrier obligation, how we look at the PTC mandate 

to, in essence, figure out is there a way to navigate through breaking the law on one hand or breaking the law on the other hand. 

And we have a very similar situation with Amtrak and the commuter agencies where we are required to move the passengers or 

allow them to move their passengers over our lines. And again, we 

have a PTC mandate and we have a passenger requirement, and 

I hate to say which—we are being backed into a corner in terms 

of which law should we violate. And it may be that the path forward really does involve cessation of service. 

But we are all looking at that. We are all evaluating. You heard 

a Member earlier talk about increased tort liability. We certainly 

worry about that as well. 

So it is an untenable situation, as I mentioned in my opening 

statement. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Orseno, in your testimony you mention concerns within the APTA Rail Conference about the ability of commuter rail to operate past the PTC deadline as it relates to liability 

and coverage. Can you further describe what liability and coverage 

issues would prevent commuter rail that doesn’t meet the PTC 

deadline from operating? 

Mr. ORSENO. Well, when we were at the conference a question 

was raised on whether we can operate or individual agencies can 

operate past the deadline because you would be operating outside 

the confines of the law and there may be restrictions in some of the 

liability coverages. And all the commuter railroads are now going 

back with their risk and legal teams to take a look and see if that 

is the case. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You have already said that Metra won’t make the 

December 31, 2015, deadline, and in Pennsylvania, SEPTA will not 

make the deadline either. If the worst-case scenario occurs and 

commuter rail does not receive any flexibility on the PTC deadline, 

how would commuters who rely on Metra or other commuter rail 

like SEPTA be impacted by operation changes? 

Mr. ORSENO. That would depend on to the degree of what actually happens. If railroads were forced to close down because of liability reasons and insurance reasons, for us alone that would put 

300,000 passengers on the roads already that are congested, and 

that wouldn’t be a good solution. 

Mr. BARLETTA. In Pennsylvania, SEPTA is furthest behind in the 

on board vehicle/locomotive system installations. You also cited in 

your testimony that one of the biggest PTC challenges is onboard 

software, and that final production release date is not yet known. 

Can you tell us why this has been such a challenge? 

40 

Mr. ORSENO. I don’t have that technical knowledge, but I believe 

Mr. Lonegro does. 

Mr. LONEGRO. PTC, in the very beginning, was somewhat theoretical in the way that the regulation was published in terms of 

what it had to accomplish and how it had to accomplish that. And 

so we took a system that was much smaller, much less complicated, 

and much less mature, and through the period of the last 7 years 

are really working to the point where it can comply with all of the 

regulations and the functionality that has been required. 

I would tell you that from a software perspective, we are getting 

closer, meaning, arguably, the end of the year we could have a 

piece of software that is very, very close. At the same time, we 

have committed to not implement software that has any critical defects or severe defects, but yet we are willing to deploy software 

with medium or minor defects, right. 

So we are not really trying to get to perfect necessarily, but we 

are making sure that it can provide all the functionality and 

doesn’t create a situation where a safety problem is introduced. 

Just in the last month or so, we have found a safety-critical defect in the onboard software which has to be corrected, has to be 

retested, has to be taken back to the field, and the same holds true 

for the back-office software. So these are people in the supplier 

community, this is their business, right, this is what they do for 

a living, and if they are unable to tackle the technical challenge 

that has been put in front of all of us, that gives you some understanding of the complexity of the challenge that we have because 

that is just one piece of the puzzle. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And I would like to recognize Ms. 

Brown. If you will indulge me just for a second, though, I am going 

to turn it over to Mr. Rokita, but I did want to enter one piece of 

information for the record, without objection. This was prepared in 

association with the California High-Speed Rail Association. This is 

their June 2009 request for funding. 

[The ‘‘San Francisco/Silicon Valley Corridor Investment Strategy 

for High-Speed Rail’’ can be found on page 108.] 

Mr. DENHAM. On their request, they request $230 million from 

the ARRA Investment Strategy from those funds that have been allocated to California, $230 million. Here is a map here where it 

shows exactly where those improvements would be. 

Can you zoom that in? Move it up. 

This corridor here, Positive Train Control, $230 million. The 

California High-Speed Rail Authority thinks that it can do it. They 

have requested it. This is in California. We want to have the safety 

improvements there. Here is a good funding source to do that. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, understood. My staff passed me a 

note during the hearing that states that ARRA high-speed rail 

funding has been at $328 million. So we will follow up with you 

and look at those two numbers together and respond. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And I will have a staff member bring 

that down just for your record as we continue this ongoing exchange. 

41 

And with that, I would like to recognize Ms. Brown for our second round of questioning. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but would you indulge 

me for a minute, because when I was out of the room, Mr. Mica 

said that Amtrak had not implemented Positive Train Control from 

New Haven to Boston. Not only did they implement it, it was the 

first in the country, and I want to submit that for the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Now, Metrolink, who I visited with several times in California, 

and I just want to mention that you had the support of the State, 

the local recovery money. And funding is the issue for all of the 

commuter lines, and let’s don’t sit here and act like it is not, and 

a lot of the local resources are not available for the other lines. 

With that, I want to go on to Frank, because you and I want to 

say all those great things about CSX, but you are the one that is 

here representing the Class I railroad, and they said that there are 

some positive players and there are some who are not. Would you 

give us an update, because we need an extension. The idea that we 

are going to start fining people, and then where is that money 

going? Against this reduction? I want the money to go into the system. So would you tell us who are these negative players that they 

are talking about? 

Mr. LONEGRO. Thank you, Member Brown. 

There are no bad actors here. This technology is very difficult to 

implement. The scale proposition that we each have is very challenging, as one of the Members mentioned earlier in terms of the 

scale of the CSX deployment. For at least the major U.S. Class I’s, 

the scale is about the same, right, we all have that major challenge. 

The Canadian railroads have a slightly smaller footprint because 

they don’t run as much in the United States and there is no PTC 

mandate in Canada, so their footprint is slightly smaller. So at 

least in the Class I world, there are no bad actors. We are all going 

about this with all—— 

Ms. BROWN. That is not what I heard, though. And are you all 

working with the commuter lines also? 

Mr. LONEGRO. We are. Each of us has a different set of commuters that we work with. So on the CSX footprint, we have commuters in and around DC, we certainly have commuters in Chicago, and then we have a full spectrum of commuters on Amtrak 

that run, in essence, from Baltimore up to Boston. 

So we are in active discussions with them literally all of the 

time. We hosted a summit in Chicago at Mr. Orseno’s facility 

where we brought in the Class I’s in the committee that I chair at 

the industry level, we brought in all the commuters and all the 

short lines, and did our best to try to help educate folks on the 

state of the technology, some of the challenges that we face, so they 

wouldn’t have to face the same challenges as they deployed on their 

railroads. 

We had, I think, a good dialogue, and Mr. Orseno can certainly 

chime in. I think we had a good dialogue. We have kept that dialogue up. We have another meeting planned for later in this year 

42 

where we can reengage and reassess where we are both individually and collectively. 

Ms. BROWN. What is the drop-dead amount of time that you 

need, Frank? 

Mr. LONEGRO. As an industry, one of the things that we come 

forward with is the ability to be hardware complete by 2018 and 

completely rolled out by 2020. And again, I want to make sure that 

everybody understands, by the end of 2018, OK, we will have as 

an industry 87 percent of the PTC footprint installed and implemented, meaning we are operational with PTC, and that is based 

on current plans, plans that were in place certainly before the Amtrak tragedy, and then the remaining 13 percent is really what 

comes in those last 2 years. 

So literally, we are starting to deploy PTC in operational mode 

right now, right, and then it ramps up from here fairly linearly, 

but ramps up from here through the end of 2020. 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Feinberg, how long will it take you all to inspect? If they complete it in 2018, you have some work to do. How 

long will it take you to verify the system? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, they would submit to us a plan, which we 

would then turn around to them. Then they would complete implementation, and I think things would move quite quickly. The issue 

there would be that you would be 3 years past the deadline at that 

point. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, we understand. Everybody understands that. 

And we understand that the deadline is not realistic and nobody 

is going to meet it, and we have some concerns about the fines. 

Mr. Mathias, I have a real concern about your spectrum, and we 

have talked a lot about it, even when it is implemented. What 

about the local responders? We need to be able to talk to each 

other; 9/11, we discovered that we couldn’t talk to each other. And 

then Katrina, we are still not talking to each other, and even 

though they are implementing something and Amtrak is implementing something. And then you have those local responders. 

How come we don’t have a dedicated system for emergencies for 

this country? 

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you for that question. I think that Congress 

has worked very hard and diligently to create an infrastructure for 

a national interoperable public safety communication system, and 

I think that is being addressed in that way, and it is in a separate 

spectrum band and being handled in a separate process. But that 

is on the way. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Mathias, failure is not an option. We really need 

to get it done. Thank you. 

Mr. ROKITA [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady’s 

time has expired. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I appreciate everyone’s testimony. Mr. Lonegro, I had a couple of 

questions for you about the two people in a cab situation. In our 

last hearing, NTSB Chairman Hart testified that having two-person cabs didn’t necessarily improve safety, and he was on a panel 

with several union members and others. I wonder what your 

thoughts are on that kind of statement. 

Mr. LONEGRO. We have two people in the cab of our locomotives 

on all our main line trains. We certainly over, I would say, the peVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\6-24-1~1\95230.TXT JEAN
43 

riod of years, if not decades in the future, we will look for the opportunity to reduce the crew size from two to one if the technology 

supports that and we are able to negotiate an appropriate agreement with our labor unions. I mean, there is a path forward for 

that, again, when the technology gets to the point where having 

two people in the cab really is no longer necessary. 

Mr. ROKITA. Roger. 

Last hearing Ms. Feinberg stated that the FRA is looking at having a two-person crew situation as an interim solution along with 

probably some additional backstops as well until PTC is implemented, before deadline, after deadline, whenever that is. Would 

you be supportive of that? 

Mr. LONEGRO. Well, on the freight side I think it is not necessary. We already have it. I think maybe she was referring to the 

commuter side of the house and the Amtrak side of the house 

which generally operates with one person in the cab, although they 

certainly have crewmembers in the train itself. But we already 

have two. 

Mr. ROKITA. Same question, this is the last question to you, Mr. 

Orseno. 

Mr. ORSENO. We operate our trains with one person in the cab 

and two people in the body of the train that are both rules qualified. Two members up in the cab doesn’t necessarily mean it is a 

safer situation. There have been many instances where there have 

been accidents when two people have been up in the cab. We don’t 

support that initiative. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Kerwin, same question to you. 

Mr. KERWIN. Yeah, we have also evaluated this in the past, and 

we will continue to monitor the recommendations from the FRA 

and NTSB on this issue. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Thank you. 

And back to you, Mr. Lonegro. You said you currently have two 

people in a cab on all routes that will require PTC by 2016 or—— 

Mr. LONEGRO. Correct, all main line routes, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So CSX having a two-person crew as an interim 

solution until PTC is fully implemented on PTC-required routes is 

logistically doable. 

Mr. LONEGRO. It is already being done. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So then would industry be supportive of having 

two-person crews as an interim solution until PTC is fully implemented, thus, theoretically you would be complying with the requirements of PTC if you had two people in a cab? 

Mr. LONEGRO. Well, there is no requirement for two people in the 

cab today in the way—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But as an interim solution. 

Mr. LONEGRO. Well, we already have it, and any time we would 

want to go from two to one, we would certainly have to work with 

FRA to get approval to do that. So it is just not necessary, at least 

with respect to the freight railroads, given where we are and the 

steps that we would have to go through to remove one member of 

the crew. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Thank you. 

44 

And the only thing I would add for the record is that in addition 

to any of the other things Ms. Feinberg may or may not have been 

blamed for today, she now has apparently sent Mr. Mica to the hospital, which obligates me to have to go visit him. Add that to your 

stack. 

And with that, my questions are done, and I don’t see any more 

questions from Members. So on behalf of Chairman Denham, let 

me thank you each for coming again today. We thank all the members of the audience for their attention today. We move forward. 

And with that, hearing no other business before the committee, 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95230.007
46 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95230.008
47 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95230.009
48 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95230.010
49 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95230.011
50 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95230.012
51 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95230.013
52 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95230.014
53 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95230.015
54 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95230.016
55 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95230.017
56 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95230.018
57 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95230.019
58 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95230.020
59 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95230.021
60 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95230.022
61 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95230.023
62 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95230.024
63 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95230.025
64 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95230.026
65 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95230.027
66 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95230.028
67 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95230.029
68 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95230.030
69 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95230.031
70 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95230.032
71 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95230.033
72 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95230.034
73 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95230.035
74 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95230.036
75 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95230.037
76 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95230.038
77 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95230.039
78 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95230.040
79 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95230.041
80 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95230.042
81 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95230.043
82 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95230.044
83 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95230.045
84 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95230.046
85 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95230.047
86 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95230.048
87 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95230.049
88 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95230.050
89 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95230.051
90 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95230.052
91 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95230.053
92 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95230.054
93 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95230.055
94 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95230.056
95 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95230.057
96 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95230.058
97 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95230.059
98 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95230.060
99 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95230.061
100 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95230.062
101 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95230.063
102 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95230.064
103 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95230.065
104 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95230.066
105 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95230.067
106 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95230.068
107 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95230.069
108 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95230.070
109 


Insert offset folio 71 here 95230.071
110 


Insert offset folio 72 here 95230.072
111 


Insert offset folio 73 here 95230.073
112 


Insert offset folio 74 here 95230.074
113 


Insert offset folio 75 here 95230.075
114 


Insert offset folio 76 here 95230.076
115 


Insert offset folio 77 here 95230.077
116 


Insert offset folio 78 here 95230.078
117 


Insert offset folio 79 here 95230.079
118 


Insert offset folio 80 here 95230.080
119 


Insert offset folio 81 here 95230.081
120 


Insert offset folio 82 here 95230.082
121 


Insert offset folio 83 here 95230.083
122 


Insert offset folio 84 here 95230.084
123 


Insert offset folio 85 here 95230.085
124 


Insert offset folio 86 here 95230.086
125 


Insert offset folio 87 here 95230.087
126 


Insert offset folio 88 here 95230.088
127 


Insert offset folio 89 here 95230.089
128 


Insert offset folio 90 here 95230.090
129 


Insert offset folio 91 here 95230.091
130 


Insert offset folio 92 here 95230.092
131 


Insert offset folio 93 here 95230.093
132 


Insert offset folio 94 here 95230.094
133 


Insert offset folio 95 here 95230.095
134 


Insert offset folio 96 here 95230.096
135 


Insert offset folio 97 here 95230.097
136 


Insert offset folio 98 here 95230.098
137 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 99 here 95230.099