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

94–181 PDF 2015

OVERSIGHT OF THE ONGOING RAIL, PIPELINE, 

AND HAZMAT RULEMAKINGS 

(114–12) 

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 

APRIL 14, 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 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 5 

PANEL 2 

Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

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

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Michael E. Capuano, of Massachusetts .......................................... 65 

Hon. Jared Huffman, of California .......................................................... 74 

Timothy P. Butters, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Sam Graves, of Missouri .................................................................. 97 

Hon. Michael E. Capuano, of Massachusetts .......................................... 99 

Additional questions for the record .......................................................... 124 

Hon. Christopher A. Hart, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Michael E. Capuano, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, with 

a list attached of the National Transportation Safety Board’s open 

recommendations to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ................................................................................................... 142 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Timothy P. Butters, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, response to request for information from Hon. John 

L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida .................... 156 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 94181.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 94181.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 94181.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 94181.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 94181.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 94181.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 94181.007
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE ONGOING RAIL, 

PIPELINE, AND HAZMAT RULEMAKINGS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in room 

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

Mr. DENHAM. The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials will come to order. First, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent that Representatives Cheri Bustos and John 

Garamendi be permitted to join the subcommittee for today’s hearing and ask questions. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

Our hearing today will focus on numerous matters related to current railroad, pipeline, and hazardous material rulemakings within 

the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Last year, we had two hearings 

that covered these ongoing rulemakings: one on hazardous materials safety and tank cars and the other on pipeline safety. 

I have heard too many times from industry and safety advocates 

that the Department of Transportation needs to move more quickly 

to implement the safety provisions Congress has passed. It is unusual to hear that industry wants to be regulated, and is pushing 

for rules to actually be completed. But the reality is companies 

can’t invest in new equipment, in new employees, and in new ventures without regulatory certainty. In those two hearings, we expressed our frustration with the administration. Not enough 

progress has been made getting these numerous rules out. 

Sadly, today we are back asking the same questions. Where are 

these rules? Why are they still delayed? What is the administration 

doing about it? 

We believe in a risk-based, data-driven approach to safety. The 

administration states that they do as well. So, it should be easy to 

come up with rules that are data driven, apply cost-benefit principles, and get them out so both the public and industry can act 

accordingly. 

This brings me to another point with the administration. Last 

year we had both FRA and PHMSA Administrators come before us 

to answer for the administration. Now we have two Acting Administrators. Mr. Butters and Ms. Feinberg have been good to work 

2 

with. We appreciate their service, and our frustration has nothing 

to do with either of them personally. But these are very important 

times, and we need certainty in these agencies’ leadership. Yet, the 

administration has not formally nominated anyone for these top 

safety positions. 

I would like to take a moment to thank Ms. Feinberg for coming 

to California last week at my request. I brought local leaders together to ask questions of FRA, and they had similar questions of 

what we have today. But, specifically, the people of the Central 

Valley are as concerned about rail safety as the rest of the country. 

We have been waiting and waiting for the new final crude-by-rail 

rule to be released, so that the Nation can move forward in creating safer rail systems. 

Notably, Congress has acted on multiple occasions to speed this 

process along, and even imposed a statutory limit for releasing a 

finalized crude-by-rail rule. That deadline was promptly missed by 

the administration, which has led us to having this hearing today. 

Again I want to thank you for coming to California last week. I 

hope it was—provided you a good perspective of what we are looking at from the Central Valley, and why the rule is important. I 

know my constituents appreciated it, our first responders and local 

elected officials appreciated it. 

But to summarize, I hope to hear the status of the crude-by-rail 

rule. Specifically, is it still at OMB? Has OMB sent the rule back 

to the agency for further analysis? And when will it actually be 

published? 

I look forward to hearing about the comments from DOT about 

the draft rule, how DOT is planning to address the final rule. And, 

additionally, I would like to hear each panelist’s opinions on actually implementing the rule. 

We have heard from many different sides on this issue on the capacity of American tank car manufacturers and how quickly a new 

mandate can be implemented. So I would ask that you please provide this committee with what you think that capacity is, and how 

soon the tank car designs will be able to be completely phased in 

in our Nation’s freight network. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding these issues. 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Capuano from 

Massachusetts for 5 minutes for any opening statement he may 

have. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it was 

interesting. I think you just stole my opening statement. I agree 

with everything you just said, except the phrase, ‘‘Central Valley.’’ 

Just change that to ‘‘New England.’’ He is 100 percent right. I have 

nothing to add to it. 

I am looking forward to this hearing, and I am looking forward 

to truly engaging. Because, to be perfectly honest, some of the concerns I have—and I am still learning a lot of this stuff—it is just 

unacceptable. It is just unacceptable. And I am a supporter of the 

administration. I know we have new people in place, but I think 

today is going to be not as much fun as some of you might like, 

because, honestly, you are going to have a hard time telling me 

why some of these things have taken this long. 

3 

But, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

allowing me to give my speech. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Now I call on the full committee chairman, Mr. Shuster, for any opening statement he may have. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, and good morning, everybody. Appreciate Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Capuano for having 

this hearing today. I think you are going to hear a lot of sentiment 

that is shared by Mr. Capuano and Mr. Denham throughout this 

hearing today. 

I want to begin by saying safety is the highest priority of this 

committee, and it is the number-one job and the number-one task 

of the Department of Transportation for you to carry out that safety mandate. Our railroads and pipelines are critically important for 

safe movement of goods and people around this country. 

The good news is that overall safety trends in both modes are 

trending in the right direction, and that is positive. However, there 

have been accidents over the past 12 months dealing with rail and 

pipeline that—so it is important for us to take a close look at this. 

As a member of this committee, it is important, but also as someone who—in my district we have a significant number of oil trains 

that pass through each day. Adjusting regulations to changing 

market conditions is a complicated task. And having regulators 

draft up rules for comment by those impacted is the right way to 

go about making regulatory changes. However, it is very important 

the administration carefully base those rules on data, and that— 

take a risk-based approach. I think that is the smart way for us 

to move. 

I am concerned that DOT has not been able to move many of the 

mandated rules from the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act. I would like to 

know why they haven’t moved forward. And I would also like to 

hear about the status of the hazmat mandates in MAP–21. I have 

concerns about the administration’s slow pace addressing the increased movement of crude-by-rail. And, as Mr. Denham and Mr. 

Capuano have pointed out, it is far too slow. It needs to happen. 

The industry, as Mr. Denham points out, is crying out to get a new 

standard on these tank cars. The NTSB has called for new tank 

cars. I have even sent a letter to OMB and to DOT and have yet 

to get a response on where we are in the process. We need to get 

moving forward. 

I appreciate everybody being here today. I would just probably 

warn you it is going to be a vigorous question and answer period 

here today, finding the answers we need to hear. It has—again, it 

has gone on far too long, and we need to have answers. 

I appreciate Representative Speier being here today. I know she 

has great concerns over pipeline safety, and we look forward to 

hearing from her today, also. 

So, thank you very much, and yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. I now call on the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, for any opening statement he may have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, later this 

year we are looking at pipeline reauthorization. And I have got to 

say, as a member of the committee, I am going to wonder why we 

should do that, because we still haven’t implemented the majority 

of the 2011 Act. 

4 

I mean, you know, if you look at what is not done: automatic 

shutoff valves not done, leak detection not done. You know, there 

is a number of really critical mandates from this Congress that 

aren’t done. One is rumored to be sitting on the Secretary’s desk, 

one is rumored to have moved to OMB a year ago. We really don’t 

know. I mean, in part, it points to, I think, the need for changes 

in the regulatory system itself, and creating more transparency, 

and I would love to address that at another time. I won’t get into 

that too much now, but those cause tremendous concerns. 

The DOT–111 tank cars, Mr. Chairman, you sent them a letter, 

you didn’t hear back. I called them yesterday, and it was opaque, 

as usual, but we can expect something very robust in the not-toodistant future, probably. So there is your answer. 

And they are aware of the recent concerns that were expressed 

by NTSB in investigating the last two accidents, West Virginia and 

Virginia, and some of the new conclusions regarding the 1232 cars, 

the lack of thermal insulation, et cetera. They are aware of those 

things. That made me feel really good. So, there is that. 

You know, we are really talking about life and death here on a 

lot of these issues. And there is another area which I intend to 

have some questions regarding the transport of lithium batteries. 

We have a number of domestic air carriers who have just drawn 

a line in the sand and said, ‘‘We are not carrying those things on 

passenger planes any more.’’ And it is rumored this came out of a 

briefing of ICAO down in South America with the manufacturers, 

and the fact that the fire suppression systems on those planes cannot deal with lithium battery fires and occurrences that have happened. And yet we are locked in a place—a former Congress said 

that they can’t exceed the ICAO standards. The ICAO standards 

are laughable. Whatever the Chinese want to put into a crummy 

cardboard box and stick into an airplane and not label, that is fine 

with ICAO. So I will be raising some issues about that, too. 

We really are talking about life and death here. We need a more 

transparent, more efficient process. We created PHMSA back when 

Norm Mineta was Secretary, with the idea that we needed to have 

a laser-like focus and more efficiency and more distance from the 

regulated entities, and the solution was supposed to be PHMSA. I 

really wonder if it has worked. I wonder if we would be better off 

if we had some people who just looked at pipelines. That is a 

unique mode. If we had safety people in FRA who were dealing 

with tank cars and understand railroads better, and if we had the 

aviation people dealing with stuff that the industry itself says it 

doesn’t want to carry on airplanes. We are not seeing the kind of 

performance we need here out of this theoretically integrated, efficient agency that should be at arm’s length from all of those that 

they regulate. 

So, those are a few of the questions I have today, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. We have two panels 

today. Our first panel is with Representative Jackie Speier from 

California. After receiving testimony from our first panel, we will 

proceed immediately to our second panel. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

5 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony 

to 5 minutes. 

Ms. Speier, you may proceed. Welcome to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And to Ranking Member 

Capuano, to Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio, I 

really appreciate the fact that you are holding this hearing today, 

because I have struggled with pipeline safety now for 5 years. And 

we have made very little progress. The system, frankly, is fundamentally broken. 

It is personal to me. I have spent hundreds of hours in hearings, 

in boardrooms, at town halls, and very little has changed. It has 

scarred not just my district, but the entire region. 

This is a distant view of the Pacific Gas and Electric natural gas 

pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California. When it happened in 

September of 2010, everyone thought that a plane had dropped out 

of the sky, the explosion was so great, and seen so far away. 

Closer up scenes were horrific. Eight precious lives were lost. 

Many others were hospitalized for months with life-threatening 

burns. I visited many of them at the burn center in San Francisco. 

Three people were considered missing for more than 2 weeks, because there was so little DNA from the intense fire to positively 

identify them. Thirty-eight homes were completely destroyed, and 

dozens more were seriously damaged. It looked like a war zone. 

Those numbers do not adequately describe the terror that was inflicted on an entire community. And all this was caused by a pipeline that hadn’t been inspected since 1956, thanks to the irresponsible gaping hole in our regulations known as the Grandfather 

Clause. And Congress put the Grandfather Clause in place. And 

then, in 2011, we said to PHMSA, ‘‘We want you to take this out, 

and you have 18 months in which to do it.’’ We are 3 years later, 

and still they haven’t done it. I have sent letters to them, and they 

come back with, frankly, gobbledygook. 

This is a piece of pipe that failed in San Bruno because the 

Grandfather Clause was—allowed it to go uninspected for decades. 

The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 

2011 eliminated this terrible policy, which previously had allowed 

companies to bypass comprehensive inspections of older pipes. But 

here we are, in 2015, and PHMSA has not yet released a rule implementing those reforms. 

Frankly, how difficult is it to strike a line in a law that says the 

Grandfather Clause is no longer in effect? The deadline to release 

the rule, as I said, was 18 months, and it has been twice as long. 

It is clear to me that PHMSA is a toothless tiger without the clout 

to make the serious reforms recommended by respected institutions 

such as the National Transportation Safety Board. PHMSA keeps 

saying that it is working on an improved integrity management 

system. But after industry complained that it was too expensive, 

6 

PHMSA allowed its nascent rulemaking to be quietly consigned to 

the bureaucratic dustbin. 

While safety does cost money, so does death and destruction. On 

this slide is what the utility responsible for San Bruno—Pacific Gas 

and Electric—has paid, or may pay, that we know about so far. The 

stunning figure is $3.9 billion. This is paid by shareholders, not by 

ratepayers. 

California’s problem with PHMSA and its own State pipeline regulatory agency are a microcosm for the rest of the Nation. Despite 

PHMSA’s paying for about 80 percent of pipeline safety program 

costs, a crony culture developed between the industry and State 

regulators in California, and PHMSA claims they can do nothing 

about it. Despite mounds of evidence showing that industry executives were wining and dining top State regulators and flouting ex 

parte communication rules, PHMSA claims to be powerless to bring 

CPUC to its heels. Considering that PHMSA holds the power of the 

purse, I find this hard to believe. 

Now, in expose ́s that have occurred in California, PG&E email 

exchanges with the California Public Utilities Commission exposed 

complicity of CPUC in judge-shopping, in advice, in public relations, engagement in the initiative process, and a quid pro quo relationship. 

This bankrupt safety culture regularly defeated enforcement of 

Federal and State standards. Just today, an external auditor found 

that the CPUC gas safety enforcement efforts have actually gotten 

worse and slower since the explosion in San Bruno. This is unacceptable, and PHMSA must step in. 

But this is par for the course for PHMSA. In the aftermath of 

the San Bruno disaster, I met with then-Administrator 

Quarterman many times. Each time, as I pushed for regulations 

that would actually improve pipeline safety across the Nation, she 

would say, ‘‘We don’t have the authority.’’ I am sure that was true 

in some cases, but in the case of the Grandfather Clause, PHMSA 

has crystal-clear authority and still refuses to act. In this case, 

PHMSA is not only a toothless tiger, but one that has overdosed 

on quaaludes and has passed out on the job. 

In addition to the technical issue of proper integrity management, PHMSA’s oversight of safety programs is lax. They have 

been amply described in formal reports by both the NTSB and the 

Department of Transportation inspector general. PHMSA’s problems, which Congress must help them address, are clear. PHMSA’s 

guidance, protocols, and training for State inspectors are inadequate. PHMSA’s pipeline location data has internal discrepancies. 

PHMSA’s database makes it more difficult for operators to learn 

from incidents. Overall, neither industry nor State nor Federal 

Government produces good pipeline safety data. It is garbage in 

and garbage out. 

Though I have talked about San Bruno, I want to emphasize that 

the lack of adequate pipeline safety measures is a nationwide problem, not a bay area or California problem. In 2011, a leak from an 

83-year-old cast-iron main in Allentown, Pennsylvania, in the 

chairman’s district, caused a blast that killed five people. In 2012, 

a gas pipeline explosion outside of Charleston, West Virginia, destroyed several properties. In 2014, a leak in a 127-year-old pipeVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Nov 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\4-14-1~1\94181.TXT JEAN
7 

line in Harlem, New York, killed 8 and injured 50 more. In each 

incident we see the same reoccurring problems: aging infrastructure and inadequate inspection. How many more of these tragedies 

do we need before we get serious about pipeline safety? 

In closing, I urge the chairman, ranking member, and committee 

members to keep the tragedy of San Bruno in mind as you conduct 

oversight and start to consider reauthorization of PHMSA’s Federal 

pipeline safety program. We know how to prevent pipeline explosions. 

Look at this picture here. It is, indeed, a war zone. We need 

automatic remote control shutoff valves. Now, PG&E has put in 

200 of them now. The law that we passed in 2011 said that you 

only had to put them in if they were technologically available and 

economically feasible. When is it going to be—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Speier, I would ask you to wrap it up. 

Ms. SPEIER [continuing]. Economically feasible? 

I know I need to close, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Speier. Thank you for your testimony today. 

I would now like to welcome our second panel of witnesses: 

Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator from the Federal Railroad 

Administration; Tim Butters, Acting Administrator, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; and the Honorable 

Christopher Hart, Chairman of the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board. 

Welcome to this morning’s hearing. I would reiterate once again 

that I appreciate your openness, your communication, as well as I 

know a number of members of this committee have expressed their 

appreciation for your accessibility and responsiveness to questions 

that we have had. 

Ms. Feinberg, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF SARAH FEINBERG, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; TIMOTHY P. BUTTERS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. CHRISTOPHER A. HART, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

Ms. FEINBERG. Thank you. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member 

Capuano, Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to appear here 

before you today. 

As Acting Administrator, I have already had the privilege of 

meeting with many of you, and even visiting some of your districts. 

Mr. Denham, I want to thank you for hosting me last week in your 

district. I was grateful to spend time with your constituents. And, 

Mr. Garamendi, I enjoyed spending time in your district, as well. 

Let me start off today by saying that I welcome all of your continued interest and efforts to work closely with the FRA, and I can 

assure you that working closely with this committee is a top priority of mine. 

In my 3 months serving as Acting Administrator, the FRA has 

responded to five major rail incidents, some involving deaths and 

8 

injuries, and many smaller incidents. Each incident has underscored for me FRA’s top priority, which is improving safety. 

Safety has always been the priority of the agency, and it always 

will be. At the FRA we have a mandate to provide oversight, enforcement, and regulations that will set the bar for rail safety. It 

is a challenging task, and one that demands collaboration and cooperation. As stipulated by the U.S. regulatory process, we do not 

have the freedom to simply conceive of a new safety regulation and 

allow it to become the law of the land. The regulatory actions we 

issue must be born out of a robust dialogue with all stakeholders, 

the public, and industry, and a rigorous economic analysis that 

considers both the benefits to safety and the cost to industry. 

In other words, as the chief rail safety regulator, we are tasked 

not just with raising the bar on safety, but also with ensuring that, 

as we raise that bar, we are taking all perspectives and opinions 

into account. 

Since Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act in 2008, 

the FRA has completed action on 33 tasks, including rules, studies, 

reports, and other actions, with 10 tasks still to be completed. That 

work has improved safety outcomes. It has also enabled us to focus 

on some of our greatest challenges, and challenges where the 

stakes are the highest: the safe transport of energy products like 

crude oil, track hazards, and grade crossings. 

That said, thanks in great part to this committee’s leadership 

and partnership with the FRA, the rail industry is safer than it 

was a generation ago. But we have a long way to go. For years, the 

FRA has had success with our prescriptive rulemaking and enforcement program. But getting to the next level of safety requires us 

to be innovative. This includes pushing forward with risk reduction 

programs like the Confidential Close Call Reporting System, plus 

system safety programs for passenger operations. The programs 

uncover root causes behind accidents, and help identify accident 

precursors, enabling railroads to put prevention measures in place. 

We also continue to work on a final rule for securing unattended 

train equipment, and proposed rulemakings related to train crew 

size and passenger equipment safety standards. And, of course, we 

remain laser-focused on our work to ensure the safe transport of 

energy products. In partnership with our colleagues at PHMSA, we 

are completing work on a final comprehensive rulemaking that addresses prevention, mitigation, emergency preparedness, and response to crude train incidents. 

We are also taking an aggressive posture against the rising tide 

of highway rail grade crossing incidents. In addition to calling for 

increased grade crossing improvement funding in the GROW 

AMERICA Act, we have partnered with law enforcement. And law 

enforcement in New York, California, Idaho, Illinois, and elsewhere 

are responding. We are grateful for their help, and we will continue 

this effort as we broaden our focus on a public awareness campaign. 

Additionally, as RSIA required, we continue to work with railroads to implement Positive Train Control. We look forward to continuing to work with this Congress and the industry and its suppliers in addressing the obstacles preventing its swift implementation. 

9 

And, finally, we look forward to working with this Congress on 

the reauthorization of a surface transportation bill that includes 

rail. The House has already made great strides in this area by 

passing legislation focused on passenger rail. We greatly appreciate 

this committee’s work on that priority. We look forward to working 

with this Congress on a package that will also enable the FRA to 

balance our regulatory framework with innovative, proactive ideas 

that will advance safety and provide capital investments that serve 

as a foundation for the next generation of safety improvements. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to taking your 

questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Feinberg. 

Mr. Butters, you may proceed. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Good morning. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and Ranking Member DeFazio, thank you. And the 

other members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me appear before you this morning. 

As you know, PHMSA’s mission is the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Over 1 million shipments move every day in the 

United States by air, rail, truck, and marine vessel. We are also 

charged with the safe operation of about 2.6 million miles of hazardous gas and liquid pipelines. 

The transportation of these products is critical to our Nation’s 

economy and our quality of life, and we take our responsibilities 

very seriously. 

Because these transportation systems are privately owned, it 

places primary responsibility and accountability for the safe operation of those systems on the owners and operators. They must ensure their equipment and facilities are maintained and operated 

safely, above and beyond what is required by regulation. Our job 

at PHMSA, along with our State partners, is to ensure these systems are in compliance with Federal safety requirements through 

vigorous inspection and enforcement. 

Unfortunately, recent incidents involving hazardous materials 

have underscored the absolute importance of PHMSA’s mission. I 

have seen firsthand the aftereffects of rail incidents in Lynchburg, 

VA, Mount Carbon, WV, and the impact of pipeline failures in San 

Bruno, CA, Sissonville, WV, Marshall, MI, and, most recently, in 

Glendive, MT, and the impact that these have had on those communities. 

It is our duty to ensure the public has the confidence that their 

safety and the environment are well protected. Although there 

have been several recent high-profile incidents, history has shown 

that these incidents are infrequent. The overall safety record for 

the transportation of hazardous materials in the U.S. is very good, 

and continues to improve. Pipeline and hazmat incidents involving 

fatalities, major injury, or significant environmental damage have 

been on the steady decline since 1988. While the safety record has 

been good, it is not good enough, and more needs to be done. 

Significant incidents are rare, but can have significant and devastating consequences. In the fiscal year 2015 budget approved last 

December, PHMSA was authorized with 120 new positions for both 

our hazmat and pipeline safety programs. We are fully engaged to 

fill these positions, and we are at nearly 30 percent thus far, noting 

10 

that we are also competing with the private sector that is also 

needing to fill jobs. I am confident that we will have most of these 

positions filled by the end of this calendar year. 

The dramatic growth in domestic energy production across the 

country has also generated a great deal of attention to the safe 

transportation of flammable liquids by rail, primarily shale crude 

oil, and rightfully so. We are very cognizant of these concerns, and 

the entire Department, beginning with Secretary Foxx, understands the importance and urgency to address these issues. Our 

comprehensive strategy, focusing on prevention, mitigation, and 

emergency preparedness in our final rule to improve the safe transportation, has been our highest priority. It is currently under review by OMB, and we expect it to be released very soon. 

But we aren’t waiting on new regulations to address safety concerns that can be addressed now. We have and will continue to use 

every available option to take immediate action, and stand prepared to take additional steps. DOT has successfully engaged the 

rail industry, the hazmat industry, and pipeline industry through 

various calls to action, asking them to take additional safety actions in the face of these incidents. 

In 2013 we launched an effort that we now call Safe Transportation of Energy Products—unannounced inspections—to ensure 

shippers are properly testing and classifying crude oil and other 

flammable liquids. I am encouraged by the shippers’ increased efforts to properly test and classify hazmat since we started this program 2 years ago. 

PHMSA remains focused on meeting the congressional mandates 

that were included in the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011 and MAP– 

21. The NTSB has also issued 49 pipeline safety recommendations 

since 2011, including 22 recommendations issued this past January. PHMSA has completed half of the Pipeline Safety Act’s mandates, four of the six required regulatory actions under MAP–21, 

and we have satisfied many NTSB recommendations. 

I have had the opportunity to meet with many of you individually, and also visit some of your districts, and I appreciate the 

support of this subcommittee and what it has provided to PHMSA. 

We look forward to working with this Congress to advance 

PHMSA’s safety mission. I am pleased to answer any questions 

that you may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Butters. 

Mr. Hart, you may proceed. 

Mr. HART. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of the subcommittee. 

In the last few years, we have experienced an exponential increase in the carriage of flammable liquids by rail. With this 

growth, the NTSB’s rail and hazardous materials investigators 

have responded to an increasing number of accidents. 

Currently, we are investigating a crude oil accident near 

Casselton, North Dakota, that occurred in December 2013, in which 

20 cars derailed and nearly one-half million gallons of oil spilled, 

burning for more than 24 hours. 

We are also investigating accidents involving industry specification CPC–1232 tank cars that were designed to improve crashworthiness. These include a derailment in Lynchburg, Virginia, in 

11 

April 2014, in which one car derailed, was punctured, and fell into 

the James River. The resulting crude oil-fed fire burned for several 

hours. 

We are participating in the investigation of the Mount Carbon, 

West Virginia, accident in February 2015, and have collected information about the Galena, Illinois, accident in March 2015, and two 

accidents in Ontario, Canada, in February and March 2015. These 

accidents involve breaches to 1232 tank cars that resulted in fires 

that compromised more than 20 additional tank cars, leading to 

violent fireball eruptions. 

As demonstrated in these accidents, no less than six major 

derailments in only 16 months, we believe that the DOT–111 and 

the CPC–1232 tank cars are not adequate for transporting flammable liquids. Just last week, we issued four urgent recommendations to PHMSA to address these concerns. These recommendations 

ask PHMSA to, first, require thermal protection for cars transporting flammable liquid products such as ethanol and crude oil. 

Second, require appropriately sized pressure relief devices. Third, 

require an aggressive retrofit or replacement schedule of DOT–111 

and CPC–1232 tank cars with interim mileposts. And, fourth, establish a publicly available reporting mechanism, such as the DOT 

Web site, to monitor the retrofitting or replacement of these tank 

cars. 

We hope that the ongoing rulemaking process will consider these 

recommendations. In all these accidents, the first defense is to ensure the integrity of the operation, including the track and the 

train cars. We have issued a number of recommendations regarding 

track inspections. 

We have also been concerned about the lack of information that 

is available to our first responders who must respond to a hazardous material release. Since 2007 we have asked the FRA and 

PHMSA to require rail operators who transport hazardous materials to provide more information to the communities through 

which they travel. Much of this information can be electronically 

transmitted to responders in the field. But in most accidents we 

have investigated, firefighters tell us that they had no idea that 

such products were traveling through their towns. 

Recognizing that you convened this hearing to address issues beyond the carriage of crude-by-rail, I would also like to highlight a 

few other transportation issues that remain important to us, as 

more fully discussed in my written statement. 

Implementation of Positive Train Control by the end of this year, 

as required by statute. We know that humans make mistakes, and 

Positive Train Control can step in when humans do make mistakes. It can prevent accidents and save lives. 

Improving medical fitness for duty. In the rail industry, operators who are responsible for transporting hundreds of passengers 

or more than 100 carloads of hazardous materials on a single train, 

only have to pass a hearing and vision test. Screening for sleep disorders and other medical conditions should also be required. 

Ensuring the safe carriage of hazardous materials by airplanes. 

This must include safe stowage of lithium batteries. 

12 

Improving pipeline integrity management oversight by PHMSA. 

This must ensure that correct information is evaluated so that it 

can be an effective risk-based system. 

I appreciate your inviting the NTSB to testify today, and I look 

forward to responding to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hart. I will now recognize each 

Member for 5 minutes. Let me start on a couple of process questions. 

Ms. Feinberg and Mr. Butters, while, again, I would express this 

committee has—many Members have felt that you have both been 

great communicators, and you have been available for meetings 

and been very accessible, I think that our concern—which has been 

voiced by many Members—is with the administration, the administration that has taken far too long on rules, an administration that 

has taken far too long on making sure that we have appointments 

that are moving forward. 

This is a—you guys—out of the five Department of Transportation positions that are—have Acting Administrators, these two 

are critical to the safety of our country, in making sure that we are 

having goods and people movement—we need to make sure that we 

are not only vetting those new positions through the legislative 

branch, but we need to make sure that we are also discussing those 

rules and the implementation of them, as well as the long wait 

times to actually bring them back before Congress. 

So, let me start with a couple of process questions to each of you. 

Do you each want to be nominated as a full-time Administrator? 

Are you currently being vetted for nomination as full-time Administrators? And can you tell me when your 210-day temporary term 

as Acting Administrator is up? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I am happy to go first. Thank you for the question. I would be—started in this role on January 11th. I don’t know 

the actual day that the 210 days expires, but it would be 210 days 

after January 11th. 

I do want to continue to stay in this role. I will leave it to the 

White House to make any personnel decisions and announcements. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Butters? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My appointment as— 

I have been serving as a Deputy Administrator since November of 

2010. My appointment as Acting Administrator began October 5th 

of last year. I don’t know the exact date of the 210-day period, but 

it is—it will be coming up fairly soon. 

And I—along with Administrator Feinberg, I defer to the White 

House, in terms of determining how they want to proceed, in terms 

of filling this position permanently. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you started the vetting process? 

Mr. BUTTERS. I have not. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Feinberg? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I have not. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Feinberg, in Politico it was 

quoted—you were quoted as saying, ‘‘We are running out of things 

that I can—we are running out of things that I think we can ask 

the railroads to do.’’ Would you like to clarify that statement? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Sure. Thank you for the question. Actually, I believe Politico quoted me accurately. It was some individuals in the 

13 

energy industry who then followed up and quoted me somewhat inaccurately—or selectively, I would say. 

What I said was, ‘‘We are running out of things we can ask the 

railroads to do. They have gone above and beyond what we have 

asked them to do. That said, we will continually ask them to do 

more to improve safety.’’ This was in reference to the various actions that we have taken while we have been working on the crudeby-rail rulemaking. We have taken, I believe, 24 interim safety 

measures. We have issued emergency orders, we have issued safety 

advisories, we have come to voluntary agreements with the railroads to increase inspections, implement speed restrictions, implement braking systems. And that is what I was referring to. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And in Modesto one of the questions 

that came up amongst many others was actually keeping trains on 

the tracks. Are there new technologies available that could do a 

better job of identifying track integrity problems? 

Ms. FEINBERG. There are. The ATIP is the—what we have found 

to be the most effective new technology. This is a system that 

moves along the rails, and the track, and does, for lack of a better 

term, an x ray of the track. We have asked for additional funding 

in our budget to expand that program. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you prepared an inventory of different technologies that are out there, so that—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. I believe that we have an inventory of different 

technologies that are out there. I don’t have it on hand, but we 

would be happy to come back to your committee and provide it. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And which have you tested already? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I am sorry? 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you tested any of them already? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I believe some have, but we can come back to you 

with what has been tested and what hasn’t. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Many items—I am sorry. Many items have been 

tested outside of the FRA, as well. We can provide you with that, 

too. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Pass to Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No, go ahead. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

To Mr. Butters, the—on pipelines, one of the mandates from the 

2011 Act was to deal with shutoff valves. And my understanding 

is that you sort of bifurcated the process, and you adopted a number of rules looking—or two different rules, one looking at shutoff 

valves and other issues that would go to liquids, and one that 

would go to gas. 

And it is my understanding, further, that, I guess, the—let’s see, 

I am getting them confused, but I think the liquids went to OMB 

in May 2014. Is that the one that went to OMB? And then one of 

them is sitting on the Secretary’s desk. How long has it been sitting on the Secretary’s desk? And when might we expect OMB to 

regurgitate the rule? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Congressman, the gas safety rule is currently within DOT. We are working with our—with DOT to address questions. 

We are working vigorously to get that rule wrapped up and get it 

14 

over to OMB. I can’t give you an exact date, but rest assured this 

is a high priority, and we are working with them daily to address 

some of their issues that they have raised, as we conduct the costbenefit analysis, et cetera. 

The liquid safety rule is currently at OMB. We have been, again, 

working with them closely, and I believe we are very close to having that rule out. But, again, I can’t provide you with any specific 

date at this point. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And Chairman Hart, I just want—after we 

chatted about your new recommendations on the tank cars, I did 

talk to OMB yesterday, to Mr. Shelanski, and he said you can call 

him any time and express your concerns. I did express them for 

you, and he, of course, is totally opaque, but we are going to have 

something soon, and we are going to be pleased with it. So—— 

Mr. HART. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I hope that makes you feel good. It doesn’t make 

me feel good. I think we need to change the way OMB works. A 

little more transparency, and perhaps some timelines would be useful, particularly on things that are considered a very high priority. 

That is not an issue at today’s hearing. 

Lithium batteries. Chairman Hart, how do you feel about lithium 

batteries on airplanes? You have some concerns that Congress has 

said we can’t go beyond the ICAO cardboard box standard? 

Mr. HART. Thank you for that question. Yes, we do have concerns. We have viewed ourselves as a world leader in aviation, and 

oftentimes we go beyond what ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, requires. A most recent example is that we require a second person in the cockpit when one of the pilots leaves. 

That is not an ICAO requirement, and it is not a world requirement. That is just an example of where we want to view ourselves 

as world leaders, to push the bar, to move the bar on safety. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But Congress saying we can’t exceed international 

standards, you think that is a problem, and Congress should lift 

that prohibition? 

Mr. HART. We are concerned about the United States being limited to what ICAO does, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Administrator Butters, would you feel that we 

should go beyond the ICAO standard on—and Congress should lift 

the prohibition so people can review the transport of lithium batteries on aircraft, particularly passenger aircraft, where people are 

sitting above it, and they don’t even know it? 

Mr. BUTTERS. We agree that the limitation to the ICAO technical 

instructions is a problem. Lithium batteries do pose transportation 

hazards, and the ability for the U.S. to promulgate more stringent 

safety regulations is something that we are certainly interested in 

doing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. My understanding is there has been some dispute 

over this issue over the years, and this is one of particular concern 

to me. It is only a matter of time until we lose another plane. We 

have lost a couple of cargo planes. Could be a passenger plane, a 

combi carrier, it could be another cargo plane. 

So, you know, the FAA feels they have the expertise. There was 

a dispute a number of years ago, and the FAA prevailed, and they 

were sent to ICAO. They don’t seem to have been able to move 

15 

ICAO. My understanding is that person is retiring, and now we are 

back into a discussion of who would better represent the views of 

the DOT for more stringent standards. Do you think that PHMSA 

would push for regulations beyond the ICAO standard, if you were 

the representing—— 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, the dangerous goods panel, which we and 

FAA participate on—we work very closely with our colleagues at 

FAA as related to transportation of hazardous materials and dangerous goods by air—we would want to have the most effective and 

knowledgeable representative in that seat. But I think the important thing to understand is that, as DOT, we work with each other, 

FAA, as well as—as it relates to dangerous goods in transportation, 

our other modal partners, to make sure that these hazmat regulations and danger goods regs are as stringent and strong as possible. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. Barletta, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all 

agree that, in discussions about crude-by-rail and rail safety in 

general, track maintenance is absolutely critical. 

Now, the Class I railroads, they have better access to capital to 

be able to finance their investment in track maintenance. And the 

smaller railroads, like the many short lines that operate in my district, do not have the same access to capital. 

Administrator Feinberg, based on your Web site, FRA has not 

approved the short line railroad RRIF loan in over 3 years. As I 

understand it, helping short lines rehabilitate their track was one 

of the primary purposes of this program. Why isn’t it working? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Thank you for the question. It is good to see you 

again. 

We are actively working to make the RRIF program much more 

accessible to applicants. So, in particular to short lines, as we have 

looked at the program, particularly over the last several months, 

and under the guidance of Secretary Foxx, we would like to be 

more creative, and make the program much more accessible to all 

applicants, including short lines. 

Mr. BARLETTA. How many short line applications are currently 

being processed? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I don’t know the exact number. We can get back 

to you. I know that there are several pending. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And also, if you could, see how long they have 

been in the application process, as well. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You and your agency have publicly stated that 

most railroads will be unable to meet the December 31, 2015, deadline to implement Positive Train Control. Do you plan on fining 

railroads that do not have PTC systems implemented after that 

date, if the current law does not change? 

Ms. FEINBERG. We are in—having internal discussions now, and 

also discussions with members of this committee and other Members of Congress about how to proceed. You are right, the PTC 

deadline, the congressionally mandated deadline, is December of 

16 

2015. Most railroads—in fact, I think all railroads—have said that 

they do not believe that they can meet that deadline. We believe 

that there is a path forward that involves meeting with railroads, 

granting provisional authority as PTC starts to come online. But 

we are in the middle of those discussions now. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You have recently called on the energy industry 

to do more to control the volatility of its cargo. You may have seen 

a recent report from the Department of Energy where the agency 

found no data showing a correlation between crude oil properties 

and the likelihood or severity of a fire caused by a derailment. 

Furthermore, a white paper from FRA stated using vapor pressure as a metric to identify potential hazards may not prove effective when considering real-world accident conditions. Do you agree 

with your own agency’s reports? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I think what both of those items, both of those papers, show us is what a complicated issue this is. The DOE report 

was very specific about how there is no single component that 

tends to lead to an incident being worse than another component. 

The white paper from FRA talked about crude and ethanol both 

being very dangerous flammable products that are risky to transport by rail. 

The issue is we need more industries and more people involved 

in this conversation, and more industries with skin in the game. 

If the DOE and other agencies want to continue to investigate volatility and an appropriate decrease in volatility, and what that could 

lead to, in terms of safety, we are supportive of that, and we are 

working closely with them. The point is that this can’t just be on 

one industry, or just one agency, to regulate and to bring—and to 

make this product, the transfer of this product, safer. This is something that should be governmentwide, and that we should have 

more industries involved in. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Thank you for testifying. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. Lipinski, recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Feinberg, as you know, Metra is important in my district, in 

the Chicago region, and you had just mentioned PTC, so I just 

wanted to again bring up the fact how difficult it is for—especially 

commuter rail—to have the funds necessary to put PTC in. And I 

know Metra is looking at the RRIF program for that, and I think 

it is something that we have talked about. Like to see more of a 

focus on that, and it would be great if you can come to Chicago 

some time, in the suburbs, to get a tour and see some of the great 

capital needs that Metra has. I appreciate if you could do that at 

some time. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I would be happy to. I would be happy to. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I want to focus first on rail safety. And, Mr. Butters, I live in a district that has, I often claim, more rail lines than 

any other district in the country. No one has come forward and disputed that, and so I still will claim that. But I know how—you 

know, I have oil trains moving through my district. In fact, moving 

17 

less than a mile from my home. And so it is critically important 

to me, too, that we focus on safety. 

I wanted to—since we already touched on the tank cars, I wanted to talk about the HM–ACCESS [Hazardous Materials Automated Cargo Communications for Efficient and Safe Shipments] 

program, which is moving forward, and you expect to report on results of the pilot program by October of 2015, I understand. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And this is essential technology for our first responders. And I am very interested in making sure that we move 

forward so the first responder doesn’t have to board a locomotive 

to find the manifest in the case of an emergency. 

So, this Congress I introduced a bill to establish a working group 

that would devise a voluntary standard. And I am looking forward 

to PHMSA’s report in the fall. Given that the Association of American Railroads and UPS are moving forward with their own forms 

of electronic shipping papers, I am wondering if you plan to incorporate their experiences in the report into any recommendations 

found in that report. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you, sir, for that question. And the answer 

is we will certainly take a look at that. 

And, as you may know, as an emergency responder myself, a 

former fire chief and chairman of the Hazardous Materials Committee for the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the whole 

notion of electronic shipping papers and electronic information to 

emergency responders is something that I have been—had high on 

my priority list back in the days when I chaired that committee. 

So, we believe that those systems are critical. There is no sense 

in exposing emergency responders to delay or any excess risk by 

having to retrieve documents out of a locomotive, out of a cab of 

a vehicle, or anything else, particularly now, when most of these 

documents exist electronically at some point. 

We are in the midst of the HM–ACCESS program, which is pilot 

testing the feasibility. We also are aware that the railroad, through 

a number of different systems, operations—respond through CSX 

and others, are also making this information available. I can assure—I can tell you that, as an emergency responder, I don’t want 

to try to have to figure out, by carrier, how to get to their data. 

Having a consistent, seamless system is what we are going to be 

looking to do. And where we can marry those platforms together 

so that emergency responders really can—have to go to either one 

app or one place to get this information quickly, that is our goal. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Great. I want to move on in my last minute to 

pipeline leak detection. Also have a tremendous number of pipelines running through my district. 

I know in October 18, 2010, PHMSA published the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on the safety of onshore hazardous liquid pipelines. I think we touched a little bit on that already. 

PHMSA expressed its intent to strengthen requirements for pipeline leak detection, emergency shutoff valves, and protecting high 

consequence areas. I understand that PHMSA has completed a proposed rule, but 41⁄2 years after the initial notice, the proposal is 

stuck at OMB. Ranking Member DeFazio had touched on this. 

18 

Now, I just wanted to ask, while we wait on that rule, I am interested what else can be done for leak detection purposes, and has 

PHMSA considered working with the FAA and private stakeholders to use unmanned aerial systems to help with monitoring? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you for that question. Through our R&D 

program, we have been very active in developing and funding to 

operationalize new technologies to address those very issues. So, 

the answer is yes, we are working with the industry, encouraging 

them to adopt and implement technologies out there now that can 

be operationalized to help improve leak detection and reduce the 

risk of pipeline, and better understand what those risks are. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. In terms of UAS? 

Mr. BUTTERS. The unmanned aerial systems is a technology that 

we have actually funded a couple of years ago. A number of industries are now taking another look at that. I believe it shows great 

promise, by—able to put sensing technology under these devices to 

better detect leaks along pipeline systems, and a number of pipeline operators are utilizing this—that technology, as well. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. And it is important. You know, we passed PRIIA authorization and had a number of items in there relating to safety and 

trying to improve our freight rail system, passenger rail system. 

That was 2008, and we are working on the reauthorization. 

The pipeline bill just reminded me today when Mr. Ranking 

Member had said it was 2011 and had Mr. Shuster do that bill 

back then as a committee bill. That is 4 years ago, and not much 

has been done. 

One of the things that concerns me, it takes a long time to retrofit some of the equipment. Since President Obama has vetoed the 

pipeline bill, and we had safety measures in the pipeline bill on 

which we still haven’t had action by the administration, but since 

the veto of that I have seen at least two horrible incidents of accidents transporting crude. And it—we have lost 4 years now. It is 

going to take some years to retrofit. 

Let me ask Mr. Butters. The amount of time it would retrofit— 

take to retrofit cars—I understand your rule would propose that 

car standards would affect 66,000 cars, approximately. Where are 

we in that process now? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, as we have mentioned, the final rule is currently at OMB. Part of that provision does and will address not 

only new car specifications, but retrofit specifications. As you know, 

there are a number of varieties, if you will, of the DOT–111 car, 

the legacy car, which poses the highest risk in their other—— 

Mr. MICA. So there is actually—no cars have been retrofitted, because there is no rule in place, or no cars under a rule, since there 

is no rule. Is that correct? 

Mr. BUTTERS. There is no—the new specification has not been 

published yet—— 

Mr. MICA. So of old cars, how many do you think were retrofitted 

by the industry? 

19 

Mr. BUTTERS. I don’t have the exact number. I certainly can provide that to you. 

Mr. MICA. I mean are we looking at dozens? Hundreds? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thousands. 

Mr. MICA. Thousands? By the industry? And they still—and, potentially, you could affect as many as 124,000 cars. Is that correct? 

Mr. BUTTERS. I don’t know the exact number, but I will take your 

point there on that number—— 

Mr. MICA. The industry estimates it is going to take 10 years to 

retrofit the 124,000 cars that are affected. How many cars are they 

producing a year, new ones? 

Mr. BUTTERS. I don’t know the exact number. I can provide that 

to—— 

[The information provided by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration can be found on page 156.] 

Mr. MICA. Can you guess? One thousand, two thousand, somebody? There is a lot of highly paid staff there for backup. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I think he just looked at me for backup. Thousands are produced each year, you are correct—— 

Mr. MICA. And they are produced to what you would consider 

your proposed rule standard. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, right now—— 

Mr. MICA. Going to be—— 

Ms. FEINBERG [continuing]. Most of the backlog of new cars is 

jacketed 1232s. So that would be the standard the industry came 

up with several years ago, plus a jacket. The new standard is what 

is included in the rule, which should be finalized in the coming 

weeks. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Ms. FEINBERG. And then there will be a retrofit schedule in that 

rule. 

Mr. MICA. Unless you are, again, on another planet, there have 

been a lot of incidents in which you have had these railcars derail 

for whatever reason, explosions, loss of property, life, whatever. 

Mr. Hart, is—are you aware of additional inspections since now 

we are moving so much of this crude that is going on? What do you 

see—you have to investigate some of these instances. Is the Department doing an adequate job? Should we be doing more? They 

don’t have a rule in place, and it sounds like it could be years, 10 

years, before they can get these cars retrofitted at the rate we are 

going. 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. Of course, the retrofit is 

just part of the total solution. We also want to keep the train on 

the track in the first place, and then have informed emergency responders. 

But regarding the retrofit, we are encouraged to see the industry 

move ahead of the rule, because it is obviously risky, to use a new 

car and not know if that car will comply with the rule when it 

comes out. 

We are also encouraged by an experience about 20 years ago, 

when the retrofit of DOT–112 tank cars occurred, and they managed to do that in a much shorter timeframe than the 10-year retrofit we are talking about. We don’t think 10 years is realistic. We 

think it can be done much sooner—— 

20 

Mr. MICA. But, again, my question—you are the inspector. You 

see this afterwards. Is there more—are there more safety inspections now—we have more crude moving. What do you see? You are 

the expert. 

Mr. HART. We see activity in all three of the fronts regarding 

keeping the train on the track, regarding more robust cars, and regarding informing first responders. 

Mr. MICA. So there is some positive—— 

Mr. HART. There is some positive movement in all three fronts, 

yes. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Mica. 

Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to the 

RRIF loan program. 

Administrator Feinberg, my question—and I don’t understand 

what is the problem. It was—it has been a problem with the past 

administration, and it is a problem with this administration. We 

have had numerous hearings, bipartisan. We want the RRIF loan 

program to work. What is the problem? 

I mean, in Florida we have the All Aboard Florida pending, been 

pending for months. We have had hearings where we have brought 

in individuals that have applied for a loan. It is very expensive. 

What is it we, as a Congress, need to do to get—I mean billions 

of dollars, authority, but no programs going out the door. 

Ms. FEINBERG. So we would—we agree with you. Secretary Foxx 

has said that it is his goal that all of the money in the RRIF program should be loaned out by the time his term is over. I—— 

Ms. BROWN. How much money is in the program? 

Ms. FEINBERG. About $35 billion. 

Ms. BROWN. $35 billion? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. That would put a lot of people to work, and move 

the communities. 

Ms. FEINBERG. We agree. We are—we have several loan applications that are pending now. We are working through those as 

quickly as possible. 

I think, in the past, there has been a high bar that applications—that applicants need to reach in order to ensure that taxpayers will be paid back for those loans. Absolutely agree that taxpayers have to be paid back for those loans. I think the impetus 

is on us to make sure that we are working closely with applicants, 

so that they have access to those loans and to that amount of 

money, but also ensure that taxpayers will get paid back. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, we all agree with that. But it just seems as 

if it is some problem, that we don’t want to do these particular 

types of loans. 

Ms. FEINBERG. We do want to do the loans. In particular, it has 

been a huge focus of mine for the last several months, and of Secretary Foxx’s for the last year. I think, in the past, another issue 

that has—short lines, in particular, have run into is that they 

have—they are probably more in need of the loan than other railroads, yet it is very difficult for them to reach the credit risk preVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Nov 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\4-14-1~1\94181.TXT JEAN
21 

mium level. And that is why we are trying so hard to work with 

them. 

And I would add that, in the GROW AMERICA Act, which we 

have sent to the Congress, we have some suggested tweaks to the 

program that might assist short lines in getting these loans. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, we are definitely looking for what we can do 

to help the short lines be able to participate in the program. 

Mr. Butters, what is the problem with the pipeline regulations? 

You know, there are some commonsense tweaks, things that need 

to happen. Why is it not moving forward? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are placing a very 

high priority on both the liquid and gas rulemaking. The liquid 

rule is currently at OMB, and we are working through that process 

as quickly as we can. 

As you know, we—there is a process that we have to follow with 

any rulemaking. And the gas rule is currently still within the Department of Transportation. And we are—got full-court press to try 

to get that rule out, as well. We are very cognizant of the urgency 

of both these rules, and we are working through these issues as 

quickly as we can. 

Ms. BROWN. Is it anything we in Congress can do? Because we 

are very concerned about the problems that are out in the community, making sure that the communication is there, that all of our 

stakeholders know what is in the containers. I mean—so it is a 

team effort. Is there anything we can do to expedite it so people 

know exactly what is the rule and what they need to do? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, as you know, we are bound by the process. 

And I know that is frustrating for many, that it takes a long time. 

I can’t really advise on what Congress can do to expedite that. All 

I can say is that we are working as quickly on all fronts on all of 

these regulations to get them through. We know how important 

they are to the safety of pipelines, the safety of rail transport, flammable liquids. And, again, we are vigorously working on these, and 

trying to get them out quickly. 

They are complicated rules. There are a lot of moving parts to 

them. Developing cost-benefit analysis based on historical risk is 

often a challenge. But we are working with our colleagues to try 

to get these things through. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. And I want you to know failure is not 

an option. This is something that we got to get done quickly. Thank 

you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

Mr. Rice? 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of the panel for being here today. I have learned a lot. 

I want to start with you, Mr. Hart. Is it safer to transport flammable liquids by pipeline or by rail? 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. We are asked that a lot, 

but it is actually difficult to make cross-modal comparisons. People 

ask me, ‘‘Is it safer to drive than fly?’’ And there are lots of ways 

you can do the statistics. You can come up with either answer. It 

is really apples and oranges, and it is very difficult to compare and 

say one is safer than the other. 

22 

Mr. RICE. All right. The trend in traffic by rail, is rail traffic increasing, decreasing? Is it stable? 

Mr. HART. I can’t speak to general rail traffic. What we are most 

focused on is rail traffic of ethanol and crude, those two substances. 

Ethanol has gone up at least by a factor of four in the last several 

years. Crude oil has gone up a factor of 40 in the last 5 or 10 years. 

Mr. RICE. Ms. Feinberg, is general rail traffic increasing, decreasing, stable? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Increasing. 

Mr. RICE. How much? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I don’t know the actual percentage, but it—— 

Mr. RICE. Has it doubled in the last 10 years? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Crude and ethanol, certainly. But just general—— 

Mr. RICE. Just general—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. Just general trains on the tracks, I don’t know if 

it has doubled. I would doubt it. 

Mr. RICE. All right. Tell me about the trend in—well, first of all, 

the status of the rail infrastructure. Are the tracks generally—are 

they getting better? Are they getting worse? Are they in desperate 

need of repair? Are they—is industry reinvesting enough? What is 

your opinion? 

Ms. FEINBERG. The track—the rail infrastructure is generally 

burdened by significant congestion. The rail industry has said that 

they are investing multiple, multiple billions of dollars in fixing, repairing, replacing track, generally. 

Mr. RICE. They say it? Do you not know? Are they doing that? 

Or you say—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, no, no. I am sorry. They are doing it, and 

they have also said that in the coming year they will reinvest X 

billions—— 

Mr. RICE. So you think the status of the existing rail infrastructure is adequate? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, I don’t. I think that it is burdened, and needs 

significant attention and repair. I was just answering that the rail 

industry has said that they are going to reinvest in it. 

Mr. RICE. OK, all right. How about the trend in accidents on 

rail? Is it—are we seeing more and more accidents? Are we seeing 

more and more lives lost? Or is the trend in accidents improving? 

Ms. FEINBERG. The trend in accidents is generally improving. 

The 2014 accidents were actually down. I think, in terms of grade 

crossing incidents, we are actually seeing those tick up a little bit 

in the last year or so. But of course, the rail accidents that we are 

seeing have been dramatic and attention-getting, because they tend 

to involve crude and large—— 

Mr. RICE. OK. So, despite the dramatic increase in flammable 

liquids on rail—and you say 40-fold—and despite the fact that general rail traffic has increased significantly in the last 10 years, we 

are still seeing a decline in accidents? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. To what do you attribute that? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Increased inspections, increased safety measures. 

23 

Mr. RICE. OK. Mr. Butters, tell me about the trend in pipeline 

volume. Is the volume in pipelines increasing? Is it stable? Is it decreasing? Tell me about that. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, more pipelines are being built every year, 

both on the transmission side, as well as gathering production 

lines. So that is increasing, particularly in light of the energy renaissance that we are experiencing with shale, oil, and gas production. It is growing rather significantly. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Butters, do you have an opinion on the safety of 

transmission of flammable liquids, pipeline versus railroad? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, I agree with Mr. Hart, they are both safe 

modes of transportation. Our role is to ensure that those hazardous 

materials, whether—regardless of the mode that they are transported on, are done in a safe way. 

Mr. RICE. That was a really good nonanswer. Pipeline versus 

railroad. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Again, it—two separate modes. Both of them 

are—— 

Mr. RICE. Which one is safer, in your opinion, pipeline or railroad? 

Mr. BUTTERS. They are—both have demonstrated strong safety 

records. 

Mr. RICE. You said that you were trying to hire 120 people earlier, right? And you hoped to have that done by the end of the year. 

How many people work for you? How many people work at—what 

is the name of the—— 

Mr. BUTTERS. PHMSA, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration. We have slightly shy of 500 staff, both here 

in headquarters, as well as in our 10 field offices. 

Mr. RICE. How long have you been trying to hire 120 people? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, we were authorized in December of this year, 

so we have been working pretty vigorously since December. We 

have hired about 30 percent of those vacancies. We had about, on 

a pipeline program, 145 positions, and nearly all of those have been 

filled. 

Mr. RICE. I have one last question, and then I will shut up. 

You said you have very high priority on liquid and gas rulemaking for pipelines, very high priority. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes. 

Mr. RICE. How long you been working on that with very high priority? 

Mr. BUTTERS. We have been working on those for several years. 

Mr. RICE. What—how long does it take for something with low 

priority? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Pardon me? 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that over the 

next year the railroad industry has said they are going to invest 

$29 billion: $13 billion in repair and $16 billion in new capital. 

Some time last week, Burlington Northern Santa Fe notified its 

customers of some operational changes that they are going to 

make, including reducing speeds on key trains from 50 to 35 in 

heavily populated areas, increasing track inspections, eliminating 

the use of DOT–111 cars from service within 1 year, and 

24 

unjacketed 1232s within 3 years, and decreasing the threshold on 

wayside detectors to increase detection and removal of defective 

railcars. 

So, the question is—and it is not to trumpet BNSF necessarily, 

but if BNSF is doing it, why can’t other railroads do this? Why 

can’t PHMSA mandate that kind of aggressive action, as well? And 

is that what we expect to see? And this would be for FRA, as well. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Sorry. We know about BNSF’s recent announcements. We are supportive of them. Not all railroads are functioning 

the same geographic area, functioning with the same kind of traffic, and carrying the same kind of product, so there are differences 

of opinion in the rail industry about those. But we are hugely supportive of the recent announcements they have made, and I believe 

they make a lot of sense. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, that is fair. That is fair. So, for Ms. Feinberg, 

the Association of Washington Cities approached me with a proposal for improvements at at-grade crossings. We are going to work 

on some legislative language, see if we can get that in our—in the 

surface bill. 

But FRA has looked at at-grade crossing improvements, as well. 

Can you cover a little bit about how you define at-grade crossing 

improvements, and what that might mean for safety? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Sure. So the first thing that we try to remind people of is that the safest crossing is no grade crossing at all. It would 

actually be the rail being completely separated from pedestrians 

and from vehicular traffic. 

Because of recent incidents—the Metro-North incident, the Amtrak incident, and the Metrolink incident—we have taken a fresh 

look at grade crossing safety, generally. This is a very old problem, 

but one we think deserves some fresh thinking. So we have announced that we are implementing an enhanced campaign to improve safety at crossings. We have started with the partnership 

with law enforcement to increase enforcement at crossings for those 

drivers that are trying to actually beat the train. 

But that is not the only problem at crossings. We have also got 

an awareness problem, so we are working on that. And we are also 

hoping to announce some new technologies in the coming months 

that would also assist with safety. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. Look forward to that. 

Mr. Butters, how has the Canadian direction on tank car design 

impacted PHMSA’s process and rulemaking? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you for that question, sir. We have been 

working very closely with our counterparts in Canada to ensure 

that these safety regulations are harmonized to minimize any disruption in cross-border movement. We are hoping that, as we approach the finalization of this final rule, we will both be able to 

jointly announce our regulations. 

Mr. LARSEN. Is that adding to time, or adding to the delay, or 

is it everything else that is adding to getting this rule out in a 

more timely manner? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Our discussions with Canada have not affected 

how our rule is working through the process here. 

25 

As you know, the Canadian governmental process and the U.S. 

governmental process are—have different gates to go through. Canada doesn’t have the processes that we go through. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. You mean the excellent process that we have. 

Finally, for Mr. Butters, I have a letter from the State of Washington Citizens Advisory Committee on Pipeline Safety. It is from 

December 30, 2014. It is actually directed to your boss, Anthony 

Foxx, but it lists six particular rules on pipeline safety that they 

wanted to hear about, what the process is. 

You have covered liquid and gas, and there are three others. And 

I don’t want to have you answer the question where you are on the 

process for the other four in this setting. Do you have this letter? 

Do you know of this letter? 

Mr. BUTTERS. I believe I—we have seen that letter, and it is a— 

a response is being prepared. But we would be happy to, obviously, 

respond to those specific questions to you directly, as well. 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. We will follow up with you directly on that, 

to see where PHMSA is on a response. Again, it was December 

30th, so we are 3-plus months beyond that. And I know you are 

busy on a lot of things, but these are our folks, I think the only 

Governor-appointed citizens advisory committee in the country. We 

created this process as part of the 2002 Act. And so, hopeful that 

you can be responsive as quickly as possible. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Absolutely. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hardy? 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Feinberg, Mr. Butters, Mr. Hart, thank you for being here. 

I have read your testimonies, and I have got to be quite blunt. I 

know there is a lot going on. I know that crude rail has increased 

over the last few months. But when it comes to rulemaking, I see 

in here a lot of activity, but I don’t see a lot of results. 

As a Member of Congress, I know that legislation can be slowmoving. But our rulemaking process seems to be far behind. A bill 

was passed back in 2011, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act. It was enacted in 2012. There were 

48 mandates from Congress for the agency that bills itself on focusing on the safe movement of hazardous materials. Out of the 48 

mandated, only 23 are completely. Sadly and shocking, this act is 

about to expire in a few months. 

So, let me ask this question. How are we supposed to have a 

comprehensive conversation about this act with less than half of 

the mandates finished? And how can we look to authorize this act? 

Either one of you can answer that. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, we are—have been working very diligently to 

address these mandates. Obviously, some of them are more complicated and require data and research and—to make sure that we 

are getting them right. That takes time. 

I am not here to apologize for that process, but we are very cognizant of the importance of these, and we are working through to 

get them completed as quickly as we can. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. And I have also read your testimony. I 

would like to run by a couple of quotes. Mr. Butters, you state, ‘‘To 

date, the Office of Hazardous Material Safety has finalized four of 

26 

the six regulatory actions required under MAP–21.’’ In another 

quote you say, ‘‘PHMSA had implemented all but one of the mandates from the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and 

Safety Act of 2006.’’ 

Ms. Feinberg, you state that ‘‘Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 mandated that FRA, as the Secretary’s designee, complete an 

unprecedented 43 discrete tasks...Today, FRA has 10 remaining 

RSIA-mandated, nonperiodic items left to complete.’’ 

I have one simple question. What is going on with our rulemaking? We are looking to reauthorize a very important piece of 

legislation before all the rules. Can you help me walk through 

where the train is running off the tracks, so to speak, here? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Sure, Mr. Hardy. I mean, to be clear, I think that 

we have a function in the regulatory process that exists. And it is 

not built for speed. I wish that it was. And no one is more frustrated by our regulatory process and how long it takes than I am 

on occasion. 

But if we are trying to govern and regulate as quickly as we possibly can, the regulatory—the rulemaking process is not the way to 

do it. 

Mr. HARDY. Would you agree that you maybe need to do something, then? Because we should be built for speed. We should be 

built for safety. That is the obligation of this Congress, to make 

sure that we implement rules and regulations that help make the 

public safer. That is one of our constitutional duties. 

So, can somebody help me tell you—tell me where we are going 

wrong, as a Congress, and where we are going wrong, as Administrators? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I agree with you 100 percent that we should be 

built for speed, and that we should be able to be more efficient 

when we are trying to make the system safer. But there are nine 

different steps in the U.S. regulatory process, and I wish that we 

could move through them quicker, and in a more efficient way. But 

the reality is that if we want to be truly efficient, we would end 

up regulating by emergency order, or the Congress would direct us 

in certain ways. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Sir, if I might add, the other aspect of this is that 

there are a lot—many of these rules affect a lot of stakeholders. 

And we have to—when we put rules out for comment—for example, 

we got 30,000 comments on the rail rule, alone. We have to go 

through all of those to ensure that we understand where each of 

these stakeholders are coming from, and take into consideration 

how they affect those industries. And that does take time. 

Mr. HARDY. I have just a few seconds left, but, you know, in the 

private sector, where I come from, we have to communicate with 

all sides. Is the administration communicating with congressional 

committees on these issues? Are we coming up with better mousetraps? 

You know, I have to work with the engineers, the architects, 

every direction that I go, in order to get a project done on time. 

And it is sometimes a challenge, but it is done right, it is done safe, 

and it is done to protect the public at the end of the day, in a whole 

lot more efficient time. We need to be—start that communication 

somewhere. Has to—something has to change here. 

27 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. You know, I represent an area that 

is very densely populated. You know, just to give you an example, 

Hoboken, New Jersey, is 1 square mile, has about 51,000 people. 

And I see in the Wall Street Journal today that FEMA, they put 

the—devised a scenario where they made an explosion, and they— 

they didn’t make the explosion, they prepared the officials for any 

kind of accident that happens. And they work with the administration of the city of Jersey City and surrounding areas. 

I was just wondering, if FEMA comes up with suggestions on 

how to fight an accident like this, do you coordinate with FEMA? 

Do you—do they talk to you and say, ‘‘Look, this may be’’—as they 

go through these urban areas, this—‘‘I think this regulation may 

improve us in fighting this accident?’’ 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes, sir. We coordinate with FEMA regularly, also 

with the NFC, DHS, and the entire apparatus that would respond 

to an incident like that. And in this specific instance, we coordinated with FEMA and FRA participated—I believe PHMSA did, as 

well—participated in the exercise. 

The exercise you are referring to was a tabletop exercise that 

would help train and practice responding to a significant crude-byrail incident in a very populated area. 

Mr. SIRES. So, if they make a suggestion, you will act on it. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I am sorry? 

Mr. SIRES. If they make a suggestion, you will act on it? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes, very much. I mean we are not necessarily 

the first responders, but we will coordinate with FEMA to ensure 

that we are assisting. 

Mr. SIRES. And the other area of New Jersey is obviously—there 

are a lot of pipelines under New Jersey. And a few years ago, in 

Linden, New Jersey, there was a big explosion, 1,500 people—evacuate. And I know that the railroad industry is investing a great 

deal of money in repairs and capital. I was just wondering if the 

pipeline industry is doing something similar. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, under Federal regulations—and our Federal 

regulations have to be adopted by States for enforcement in those 

distribution lines, and intrastate lines that the State oversees. So 

there are—there is consistency, in terms of pipeline safety, which 

specifies frequency of inspections, how they should be inspected. 

And, again, depending on the age and type of pipeline we are 

talking about, the best way to inspect for safety is using internal— 

what we call pinging devices, in-line inspection devices. But some 

pipelines, because of their age or their—the nature of their construction, are not well-suited to those. So the operator has to 

choose other means of inspecting to ensure that they are safe. And 

again, it depends on—— 

Mr. SIRES. But does the industry do it on their own? You know, 

let’s say we have a pipeline that is 50 years old. They say, ‘‘Well, 

this may have to be replaced.’’ I mean do they go out and do it? 

Or—because I assume that the railroad industry, when they see a 

track that is not safe, they go out and do it. 

28 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes, the operator is required—and it is the responsibility—again, depending on the pipeline, if it is a—if it is overseeing or regulated by the State, the State safety agency ensures 

that that operator is complying with those regulations. And if it is 

an interstate transmission line, it falls under PHMSA’s jurisdiction 

to ensure those operators are doing what they are supposed to be 

doing. That is why we have inspectors out there that—every day 

they go and either audit companies, operators, to look at their inspection records, or they do hands-on inspections themselves with 

those operators. 

Mr. SIRES. And I see here that you processed 19,000 special permits and approval applications in 2014. And you are requesting to 

charge a fee of $700 to $3,000. What is that money going to be used 

for? Are you going to increase your—you know, your—many people, 

more people, inspectors, and—— 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, there are a couple things that sort of address 

that issue. Some of these special permits can involve a complicated 

analysis that—the fee is intended to help recover the cost, to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and, really, the requesting organization, the shipper, the producer, would pay that fee. 

We are also trying to reduce the number of special permits that 

are necessary, by looking at past practices and where special permits have been issued over—you know, year after year, that demonstrate a good safety record, by moving those into the—into our 

standard regulations, so that a special permit is no longer required, 

to make the system more efficient. 

But the fee is intended to help offset the cost of processing these 

fees. As I said, some of them can be very complicated and extensive. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Babin? 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Feinberg, I have a question for you, first. You have recently 

called on the energy industry ‘‘to do more to control the volatility 

of its cargo.’’ You may have seen a recent report from the DOE 

where the agency had found no data showing a correlation between 

crude oil properties and the likelihood of severity of a fire caused 

by a derailment. 

Furthermore, a white paper from the Federal Railroad Administration stated ‘‘using vapor pressure as a metric to identify potential hazards may not prove effective when considering real-world 

accident conditions.’’ 

So, I would ask you, are you disagreeing with the findings of 

your own agency and your administration counterparts at the Department of Energy? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, sir. I am happy to take that question again. 

The DOE report that recently came out talked about a variety of 

different components that could affect a crude-by-rail incident: 

speed, volatility. The point of the report was that there is not one 

single component that can be changed that will affect the severity 

of the fire or the incident. 

We agree with that report, and we are working closely with DOE 

as they do more research to determine what, if any, level of volaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Nov 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\4-14-1~1\94181.TXT JEAN
29 

tility would be more useful for the product to come to, to increase 

actual safety. I don’t think there is a disagreement in the industry 

or among—or between the agencies that decreasing volatility generally makes a product safer. 

In terms of the white paper that came out from FRA, that was 

about flammable materials, and it talked about crude and ethanol 

both being flammable materials that are dangerous in incidents 

when there are derailments. 

Dr. BABIN. OK, thank you. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Thank you. 

Dr. BABIN. I would ask you. Do you think it is safer to haul crude 

by rail or through a pipeline? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I am sorry, is that for me? 

Dr. BABIN. Yes. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes, sir. Generally, I think that pipelines are 

safer, because I don’t have to be responsible for them. I worry a 

lot more about the product that is being transported by rail. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Now, this question is for all three of you. If, according to the white paper—have there been any of these incidents, 

of all the incidents that we have had involving the movement of 

crude-by-rail, has crude ever been implicated as the causative factor in the accident? Do you know? 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, sir. The product itself has not been found to 

be the cause of the actual incident. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Would you like to give an answer to that, or do 

you have the same answer, Mr. Butters? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes. The product itself is normally not related to 

the cause of the accident in rail transportation. There may be a factor related to pipeline, if the product contributes to corrosion, for 

example, but inspections done properly will detect those. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Mr. Hart? 

Mr. HART. Our experience is the problem is how the railroad is 

operated, the robustness of the cars, and the response by the responders, not the content of the tank cars. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. Thank you very, very much. Appreciate it. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

Mr. Nolan, recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple questions 

for both Mr. Butters and Ms. Feinberg. I will try to be brief. And, 

if you will, too, we should be able to get them in. 

My first question is, Mr. Butters, did you feel like you have the 

methods, the technology, to test the material integrity of the steel 

and the tubular goods that are going into pipelines around the 

country? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Are you talking about testing the actual material—— 

Mr. NOLAN. I am not talking about—yes, I am not talking about 

the seams and the lines and brakes, but the actual integrity of the 

steel that is going into that tubular good. Quality does vary around 

the world, I have found. Having done a little business in that business—— 

30 

Mr. BUTTERS. It—as part of our—on the pipeline side, as—part 

of our inspection program is to look at materials of construction, 

and ensure that operators are using—— 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the material integrity of the steel that is in that pipeline. 

Not the construction and the weldings and the fittings and the 

bells and all the whistles. I am talking about the integrity of the 

steel. 

Mr. BUTTERS. As part of our inspection process, we do look at the 

materials that are used for pipeline—the pipeline themselves, the 

steel itself. 

Mr. NOLAN. And you have the technology to test the quality of 

that steel. 

Mr. BUTTERS. We have the expertise, and we utilize available 

technology to determine the quality of that material, yes. That is 

part of our—in fact, as part of our investigations of pipeline accidents, we take the damaged segment of the pipeline and send it to 

a metallurgist to determine the causal factors related to the materials—— 

Mr. NOLAN. And that is after the fact you have an inspection 

prior to an accident or a disaster. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes. 

Mr. NOLAN. On the material integrity. You have the technology, 

and you have the methods, you have the expertise, that you can 

test the quality of the steel. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Two ways we do that. We—through our own inspection, expertise of our inspectors, as well as looking at the 

records of the operator, and what materials they are using in those 

pipelines. 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, I am told that, you know, you basically do rely 

on what the producer and the user supplies you, but that you do 

not have the technology to inspect the material integrity of that 

steel. Is that incorrect? 

Mr. BUTTERS. I guess we will have to maybe talk about that 

more specifically, because I am not sure exactly—— 

Mr. NOLAN. Right, you told me you look at the records of the producers and the users. Well, that—I mean that is one thing. I mean 

that is—you know, what do you think they are going to tell you? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Well, our inspectors are engineers. And so they do 

have experience in pipeline—— 

Mr. NOLAN. OK. Well, then, if you have done all this, do you find 

any difference in the material integrity between foreign steel and 

domestic steel? 

Mr. BUTTERS. There are issues associated—yes, there are issues 

associated with the quality of pipelines that operators use. 

Mr. NOLAN. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Feinberg, with regard to bridges, you know, I come from the 

Land of 10,000 Lakes. Interestingly enough, with regard to the 

Keystone, you know, one of the arguments was—is that—in opposition to it was—is if we didn’t have the Keystone Pipeline, the tar 

sands fields of Alberta wouldn’t be developed. Somebody forgot to 

check, because that horse left the barn several years ago, and I 

have got 21 million barrels of oil coming across the border at International Falls from that area each year over a 100,000—excuse 

31 

me—over a 107-year-old bridge. And, you know, several dozen train 

loads. 

And, you know, I read these reports in the New York Times and 

other places about all the 100,000 or more bridges. Do you have 

any idea or estimate of how many of these bridges are deficient, 

and what it might take, in terms of cost and inspections to get up 

to speed on this thing before we have a disaster? 

The bridge I am talking about, you know, separates the Rainy 

River from the Voyageurs National Park, 107 years old, 21 million 

barrels of oil coming—it is a great concern to all of us. 

Ms. FEINBERG. The bridges themselves tend to be owned by the 

railroads, and the railroads are ultimately accountable to make 

sure that they are safe and have been maintained. FRA has a staff 

of bridge specialists that then audit the bridge—audit the safety 

programs that the railroads have in place to make sure that they 

are maintaining and inspecting their bridges. 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, from what I read, I mean, the—yes, there is, 

like, 100,000 bridges, you know, that haven’t been inspected. The 

railroads—again, the fox is guarding the chicken coop here. You 

got, like, eight inspectors, I am told. I mean each inspector would 

have to inspect about 10,000, 12,000 bridges a year. 

Do you have any plans for beefing up, in your own mind, you 

know, what we might be able to do to have a better method of 

checking the territory—the technical capabilities and/or deficiencies 

of these bridges? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, the reality is that we do not have the—we 

have not been tasked with inspecting all of the bridges in the country, the rail bridges in the country. We have been tasked with auditing and monitoring the railroad’s own inspection and maintenance programs. 

We are actively hiring a few additional bridge specialists who can 

act on that, and we are now looking at whether we should hire 

some additional folks on top of that. But for the time being, you 

know, the railroads themselves are actually responsible for—— 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. You think it is prudent to have the railroads responsible for the bridges, as opposed to not having some kind of a 

Federal inspection plan? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, the railroads tend to own the bridges. And 

if the bridges are not maintained and are crumbling, then one 

would think that it would not be safe for their own cargo to be 

traveling. So I don’t know if it is prudent or not. We would be more 

than happy to throw additional resources at this, if we can, in our 

budget. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Ms. Feinberg. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. 

Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I happened to be 

at another hearing, and so most of the questions I would have 

asked have already been asked. But I would like to say a couple 

of things. 

I noticed in Ms. Feinberg’s report or statement that it said total 

train accidents have declined by 46 percent over the past 10 years. 

Total derailments declined by 47 percent. Total highway rail grade 

crossing accidents declined by 24 percent. There is a story here. 

32 

Our main concern in this committee, and the main concern of each 

of your agencies, has to be safety. 

But you know, I was—before I went to law school, I got an undergraduate degree in journalism, and taught journalism for a 

year. I was a newspaper reporter on a daily newspaper for a while. 

I understand that train accidents and pipeline explosions and so 

forth receive a lot of huge publicity. But the real story that should 

come out of here is that a lot of people are doing a real good job 

here, and that where rail transportation was one of the safest 

forms of transportation before 2005. Over the last 10 years it has 

gotten much safer. 

There is a story that should be told that our pipelines are perhaps even safer than the trains. So you know, I wish sometimes 

we could emphasize some good things always, instead of always 

talking about the bad things. 

But I was curious, though. Mr. Mica got into the fact that the 

industry says 124,000 train cars have to be retrofitted or replaced. 

Can any of you tell me how much—Ms. Feinberg or Mr. Hart, can 

you tell me how much it costs per railcar to do this retrofitting? 

Either of you have that figure? I am guessing it is fairly expensive, 

when you multiply it times 124,000. 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, it would depend on what level you are starting at. So it would be more expensive to retrofit an unjacketed 

1232 than it would be to retrofit a jacketed 1232. But I have seen 

various numbers that go anywhere from $3,000 to $9,000 to 

$12,000. That is for a 30-year asset. 

Mr. BUTTERS. We could provide you with that data. 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. And how much have the railroads spent thus 

far on the Positive Train Control program? Does—do any of you 

know, have a figure like that? 

Ms. FEINBERG. I don’t know that number, off the top of my head, 

but billions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have read in the past, or heard in the past, that 

it is very, very expensive, and that we are talking in the billions 

of dollars. But I don’t really remember what those costs were at 

this point. None of you know that figure? 

Ms. FEINBERG. We can try to compile that number and report 

back to you. But I think we would generally agree that it is in the 

billions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have already talked about the fact that none 

of the trains—none of the railroads are going to be able to meet the 

December 31st deadline. Or there is going to be some fudging on 

it, or something. What realistically are we talking about, 2018, 

2020, or do we have any idea on that? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Well, different railroads are at a—are at different 

stages in the process of implementation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Ms. FEINBERG. So some are quite close, and some have a longer 

way to go. 

What we have proposed thus far, and what we are continuing to 

discuss internally and with Members of Congress is granting railroads provisional authority to start to bring PTC online in chunks. 

What is important to us is to continue to work closely with the 

railroads to make sure that PTC is being implemented, and that 

33 

progress is being made, rather than a blanket extension that would 

give people—give companies the ability to take the next couple of 

years off without making more progress towards implementation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I was given a demonstration of that by Burlington 

Northern—BNSF at one point. Of course, even that demonstration, 

though, was a few years ago. So I just was curious about that. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

Mrs. Bustos? 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it was exactly 1 month and 9 days ago today that there was a train derailment in my district. And it was—just to kind of paint a picture a 

little bit, it was in, literally, one of the most scenic areas of the 

State of Illinois, in a town called Galena, a small town. There is 

about 55 to 60 trains that go through that community every single 

day. 

And, in this case, this—the train derailment happened in a very 

remote area. In fact, it took about an hour for the workers to get 

back there. They had to drive on a bike trail. And, you know, on 

one side of it, literally, was a cliff. And on the other side was a 

slough that leads to the Mississippi River. The entire western border of my congressional district is the Mississippi River, the source 

of drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people in my region. 

And you know, this—it was the Bakken crude that was being 

carried, and there was an explosion. And, literally, I went out to 

the site, and it was yards from the slough that this crude oil spilled 

and puddled. And, you know, you think about what could have happened. 

And, Chairman Hart, I know you said in your opening statement 

about the best practice, and how these—what the railcars should 

be, as far as carrying this crude, this volatile crude. And, you 

know, since I think I am dead last here, maybe I will just—am I 

not dead last? Wow. 

Well, so it is probably maybe just a little more clarification. I 

think Mr. Mica was asking some questions and I am not sure if I 

necessarily heard the answer, or maybe the answers were cut off 

before anybody could talk about those. But I guess, more than anything, Ms. Feinberg, you had started saying that there is going to 

be a timeline that is released here pretty soon for the retrofit 

schedule. 

Can you talk a little bit more about exactly what we can anticipate? Because I would like to be able to go back to the community 

of Galena and say, ‘‘OK, here is what we know about this retrofit, 

here is what we can tell you to maybe give you some peace of mind 

as these 55 to 60 railcars go through every single day in our community.’’ 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes, ma’am. What I was referring to was the final 

rule that is sitting at OMB at the moment that we believe will be 

finalized in the coming weeks. And that rule, though we have not 

seen it in its final form, should contain both the new car standard 

and a retrofit schedule, so what schedule would be laid out to retrofit older tank cars to become this more safe standard. 

34 

Mrs. BUSTOS. OK. And can we talk a little bit more about the 

volatility? Again, I know some of these questions have been asked, 

I just don’t know if I have a full understanding about what can be 

done. Is there any talk about addressing this volatility at the site, 

before it is loaded in the railcars? Is there any movement along 

those lines? 

And I don’t know who the best person is to answer that question, 

but whoever would like to address that—Mr. Butters? Thank you. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes. As we have mentioned before, we are looking—this comprehensive approach looks at everything. And looking 

at the hazardous—I guess physical and chemical properties of the 

product being shipped is one of those. 

We are working with DOE. We recently completed our first 

phase of that work to look at what research has been done. And 

at this point there is not enough science right now to—for us to 

definitely say how this volatility issue plays into this. And—but 

also underscored the fact that the chemical and physical properties 

of this flammable liquid can vary, and it can be complicated. 

So, further analysis is really needed to make sure that we better 

understand how volatility, how flammability, boiling point, and 

other hazardous attributes of this product contributes to that safety, and what can be done to lower that risk. 

But, at the end of the day, it is still going to be a flammable liquid. It is a Class 3 flammable liquid that would still be classified 

that way. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. And, Chairman Hart, because you talked quite a 

bit in your statement about safety, what is the message that I can 

take back to the citizens of the scenic town of Galena, Illinois, 

about rail safety? And what would you like to tell a community 

that has gone through seeing these explosions that are very, very 

dramatic? And thank God there was no loss of life, but you know, 

we are talking about now tens of millions of dollars’ worth of cleanup that is still going on today. 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. I think the best we can 

say is that we learn lessons with each event. And to your question 

about volatility, our accident investigation experience has demonstrated that the primary indications of the magnitude of the disaster are going to be the speed of the impact, the amount of the 

release, and the size of the pool fire, as opposed to the volatility. 

But to the general question, we learn lessons after every event. 

And that is, for example, why we put out recently some four urgent 

recommendations, because we are learning lessons with each new 

accident, and the urgent recommendations ask for more robust 

tank cars. We are finding that the current tank cars may be more 

robust against puncture, but they are not more robust against thermal release. We want to inform the process as quickly as we can 

and issue recommendations as needed. The best we can say is that 

every event we see helps us better inform how to improve safety. 

Mrs. BUSTOS. Thank you, sir. I have used up my time. If I may 

say very quickly, Ms. Feinberg, you have been very, very helpful. 

I appreciate how you reached out to me proactively, as soon as this 

derailment happened in our district. So thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mrs. Bustos. 

35 

Mr. Butters, in 2011 we reauthorized the Pipeline Safety bill, 

section 23, the maximum allowable operating pressures of natural 

gas pipelines. Why has PHMSA failed to meet the deadline to implement the 2011—it was supposed to be done in 18 months, it is 

still not done yet today. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As—that is part of our 

gas rule, the notice of proposed rule, which we are working with— 

still within the Department of Transportation, in trying to get that 

rule in final shape, so we can get it out. So we are working vigorously to get this thing completed, so that we can publish that 

NPRM. 

Mr. DENHAM. Working vigorously for 4 years. I mean the same 

situation with the DOT–111s. This was something that was proposed back in 2011. You said, Ms. Feinberg, in the THUD appropriations meeting, that DOT has been working in earnest for 18 

months on the tank car rule. This has been since 2011. Four years, 

we are still having challenges with pipelines, we are still having 

challenges with tank cars. Why is it taking 4 years to come up with 

a new rule? Ms. Feinberg? 

Ms. FEINBERG. Thank you for the question. That is right, I did 

say that in the THUD committee, and that is accurate. 

I believe that their—that the agency started work on DOT–111 

rulemaking, a tank car rulemaking, earlier in the administration 

and had some—and the process slowed down a bit. I will say what 

I said before, which is that our only option is to work within the 

process that exists for these rulemakings. And, while I think we 

should always be pressured to move as fast as we possibly can, it 

is also just generally a long and very thorough process, with multiple steps that take quite a long time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Butters, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. BUTTERS. The only thing I would add, sir, is that, being cognizant of this tank car issue, which NTSB, of course, issued a recommendation, our tank—the tank car committee that operates 

within DOT that brings the tank car manufacturers together, the 

shippers, the carriers, have been working on this tank car specification issue for a number of years. We have relied on their process to develop that right specification. 

Obviously, with the huge growth in transportation of this product 

required the acceleration of that process. But, as Administrator 

Feinberg indicates, the—we are bound by the process that we have 

to follow. And, because of the complication of this particular rulemaking that not only addresses railcar specifications, but rail operations and other factors, to put that final rule together is complex, 

and it just—has taken quite a bit of time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Come on, that is just an excuse. Four years. It is 

4 years now. I understand rules take a lot of time. Whether it is 

an emergency or a congressional order. With the PHMSA 2011 reauthorization, it was a congressional order, and it has still taken 

4 years. 

Now, again, I appreciate that the two of you are Acting Administrators, and the two of you have been very gracious with your time, 

and certainly have been very responsive in communicating with 

this committee. But 4 years by this administration? I mean, not 

only is this committee frustrated, the folks that we represent, the 

36 

American public, are frustrated. They are frustrated any time we 

have another pipeline that explodes or has challenges. We are frustrated every time that there is a train that hits a high-centered 

farm truck, or goes off the rails, and we have an explosion, because 

there is no tank car rule. Four years is too long. We can’t have any 

more excuses on these. 

Ms. FEINBERG. I would say that no one is more frustrated with 

how long this process takes than those of us who are in the middle 

of the process and responsible for it. And I think there is no one 

who believes that this process is one that moves fast enough. 

Mr. BUTTERS. And the other thing I would add, sir, is that we 

recognize the importance of this rule, but we also recognize that actions can be taken and are being taken outside of the rulemaking 

process to address some of these safety issues. 

The Secretary of Transportation, and all the modal administrations, are acting within their full authority, whether it is through 

emergency orders, advisory bulletins, or other actions, and using 

the influence that we can with the industry to have them step up 

and take additional actions to address these safety issues. 

This rule that is coming out is not going to be an overnight fix. 

It is going to take time. And—— 

Mr. DENHAM. And that is the frustration. We understand that it 

is going to take time to implement it. As you heard from Chairman 

Mica earlier, we are expecting 10 years is what the industry is saying it is going to take to upgrade these tank cars. We are still going 

to be moving Bakken crude during those 10 years. We are still 

going to have challenges with not only creating those American 

jobs in our districts that actually make these tank cars, but actually getting them out on the road to make America safe. 

So, again, very frustrated about the length of time it has taken 

to come out with this rule. We also want to see the implementation 

process and see that expedited, as well. 

I have got one final question. In the Bush administration, FRA 

tried to mandate the installation of ECP brakes. And last week, 

Ms. Feinberg, you had said that a lot of people in FRA believe ECP 

brakes could be a game-changer. Do you think that they are a 

game-changer? And is there any plan by FRA to again look at that 

mandate, or to come up with funding to help to implement it? 

Ms. FEINBERG. We have taken a close look at ECP braking. We 

do—— 

Mr. DENHAM. And I would ask for a quick response, because my 

time has expired, and—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. You can also submit that in writing. But if you can 

give me a quick response, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. FEINBERG. We are supportive of ECP braking. We do believe 

that it is a game-changer on safety. I am happy to get back to you 

with the rest on the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Napolitano, you are recognized. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Was Mr. Garamendi—— 

Mr. DENHAM. No. No, but you—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Happily have him go before you. 

37 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is fine, thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. And certainly there are certain questions that I have 

had, because my district is one of the heaviest urban rail traffic in 

the country, with the Alameda Corridor, with freight, Amtrak, and 

Metrolink commuter rail. 

The Alameda Corridor-East was established by communities to 

build grade separations. And I have heard you talk about the importance of those. However, there are crossings, 40-plus, in my district, and only about 20 are—have—less than half are built, and 

the others are in the process. And the—yet the railroad only provides 1- to 3-percent contributions. 

I wish somebody would start working on being able to impose 

upon them the ability to get that—how would I say—delivery expedited, delivery to the east, a little more seriously, in order to be 

able to get that done. And I am glad the administration’s GROW 

AMERICA includes a section on that for the freight program to 

mitigate the negative impacts it has on urban areas. And I think 

that is important, not only for passenger safety, for employee safety, but also the fact that we have had—not recently—derailments 

in my area, and train accidents that, thank God, UP was able to 

replace miles of that with new rail, because the increase—expected 

increase in rail traffic. 

But on the Positive Train Control there is a lot of discussion on 

that. But we need to be able to get a report on the cost, on the ability, and the feasibility of being able to implement it, especially in 

urban areas that have a greater impact. 

And also, the implementation, what is the timeframe that we 

have? I know it is December of this year, and there may be an extension, based on the need. Most of them are—say it is financial. 

But we need to be able to understand it a little better on that area. 

And we talk about the ability to get all these things done, but 

what about your budgets? Do you have enough budget? Have your 

budgets been cut? Because we expect a lot, and yet we are initially 

saying, ‘‘OK, cut different projects and programs that are important to the safety and welfare of our communities at stake.’’ So that 

is another area that I would like to have you tell us about. 

And the shipments, whether it is 110, 120 containers per railroad 

shipment. There is over 40 coming through my district now. And 

I know that at one point there was an effort to put in a 31⁄2-mile 

train, which would have created a lot of issues for my area. 

The other area is inspectors and inspections. Do you have enough 

inspectors? I understand you still—for the bridges, you only have— 

you have eight, of which two are vacant. And where are we with 

that? 

Then the aging infrastructure that we talk about, we have had 

a report from this committee years ago by the—an agency—I can’t 

remember, it is outside—that graded our bridges and gave us Ds 

and Cs, mostly. Are we putting away enough money to be able to 

provide assistance to the locals when they are privately owned, but 

are we doing—are we—do we have enough money to be able to get 

those bridges safe enough to where, if we are utilizing for trucks 

or rail, that we have that ability to do that? 

Pipelines, yes. I have one in my area. But it was a leak on a 

transfer station that is still being cleaned up, after 25 years. So 

38 

those are major issues that we need to be able to ensure that technology advances to—that we are able to detect leaks and take care 

of them. Because the taxpayer ends up paying for it. 

Any comments on all my comments? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. FEINBERG. Sure. And we—in order to keep with the time, I 

am happy to give you more fulsome answers. We can get those 

back—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is all right. He took a minute and a 

half—— 

Ms. FEINBERG. No, no, I will keep going. But just—if I don’t get 

to everything, we are more than happy to provide more. So I will 

go through some of these, though. 

On crossings, we have asked for additional funding in the GROW 

AMERICA Act. And, in fact, we also just released a notice of funding availability on some grants—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How about from the railroads, themselves? 

Ms. FEINBERG. The railroads do pay a small portion of—agreed. 

And I know that these are burdensome expenses for local communities. 

We also put into our budget a significant increase in a pool of 

funding that is available for communities to ask for assistance in 

grade crossings, grade separations, and also rail relocations. And so 

we have sent that to the Hill, as well. 

In terms of PTC, we actually have a report due to the Congress 

in the next few months—I believe in June—which we are aiming 

to get to the Congress on time, if not early, which would be an update to our latest thinking about PTC implementation. I know the 

commuter railroads, in particular, need assistance with PTC implementation. And we have both called for that in GROW AMERICA, 

and also in our budget, as well. 

I want to make sure I talk about everything you asked about. 

Bridge inspectors, we covered that a little bit earlier. You are correct, that we have six of eight positions filled at this point. The responsibility for the inspection and maintenance of bridges is a responsibility of the railroads. We audit and inspect with the railroads to ensure that they are holding up their end of bridge maintenance and inspection. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. This is once again my time, but I would gladly 

yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Denham and, Chairman, thank you. 

First of all, Ms. Feinberg, thank you very much for joining us 

last week in Davis, where we talked about the volatility of oil. I 

would recommend or ask that the DOE report—which was actually 

not a study, but, rather, a study of studies—be part of the record. 

I think it would be informative. I think it has been—that study has 

been misused here in some previous questions. 

Also, PHMSA, you released a report in August of 2014, in which 

you concluded that the Bakken crude light crude oil with high gas 

content, low flash point, low boiling point, and high vapor pressure, 

and, therefore, highly volatile. Is that correct? Did you do that? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Highly flammable—— 

39 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, you did. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Yes, it was highly flammable, yes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, highly flammable. 

Mr. Chairman, a moment ago—well, actually, a few moments ago 

you spoke very clearly and strongly about the frustration that you 

have about the process taking so many, many years. And, indeed, 

it has, usually because of our intervention, because of industry 

intervention, and also because of the law itself. 

We know, categorically, that Bakken crude is highly volatile and 

very explosive. Is that correct, from all three of you? Is it? 

Mr. BUTTERS. It is a highly flammable liquid, and there are variations, but it does have high volatility, as well. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Is it explosive, Mr. Hart? 

Mr. HART. It is flammable. Explosive and flammable are variations on the same thing, yes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Very good. So, Mr. Chairman, let’s end our frustration. We are going to be writing legislation here very, very 

shortly to extend the surface transportation bill. Why don’t we 

write in to that legislation the regulations that are forever stuck 

in OMB that have been written by the two organizations here that 

speak to tank car safety standards, that speak to volatility, speak 

to tracks maintenance, information to the first responders? 

All of those things are in the proposed regulations that are stuck 

in OMB. And, given the nature of regulations, the chances of those 

regulations, if they ever get out of OMB, being held up by some 

court challenge is very, very high. We could write laws that protect 

the public. We have the basic information. It is available from the 

regulations that have now been sent on to OMB. Why don’t we do 

that? Why don’t we take this as our responsibility, and not only the 

responsibility of the agencies, but rather, our responsibilities? 

Set a standard. Texas has set a standard for volatility. Canada 

has set a standard for volatility. The United States sits here and 

goes back and forth and, ultimately, puts millions of our citizens 

at risk. I know they are in your district, Mr. Denham, as they travel down through the Central Valley. They are in my district, in 

Marysville, West Sacramento, Sacramento, Davis, Dixon, Suisun 

City, and beyond. 

Why don’t we just do it? Why don’t we take the Texas standard, 

put it in place? Apparently, Texans are able to get along with it. 

Why don’t we take the Canada standard, cut the difference between the two in half, and let it go? It is clearly better than where 

we are today. 

OK. So, I would ask that the two statements, the PHMSA statement of—report of August 2014, and the DOE study be put in 

place. And maybe we ought to subpoena the proposed standards 

that have come out of Ms. Feinberg and Mr. Butters’s office. 

Enough. I yield back my remaining time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Oh, and by the way, before I quit, there has been a bill introduced, 1697, which I introduced. Love to have you as a co-author, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. 

Ms. Hahn? 

40 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Chairman Denham. I think I am dead 

last. Thank you, though, for holding this hearing. I really appreciate it, and I know that you know that I have been very concerned 

about this, and I have spoken with you on a number of occasions 

about pipeline spills in my district. And this ongoing rulemaking 

is something I have been following very closely, particularly since 

I had a pipeline spill in a community that I represent in Los Angeles, the community of Wilmington. 

And I think part of what concerns me is that our pipeline safety 

is completely dependent on simply taking the word of the operators. And this was precisely the problem in Wilmington, where 

Phillips 66 reported to the State of California and PHMSA that the 

pipeline that they operated was empty. They even tried to tell me 

it was idle, which was, apparently, not even a category, when, in 

reality, it held over 1,000 gallons of oil. And when this pipeline 

ruptured, it spilled, you know, a lot of barrels of oil into a residential community. 

And so, if operators can’t meet their end of the bargain to know 

and report what is in their pipeline to ensure the public’s safety, 

I believe our Federal agencies need to do more, and I really urge 

you to continue to act in the name of public safety, first and foremost. 

And, Mr. Butters, I will just echo what everyone said here. It is 

unbelievable that this relatively simple rule, which has universal 

support, is still pending. And I know you have spoken that a lot, 

but you know, I think, in my community, no one knew the danger 

of this particular pipeline. 

So, let me just move from the recordkeeping, which is part of this 

rule, which is still pending, and how your agency will define high 

consequence areas. There are hundreds of pipelines in southern 

California, many of which are inactive, many of them are active. 

There are lots of pipelines in my district. And I am concerned 

about another accident. 

I was particularly frustrated with this spill in Wilmington, which 

resulted in only a $75,000 fine against Phillips 66. You know, this 

really—we—it clearly was not on the same level as San Bruno, but 

my residents were highly inconvenienced. Roads were damaged, 

yards were damaged, jackhammers which went to try to discover 

and stop this leak completely disrupted the streets for a week, people couldn’t even get to—out of their houses or back into their 

houses. 

So, can you give me some assurance, and my constituents, that 

there will be appropriate penalties for spills in high consequence 

areas? 

Mr. BUTTERS. Thank you, ma’am. As part of the rulemaking 

process, that is exactly what this will do. It will be a notice of proposed rule, which will outline what we believe should be the appropriate penalties and actions. We are going to seek input on that 

from the public, from other stakeholders, as well. 

We want to ensure that we have the necessary incentives, if you 

will, to do things safely. As you pointed out, the situation in Wilmington, the operators are required to know their own systems. 

And in this case, you know, there is no such thing as an idle pipeline. It is either abandoned—— 

41 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Mr. BUTTERS [continuing]. Or it is an active line. 

Ms. HAHN. Right. And when it is abandoned, there is a specific 

process that takes place. It is cleaned out, it is sealed. And, if it 

is active, there are inspection procedures in place. 

Mr. BUTTERS. That is—— 

Ms. HAHN. So, for them to claim that it was idle meant that they 

did neither. They neither cleaned it out and cemented it on both 

ends, nor did they have this regular, you know, zipping through the 

pipeline on regular inspections. This put my community at risk. 

Mr. BUTTERS. And we certainly appreciate and are—you know, 

understand that. 

One of the things I wanted to say about the civil penalties, obviously, you know, we do have limitations on what civil penalties we 

can enforce. But, at the same time, in order for a pipeline operator 

to either restart a line, we dictate a—usually, a very extensive corrective action order that, in order to comply with that order, costs 

quite a bit of investment of capital, and requires a lot of these operators to do that. And it can run into the millions and millions of 

dollars. So we want to ensure that before they bring a pipeline 

back into service, that they have addressed thoroughly all the safety considerations that need to be addressed. 

Ms. HAHN. Right. And I have even suggested—this was about a 

purchase 15 years earlier of this pipeline. I have even suggested 

that we have a third party verify when they try to tell us it is inactive, idle. 

And the other thing, you know, we had a big misunderstanding 

with the California Fire Marshal on this issue, in terms of how 

they interpreted our Federal law and the classifications of pipelines. So can you tell me what PHMSA has done in the last couple 

years to improve how our States are interpreting the Federal law, 

and maybe what actions are being taken to improve this relation? 

That was—half my battle was with the California Fire Marshal, 

and how they saw this Federal law applying to active, inactive, 

idle. 

Mr. BUTTERS. Sure. In California, the California Fire Marshal 

has regulatory oversight over liquid lines. The utility commission 

has over gas lines. 

Part of our training program with our State partners is to ensure 

that these agencies understand the regulations. And there are 

times where the understanding, interpretation, isn’t what it needs 

to be. When we identify that, we act on it. And it is a continuing 

activity with us, with our States. 

You know, as you know, we provide funding to the States to support their inspection program. Part of that program includes ensuring that they understand regulations and how they should be applied. But, obviously, there are going to be situations where there 

are some inconsistencies. And when we find out about those, and 

we are made aware of those, we act very quickly to address them. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. HAHN. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Hahn. 

Ms. HAHN. I yield back. 

42 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for having this. And I thank the panel for being indulgent with your time, and my colleagues, as well. 

I hope you take away the importance of this issue. I have never 

seen more Members attend a hearing and stay as long as they have 

to ask questions. 

Ms. HAHN. Yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. This is an issue that is important, personally, to 

a lot of Members, which is why I let my other colleagues go, because, fortunately, I have had no personal experience with these 

items. Many of my colleagues have, if you heard them. And I think, 

if nothing else speaks volumes, it should be the fact that they are 

still here, and every single Democratic Member wanted to speak— 

I think only two Members had to leave because they had previous 

commitments—and they wanted to speak, as well. 

I think you have heard a lot of the frustration. For me, these 

issues, a lot of these issues are—to be perfectly honest, as I learn 

more and more about them, I am amazed at how many issues we 

have on the table, and how many open issues we have. There’s too 

many of them. And they are not new. 

You know, just a quick list. We have got the 111 cars, we have 

got Positive Train Control, first responder notice, in-cab video just 

on the rail side. On the pipeline side we have got the automatic 

shutoff valves, the remote shutoff valves, pipeline integrity, pressure management, the Grandfather Clause, and HCAs, which is an 

interesting term in itself. Basically, you should just say cities, but 

that is a different issue, all together. 

And, on top of that, we have got the NTSB that has been calling 

for various regulations forever. Forever. We have had Congress, on 

several occasions, had to put in statute how long it should take to 

do these things. And that has been blown by. 

Now, I don’t want to, you know, besmirch either Ms. Feinberg or 

you, Mr. Butters. You are both new to your terms, but you are not 

new to the issue. 

Mr. Hart, I guess the question I have to ask you is not specifically on the specific items. You know, we have to reauthorize 

PHMSA reasonably soon. Should we? Or should we come up with 

something new? Is it working? Is it not working? 

And, again, I don’t mean—I am not trying to besmirch the agency, but there is something wrong. There is something wrong. And 

I am not sure, as one Member, whether it is both agencies have 

become captive to the industry. You won’t be the first regulatory 

agency to become a captive of those you are supposed to regulate. 

I am not trying to kill the railroads. Railroads are important to 

this country. We need to be able to transport goods. But we need 

to be able to do it in a safe manner. And, to be perfectly honest, 

taking 4 years for a regulation, there is no excuse, period. None. 

On an issue like this it is not that complicated. Either you do it 

or you don’t. Canada did it in about a blink. 

We now have—I have never seen this. We have a major rail company that is ahead of the regulators. They are about to stop the 

use of 111s and lower their speeds without being told to do so. That 

is amazing to me. I have served the entire time here on the FinanVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Nov 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\4-14-1~1\94181.TXT JEAN
43 

cial Services Committee. No bank has ever done that. And yet here 

we are. 

And, by the way, when that happens, what is going to happen 

to the more dangerous cars? They are going to be shifted. They are 

going to be shifted out of Canada, and they are going to be shifted 

off of that one rail company’s rail lines into my area. How is that 

right? 

Mr. Hart, should we reauthorize PHMSA? And, if we should, 

what should we do to make sure that this works? 

Mr. HART. I will take the liberty of taking the reauthorization 

question as a rhetorical question. But I would like to say that—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. It may not be. 

Mr. HART [continuing]. We have experience in other industries 

where we certainly need the regulators. We need the regulators at 

the appropriate levels. A model that has worked best in many industries to improve safety is collaboration among everybody in pursuit of a common goal, which is improving safety. That is what we 

find works best—not just push by the regulator—everybody collaborating to work together toward a common goal. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So where is the problem here? Is it at PHMSA or 

is it the individual agencies? Is it OMB? I mean is it the Secretary? 

I mean these rules are kind of around. First of all, we don’t have 

half the rules that I think we should have. And the ones we do 

have seem to be lost somewhere on the Secretary’s desk or somehow lost in OMB. And, by the way, we don’t even know what is 

in the rules that are lost. What kind of a process is this? And how 

do I make it better? Whose butt do we have to kick? Whose budget 

do we have to cut? Whose budget do we have to enhance to make 

this work? 

Mr. HART. The best I can say on that, again, is that the experience—and I am speaking specifically of the aviation industry. They 

have such a powerful collaboration that has improved their safety 

over the years without many new regulations, without—I mean the 

Federal regulator plays a role in that process, to be sure. But the 

real advances have come because of the—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. The aviation industry has other problems. They 

can’t seem to be getting all the things that we all want actually in 

place. But that is, at least, a different issue. 

Now, Ms. Feinberg and Mr. Butters, I really don’t have questions—my time is up anyway—because I have so many questions 

it is not worth the 5 minutes to do it. Plus, we have met privately, 

we will be meeting again. 

The more I learn, the more I realize we have got to make this 

work. And if you need help, you need to ask. You need to tell us 

what you need. Otherwise, it will become something a lot more controversial, because it will become something more face-to-face. And 

that is not helpful, that is not what I want to do. It is not what 

you want to do. Tell us how to help you, as we go forward, and we 

will try to do it. And if we can’t, we will tell you that. At least let 

us know what the problems are. But to sit here and tell us that, 

you know, ‘‘We are working on it 18 months, 4 years,’’ you know 

that is unacceptable. You would never accept that if you were on 

this side of the table. And please don’t expect us to. 

44 

I look forward to the next hearing. And, again, I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I thank my Members for showing up. And 

I thank the panel for helping us out on this. 

Mr. DENHAM. I, as well, would like to thank the panel. As you 

saw, we went over time today. Certainly appreciate your indulgence. As you can see, this is an issue or issues that have the entire committee concerned, interested, focused on. Affects their district, affects the entire country. 

And so, we will be following up with questions in writing, and 

we will be holding another safety hearing later this year. I mean, 

obviously, we are looking to see the rules moving forward, but we 

are also going to be holding you accountable to those rules, as well 

as implementation of them. 

I would ask unanimous consent that today’s record—hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to each of those questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 

days for any additional comments and information submitted by 

Members, other questions that might be submitted by Members 

that had to leave early included in today’s record of the hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony 

today. 

If no other Members have anything to add, this committee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


Insert offset folio 8 here 94181.008
46 


Insert offset folio 9 here 94181.009
47 


Insert offset folio 10 here 94181.010
48 


Insert offset folio 11 here 94181.011
49 


Insert offset folio 12 here 94181.012
50 


Insert offset folio 13 here 94181.013
51 


Insert offset folio 14 here 94181.014
52 


Insert offset folio 15 here 94181.015
53 


Insert offset folio 16 here 94181.016
54 


Insert offset folio 17 here 94181.017
55 


Insert offset folio 18 here 94181.018
56 


Insert offset folio 19 here 94181.019
57 


Insert offset folio 20 here 94181.020
58 


Insert offset folio 21 here 94181.021
59 


Insert offset folio 22 here 94181.022
60 


Insert offset folio 23 here 94181.023
61 


Insert offset folio 24 here 94181.024
62 


Insert offset folio 25 here 94181.025
63 


Insert offset folio 26 here 94181.026
64 


Insert offset folio 27 here 94181.027
65 


Insert offset folio 32 here 94181.032
66 


Insert offset folio 33 here 94181.033
67 


Insert offset folio 34 here 94181.034
68 


Insert offset folio 35 here 94181.035
69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 94181.036
70 


Insert offset folio 37 here 94181.037
71 


Insert offset folio 38 here 94181.038
72 


Insert offset folio 39 here 94181.039
73 


Insert offset folio 40 here 94181.040
74 


Insert offset folio 41 here 94181.041
75 


Insert offset folio 42 here 94181.042
76 


Insert offset folio 43 here 94181.043
77 


Insert offset folio 44 here 94181.044
78 


Insert offset folio 45 here 94181.045
79 


Insert offset folio 46 here 94181.046
80 


Insert offset folio 47 here 94181.047
81 


Insert offset folio 48 here 94181.048
82 


Insert offset folio 49 here 94181.049
83 


Insert offset folio 50 here 94181.050
84 


Insert offset folio 51 here 94181.051
85 


Insert offset folio 52 here 94181.052
86 


Insert offset folio 53 here 94181.053
87 


Insert offset folio 54 here 94181.054
88 


Insert offset folio 55 here 94181.055
89 


Insert offset folio 56 here 94181.056
90 


Insert offset folio 57 here 94181.057
91 


Insert offset folio 58 here 94181.058
92 


Insert offset folio 59 here 94181.059
93 


Insert offset folio 60 here 94181.060
94 


Insert offset folio 61 here 94181.061
95 


Insert offset folio 62 here 94181.062
96 


Insert offset folio 63 here 94181.063
97 


Insert offset folio 64 here 94181.064
98 


Insert offset folio 65 here 94181.065
99 


Insert offset folio 66 here 94181.066
100 


Insert offset folio 67 here 94181.067
101 


Insert offset folio 68 here 94181.068
102 


Insert offset folio 69 here 94181.069
103 


Insert offset folio 70 here 94181.070
104 


Insert offset folio 71 here 94181.071
105 


Insert offset folio 72 here 94181.072
106 


Insert offset folio 73 here 94181.073
107 


Insert offset folio 74 here 94181.074
108 


Insert offset folio 75 here 94181.075
109 


Insert offset folio 76 here 94181.076
110 


Insert offset folio 77 here 94181.077
111 


Insert offset folio 78 here 94181.078
112 


Insert offset folio 79 here 94181.079
113 


Insert offset folio 80 here 94181.080
114 


Insert offset folio 81 here 94181.081
115 


Insert offset folio 82 here 94181.082
116 


Insert offset folio 83 here 94181.083
117 


Insert offset folio 84 here 94181.084
118 


Insert offset folio 85 here 94181.085
119 


Insert offset folio 86 here 94181.086
120 


Insert offset folio 87 here 94181.087
121 


Insert offset folio 88 here 94181.088
122 


Insert offset folio 89 here 94181.089
123 


Insert offset folio 90 here 94181.090
124 


Insert offset folio 91 here 94181.091
125 


Insert offset folio 92 here 94181.092
126 


Insert offset folio 93 here 94181.093
127 


Insert offset folio 94 here 94181.094
128 


Insert offset folio 95 here 94181.095
129 


Insert offset folio 96 here 94181.096
130 


Insert offset folio 97 here 94181.097
131 


Insert offset folio 98 here 94181.098
132 


Insert offset folio 99 here 94181.099
133 


Insert offset folio 100 here 94181.100
134 


Insert offset folio 101 here 94181.101
135 


Insert offset folio 102 here 94181.102
136 


Insert offset folio 103 here 94181.103
137 


Insert offset folio 104 here 94181.104
138 


Insert offset folio 105 here 94181.105
139 


Insert offset folio 106 here 94181.106
140 


Insert offset folio 107 here 94181.107
141 


Insert offset folio 108 here 94181.108
142 


Insert offset folio 109 here 94181.109
143 


Insert offset folio 110 here 94181.110
144 


Insert offset folio 111 here 94181.111
145 


Insert offset folio 112 here 94181.112
146 


Insert offset folio 113 here 94181.113
147 


Insert offset folio 114 here 94181.114
148 


Insert offset folio 115 here 94181.115
149 


Insert offset folio 116 here 94181.116
150 


Insert offset folio 117 here 94181.117
151 


Insert offset folio 118 here 94181.118
152 


Insert offset folio 119 here 94181.119
153 


Insert offset folio 120 here 94181.120
154 


Insert offset folio 121 here 94181.121
155 


Insert offset folio 122 here 94181.122
156 


Insert offset folio 123 here 94181.123
157 


Insert offset folio 124 here 94181.124
158 


Insert offset folio 125 here 94181.125
159 


Insert offset folio 126 here 94181.126
160 


Insert offset folio 127 here 94181.127
161 


Insert offset folio 128 here 94181.128
162 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 129 here 94181.129