OVERSIGHT OF PASSENGER AND FREIGHT RAIL 

SAFETY 

(113–54) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

OVERSIGHT OF PASSENGER AND FREIGHT RAIL SAFETY 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–845 PDF 2014

OVERSIGHT OF PASSENGER AND FREIGHT RAIL 

SAFETY 

(113–54) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

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 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JANICE HAHN, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ......... 2 

Hon. Kevin Cramer, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Dakota ................................................................................................................... 2 

PANEL 2 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ........... 6 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ................................................................................. 6 

Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt, Board Member, National Transportation Safety 

Board ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Michael P. Melaniphy, president and chief executive officer, American Public 

Transportation Association ................................................................................. 6 

Jack N. Gerard, president and chief executive officer, American Petroleum 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 6 

John Tolman, vice president and national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen .................................................... 6 

Edward R. Hamberger, president and chief executive officer, Association of 

American Railroads .............................................................................................. 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida .............................................................................. 43 

Hon. Rick Larsen, of Washington ........................................................................... 45 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal 1

Hon. Kevin Cramer 2

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 61 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ................................................................ 79 

Hon. Michael H. Michaud, of Maine ........................................................ 82 

Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney, of New York ............................................... 84 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, of Illinois ............................................................... 85 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 106 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ................................................................ 109 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, of Illinois ............................................................... 114 

Hon. Michael H. Michaud, of Maine ........................................................ 115 

1 Hon. Richard Blumenthal, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut, did not submit 

a written statement for the record. 2 Hon. Kevin Cramer, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota, did 

not submit a written statement for the record. 

Page

IV 

Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 130 

Democrative Representatives of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ...................................................................... 133 

Michael P. Melaniphy: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 151 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 164 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ................................................................ 169 

Jack N. Gerard: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 172 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 175 

Democrative Representatives of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ...................................................................... 179 

John Tolman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 181 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ................................................................ 186 

Hon. Michael H. Michaud, of Maine ........................................................ 189 

Edward R. Hamberger: 

Prepared statement, including an appendix with comment on the Federal 

Communications Commission’s draft program comment to govern review of positive train control facilities under section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................. 190 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 251 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ................................................................ 256 

Hon. Michael H. Michaud, of Maine ........................................................ 260 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Larry McCallon, chair, Metrolink board of directors, and Michael P. DePallo, 

chief executive officer, Metrolink; joint letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California; March 11, 2014 ........... 262 

Mollie Matteson, senior scientist, Northeast Office, Center for Biological Diversity, letter to Hon. Mark R. Warner, a U.S. Senator from the State 

of Virginia; Hon. Roy Blunt, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri; 

Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California; and Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida; January 9, 2014 ....................................................................... 265 

David O. Willauer, manager, transporation security and geospatial imaging, 

IEM, written testimony ....................................................................................... 270 

Bruce Bennett, president, Stage 8 Locking Fasteners, request to submit the 

following into the record: 

Written statement of Stage 8 Locking Fasteners .......................................... 276 

Xiang Liu, M. Rapik Saat & Christopher P.L. Barkan, ‘‘Analysis of 

Causes of Major Train Derailment and Their Effect on Accident Rates,’’ 

2289 Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation 

Research Board, at 154 (2012) ..................................................................... 282 

Stage 8 Locking Fasteners, roller bearing cap screw cost-benefit analysis . 292 

Petition from Stage 8 Locking Fasteners filed with the Federal Railroad 

Administration requesting the issuance of a standard for the adoption 

of the cap screw locking system as the standard system for clamping 

and retaining bearings on railroad freight cars ......................................... 295 

National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Safety Study: Transport of Hazardous 

Materials by Rail,’’ notation 5488, adopted May 16, 1991 3

3 National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Safety Study: Transport of Hazardous Materials 

by Rail,’’ notation 5488, adopted May 16, 1991, can be found online at the Government Printing 

Office’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113HPRT88477/ 

pdf/CPRT-113HPRT88477.pdf. 

Page

V 

Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation 

(DOT), letter to Edward R. Hamberger, president and chief executive officer, Association of American Railroads (AAR), commitments that DOT propose that AAR make to address safety concerns regarding transportation 

of crude oil by rail, February 20, 2014; and AAR’s acknowledgment and 

agreement to the commitments, February 21, 2014 ......................................... 324 

Letters from Representatives in Congress to Federal agencies regarding rail 

safety and the transportation of hazardous material by rail: 

Hon. Sean Patrick Maloney, of New York, letter to Deborah A.P. 

Hersman, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, requesting 

investigation of the December 1, 2013, Metro-North train derailment, 

December 2, 2013 .......................................................................................... 328 

Hon. Michael H. Michaud, of Maine; Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, of Oregon; 

Hon. Betty McCollum, of Minnesota; Hon. Collin C. Peterson, of Minnesota; Hon. Timothy J. Walz, of Minnesota; Hon. Chellie Pingree, 

of Maine; and Hon. Ron Kind, of Wisconsin, letter to Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Cynthia 

L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), requesting that PHMSA expedite its ongoing rulemaking to improve the rail transport of hazardous material 

and requesting that PHMSA and FRA review the adequacy of existing 

railway tank cars and safety regulations, January 31, 2014 .................... 329 

Letters from/to Representatives in Congress regarding rail safety and the 

transportation of hazardous material by rail: 

Hon. Michael H. Michaud, of Maine, letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, of 

California, and Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida, requesting hearing 

on railway safety, August 13, 2013 ............................................................. 331 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut, letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, 

of California, and Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida, requesting hearing 

to investigate deficiencies in the Nation’s existing infrastructure and 

safety practices that threaten the reliability of rail service, September 

26, 2013 .......................................................................................................... 333 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut; Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, of 

New York; Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New York; and Hon. Sean Patrick 

Maloney, of New York, letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania; 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia; Hon. Jeff Denham, of California; and Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida, requesting a hearing on 

rail safety, December 6, 2013 ....................................................................... 335 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, of Oregon, letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania; Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia; Hon. Jeff Denham, 

of California; and Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida, requesting a hearing 

to examine the safety of the Nation’s rail cars, specifically DOT–111 

tank cars, January 7, 2014 .......................................................................... 337 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida; Hon. Daniel Lipinski, of Illinois; Hon. 

Elijah E. Cummings, of Maryland; Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, of California; Hon. Albio Sires, of New Jersey; Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New 

York; Hon. Michael H. Michaud, of Maine; Hon. Timothy J. Walz, 

of Minnesota; Hon. Janice Hahn, of California; Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, 

of Arizona; Hon. Michael E. Capuano, of Massachusetts; Hon. Elizabeth 

H. Esty, of Connecticut; and Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, of Oregon, letter 

to Hon. Jeff Denham, of California, requesting a hearing on rail safety, 

January 15, 2014 .......................................................................................... 339 

Hon. Rick Larsen, of Washington, letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia, requesting an 

oversight hearing on the transport of crude oil by rail, January 23, 

2014 ................................................................................................................ 343 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86845.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86845.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86845.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86845.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86845.005
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF PASSENGER AND FREIGHT 

RAIL SAFETY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES AND

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in Room 

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

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. First, I 

would ask unanimous consent that Representative Rick Larsen be 

admitted to join the subcommittee for today’s hearing, and ask any 

questions he feels are relevant. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

Now, let me welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank 

them for testifying here today. It is one of this subcommittee’s 

charges to ensure the safe movement of goods and people on our 

Nation’s railroad network, including the movement of hazardous 

materials. 

The Federal Rail Administration, the FRA, is a data-driven organization that focuses on the safety of the railroad industry, including operations, track, and equipment. The Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration is responsible for the safety and 

transportation of hazardous materials, regardless of mode. And 

both work together to ensure hazardous materials are transported 

safely by rail. 

I think everyone here today agrees that safety is and should be 

a priority for each and every railroad. That focus on safety has 

worked quite well with 2012 as the safest year on record, and 2013 

looking to match or exceed that record. 

However, there have been some very high-profile incidents, some 

major tragedies. And we need to understand what happened to ensure we can take the necessary steps to prevent future accidents. 

As we have seen in the past, though, the answer isn’t always to 

rush to judgment, but to work together to find solutions that are 

data-driven and make sense. 

For example, after the commuter rail accident in New York, I 

visited the site of—with MTA. They explained how they were able 

to work with FRA to agree on safety measures to slow trains at 

certain points on the tracks, and ensure alertness of those operating the trains. 

2 

Similarly, I am pleased to hear that the industry and Government have been working as partners to find agreement on measures that enhance safety and can be reasonably implemented for 

the operation of crude trains. 

I thank everyone here for coming to discuss their efforts on rail 

safety, and look forward to discussing these important issues with 

the witnesses. 

I would now like to—well, I will recognize the ranking member 

when she comes in. 

Let me just explain the ground rules of today’s hearing. We have, 

obviously, a full set of VIPs in the front row here. We want to hear 

from everybody. We would ask you to keep your statements brief, 

because we want to spend as much time on questions as possible. 

And, obviously, due to our vote schedule, we are a little far behind. 

So I will be taking the aggressive gavel as the lighting system goes 

on. 

I mean it is very simple. Green, you can still go. The yellow is 

a yield; start wrapping things up. And red is a firm stop. So we 

would ask you to adhere to those. 

And, without further ado, we have got two panels today. Our 

first panel is Representative Kevin Cramer and Senator Richard 

Blumenthal. 

After receiving testimony from our first panel, we will proceed to 

our second panel of testimony. I ask unanimous consent that our 

witnesses’ full statements be ordered into the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

the subcommittee would ask your oral testimony to be 5 minutes. 

Senator Blumenthal, welcome to the committee. We look forward 

to working with you on rail and rail safety issues. Welcome, and 

you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT; AND HON. KEVIN 

CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very, very much, Chairman 

Denham. And let me just say personally how grateful I am to you 

for personally giving me this opportunity to be with you today. And 

for me it is not only an honor to be here, but an auspicious day, 

because the chairman of our Commerce Committee in the United 

States Senate has announced that I will be taking over the Surface 

Transportation Subcommittee. 

My appearance here today is my first official act in that capacity, 

and I couldn’t think of a more important way to mark that appointment than to indicate to you, Mr. Chairman, that I really look forward to working and cooperating with you. I know of your commitment to our Nation’s roads, rails, all of our surface transportation 

modes. And this committee is one that I think will be a critical 

partner in that effort. And so I want to thank you and all the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to be with you 

today. 

3 

You mentioned very pointedly some of the recent tragedies that 

we have seen. Clearly, the 47 deaths in Lac-Me ́gantic, the 4 deaths 

in the Bronx, dozens injured in Bridgeport, other mishaps and mistakes on the rails around the country, indicate the need for action. 

And some of that action has to be investment in the kinds of 

mechanisms and tools that might have prevented some of those accidents and even deaths. In the Bronx we know that measures like 

automatic train control or alerters in the front and back of the 

train might well have prevented needless tragedy. We know in 

Bridgeport that more attention to the tracks and the ballast underlying those tracks, which was weakened and thereby contributed to 

the joints failing, might well have prevented those injuries and loss 

of property. 

All around the country, as well as in our region in the Northeast, 

where we have the busiest railroad in the country, there is evidence that our infrastructure is aging and decaying. And so, investment is necessary. We must think big and act big with a sense of 

urgency. Daily commuters, intercity passengers, rail personnel, 

folks living near or in communities along the tracks are demanding 

action, as are the businesses whose expansion depends on the reliable movement of freight. We have to make sure that our rails are 

safe and reliable, not only in the Northeast, but all around the 

country. 

And I am mindful that members of this committee represent geographic regions that depend on the rails. We know of it in Connecticut. My colleague, Congresswoman Esty, is here today, and 

has done, really, yeoman’s work in leading the effort in our State. 

And I want to express my appreciation to her for what she has 

done in that regard. But the President’s announcement today of a $302 billion infrastructure program, the possibility of additional investment, all are 

welcome. But more than money is necessary, there must be leadership and accountability. And it is necessary not only of the companies that run the railroads, but also of Government agencies that 

have responsibility for overseeing and scrutinizing them. That is 

why this hearing is so important, because you will be hearing from 

the Government officials, people whose lives are dedicated to public 

service and improving rail transportation, and have the opportunity to ask them the tough questions, which I hope you will, 

about rules that are necessary to impose greater safety and reliability on the rails. 

Ultimately, we are responsible for that effort. We, in public service, have to protect the public. And I know that you are dedicated 

to accomplishing those ends. We will be having our own hearing 

next week, and we will learn from what you elicit from these witnesses. And so I think this hearing is tremendously important. My 

hope is that it will lead to greater investment and appreciation of 

the importance of new bridges that carry our rail transportation, 

new track, new equipment, new cars, and signal control. 

Other measures, some of them highly capital intensive, but others much less expensive that can make the rails more safe and reliable. We not only have an obligation, but a tremendous opportunity 

because there is the potential for creating jobs, advancing economic 

growth through the jobs that are created, and making sure that 

4 

products—that is freight, as well as people—are delivered on time, 

safely, and reliably. That is the challenge ahead. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to addressing that challenge, 

working with the President. America needs a 21st-century infrastructure plan. The systems and structure that we have in place 

right now are inadequate to this century. We won’t revise and 

renew and rebuild them overnight. But taking serious steps, which 

I know you are committed to do, is critically important to the future of our Nation. And I am proud and honored to join you in that 

effort. And again, my thanks for having me today. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Senator. Thanks for joining us. 

Mr. Cramer? 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member 

Brown, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity you have afforded me to participate in today’s important 

hearing on rail safety. 

As a leading producer of many of our Nation’s staple commodities 

and the beneficiaries of Amtrak’s Empire Builder, the citizens of 

North Dakota have a particular interest in rail safety. While we 

have enjoyed a successful relationship for decades, really, partnerships between our carriers, our shippers, and our communities, the 

recent oil boom, as we all know, is providing some particular challenges, challenges I don’t think we could have imagined, you know, 

5 short years ago. 

The recent derailment of an agricultural products train that led 

to derailment of a train full of Bakken crude oil that led to explosions near the city of Casselton, North Dakota, was a stark reminder of our new reality. 

Later this year, North Dakota is expected to exceed 1 million 

barrels of oil production per day, compared to fewer than 200,000 

per day just 5 years ago. 

Prior to being elected to Congress, I spent about 10 years serving 

as an energy regulator on the North Dakota Public Service Commission, where we had jurisdiction over pipelines and, to some degree, railroads and associated facilities that moved that Bakken 

crude to market. And like most utility regulatory bodies, the North 

Dakota PSC has its roots as a railroad regulatory agency. And having a front-row seat at one of the world’s hottest energy booms has 

been like watching the Gold Rush on a big screen TV. And it is 

technological advancements that have unlocked the oil from the 

rock, and that, combined with the high demand and high prices, 

has the Bakken rockin’, as we like to say, but it has our transportation infrastructure lagging. 

The lack of pipeline capacity and the regulatory lag that accompanies large-scale development leaves trucks and trains as the primary means of transporting Bakken crude to market. Well over 70 

percent of the Bakken crude is transported by rail with projections 

that it will be 90 percent in the near future. So the safe and efficient shipment of petroleum products is a legacy issue for North 

Dakota and for the United States. 

And as our rail pipeline and highway transportation infrastructure work to catch up to oil and gas production, it is important to 

remember no one in the supply chain benefits from accidents. A 

train derailment costs everybody. Property is damaged or lost, comVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Aug 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\2-26-1~1\86845.TXT JEAN
5 

merce is slowed, and public safety is compromised and confidence 

shaken. It ensures that stakeholders’ interests are public, rather 

than parochial. 

As our economy advances, some advocate slowing the growth. I 

believe it is vital that Government keep pace with the economy, not 

control it by either regulatory delays or overreach. The agreement 

reached last week between the Department of Transportation and 

the American Association of Railroads is a good example of how 

Government and industry can partner in safety. I have encouraged 

Secretary Foxx, and want to reiterate my strong support for the 

sharing of data gathered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration during Operation Classification with industry experts. We are all in this together, and trust among partners 

is critical if we are to be successful. 

I hope the DOT can build upon this example, as industry and 

Government move forward with the next generation tank cars and 

other safety regulations. Two years and counting is too long for industry and communities to wait while the Federal bureaucracy sets 

rules for modifying and/or replacing the DOT–111 tankers. Five 

years and counting for the President to approve the Keystone XL 

pipeline is embarrassingly long, and every day that line is not built 

exacerbates the problem. 

Mr. Chairman, time is of the essence. The trains run best when 

everyone pulls in the same direction. I sense goodwill on the part 

of all stakeholders, and I and my staff are willing to assist as we 

improve our energy transportation infrastructure. 

I thank you for the time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Representative Cramer, Senator Blumenthal, we 

thank both of you for joining us here today. I know that both of 

you have great interest and passion about solving some of the challenges that we have ahead of us, and working together on rail 

issues. So thank you for joining us today. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. At this time I would like to invite our second panel 

up. And as you are coming up, I would also—we are doing this in 

the sake of trying to speed things along. 

Have your seats. And at this time I would like to welcome Ranking Member Brown for any opening statement she may have. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to thank you for holding 

this hearing. And I would rather have my comments at the end. 

We have such a distinguished panel, and I understand we are on 

a tight timeline. So I would like for us to just get started, because 

we have such a distinguished group of panelists. I want to hear 

what they have to say. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. You can see in a bipartisan fashion, everybody is moving along pretty quickly here today. So our first witnesses all came in under their time, Ms. Brown has yielded her 

time back, and I want to welcome each of you here today. 

Again, we want to get down to a lot of the questions that Members have here today, and certainly get some answers on how we 

can always continue to have a safer railroad. 

On our second panel here, I would like to welcome our witnesses: 

the Honorable Joseph Szabo, Administrator of the Federal Rail Administration; the Honorable Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator 

6 

for the Pipeline and the Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; the Honorable Robert Sumwalt, Board Member of the National Transportation Safety Board; Mr. Michael Melaniphy, president and CEO of the American Public Transportation Association; 

Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute; John Tolman, vice president and national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. And last, Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads. 

I would like to, again, welcome each of you here today. I ask 

unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included 

in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. Since your written 

testimony has been made part of the record, the subcommittee 

would request that your oral testimony be up to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Szabo, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; HON. CYNTHIA L. 

QUARTERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; HON. ROBERT L. SUMWALT, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; MICHAEL P. MELANIPHY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; JACK N. GERARD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; JOHN TOLMAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, BROTHERHOOD 

OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN; AND EDWARD 

R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS 

Mr. SZABO. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Over the past decade, train accidents and derailments have declined 47 percent. Highway rail grade crossing accidents are down 

35 percent. And employee fatalities have been reduced by 59 percent. Meanwhile, intermodal traffic surged towards a new record, 

Amtrak ridership reached all-time highs, while rail became the 

fastest-growing mode of public transportation. 

New records in safety have been achieved 4 of the past 5 years, 

and preliminary data indicates a new all-time best for fiscal year 

2013, better than fiscal year 2012, our safest year on record. But 

we owe it to the public to always do better. We expect it from ourselves at FRA, and we expect it from the industry we regulate. 

So, let me share with you my vision for driving the next generation of safety. And it consists of three pillars. First is continuing 

strong oversight and enforcement that is data-driven. Second is advancing more proactive safety-based programs that identify and 

eliminate risk well in advance of an accident. And third is ensuring 

predictable and reliable Federal funding for rail in order to improve 

infrastructure through capital investments, and to develop new 

safety technologies through robust research and development. 

7 

Our enforcement program is based upon strategic use of data. By 

using statistical modeling, we allocate our resources and execute 

our national inspection plan. It is a disciplined approach that has 

been the foundation of the dramatic drop in accidents over the past 

decade. But we also learn from every accident, and identify root 

causation in order to eliminate risk or identify need for additional 

regulation. In December we launched Operation Deep Dive, a comprehensive look at Metro-North’s entire operation, and we will 

share our report with Congress in March, after the information has 

been collected and analyzed. 

FRA is also part of a comprehensive strategy for ensuring the 

safe transportation of Bakken crude. In partnership with PHMSA, 

we are examining the entire system for crude delivery, from making sure crude is properly classified and packaged, to supporting 

PHMSA’s rulemaking, to taking steps to further eliminate risk 

through rail operations. And I would like to recognize the AAR for 

committing to a series of immediate voluntary steps that will significantly enhance safety. 

A railroad safety advisory committee is currently engaged in 

three tasks regarding the safe movement of hazardous materials, 

train securement, and appropriate crew size, and they have a firm 

April 1st deadline to complete their work. 

Last month we revised our track safety standards to require railroads to adopt a more performance-based approach of rail inspections to maintain higher levels of safety. And as we work with the 

industry to install positive train control, we continue to make 

strides addressing human factors by taking steps to ensure the 

competency of locomotive engineers and conductors. 

But the next level of safety will come from advancing proactive 

safety-based programs like system safety for passenger railroads 

and risk reduction for freight railroads, including programs like 

Confidential Close Calls Reporting. While our data-based enforcement program has produced tremendous results, that data comes 

from accidents that have already happened. Close Calls allows us 

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

New regulations will require railroads to do thorough risk analysis to identify hazards, and put in place customized plans, including a fatigue management plan to reduce risk. This push, over and 

above our traditional oversight and enforcement framework, will 

help us drive continuous safety improvement. But the sooner we 

put rail on par with other forms of transportation with a source of 

dedicated and predictable funding, the sooner we will be able to 

achieve the next generation of safety. 

Capital improvements and advancing next generation technology 

must be a part of the mix. And funding the National Cooperative 

Rail Research Program’s workforce development efforts will ensure 

a pool of talent with the necessary skills and technical capacity. 

The additional funding for safety personnel, rail policy and research and development that we requested in our fiscal year 2014 

budget, and that Congress recently appropriated, was a great first 

step. 

8 

So I thank you, I look forward to working with you to drive the 

next generation of rail safety, and would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Quarterman, you may proceed. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Brown, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

your leadership on advancing rail safety, and for the opportunity 

to appear here today to discuss PHMSA’s comprehensive approach 

to ensure the safe transportation of crude by rail. 

Safety is the top priority of Secretary Foxx, the Department of 

Transportation, PHMSA, and all its sister modes. We all work diligently to protect the American people and the environment from 

hazardous materials incidents. 

As you know, energy production in the United States has increased dramatically. The use of rail to move crude has increased 

exponentially in the past few years, especially crude from the 

Bakken region. In fact, crude oil production in that area has elevated North Dakota to the second-largest oil-producing State in the 

Nation. As recently as November of 2013, more than 600,000 barrels per day of oil produced in North Dakota was transported by 

rail, going from less than 11,000 carloads in 2009 to more than 

400,000 in 2013. This increase in crude shipments by rail and recent incidents underscore how important it is to be ever vigilant in 

protecting local communities and the environment. 

To deal with this challenge, the Department has taken a comprehensive approach to address the risks associated with transporting crude by rail. Together, PHMSA and FRA are focusing on 

both regulatory and nonregulatory methods to, in the first instance, 

prevent accidents from occurring by putting in place necessary 

operational controls and improving track integrity to lessen the 

likelihood of an incident. 

In the case an incident does occur, we are looking to mitigate the 

effects, and ensuring effective emergency response. PHMSA and 

FRA have been working together to issue guidance and 

rulemakings, participate in rail safety committees and public hearings, enhance inspection and enforcement, and coordinate with the 

industry and other agencies to improve public safety. 

As one example this past summer, PHMSA, FRA, and FMCSA 

teamed together to implement Operation Classification. This was 

an unprecedented initiative that—with DOT inspectors performing 

unannounced inspections and testing crude oil samples to verify 

the materials were properly characterized and classified for transportation. 

Last month, Secretary Foxx issued a Call to Action, asking crude 

oil and rail stakeholders to commit to taking immediate steps to 

improve the transportation of crude by rail. The Secretary identified some actions the Department was considering, and challenged 

those industries at the table to take preventive and mitigative actions themselves, immediately. 

To date, the Call to Action has been a success for safety. It is 

a first step along the way. We have received firm commitments 

from the rail and crude oil industries to take immediate actions to 

improve safety. Those actions include increased track inspections to 

9 

prevent derailments, and a litany of mitigative steps to reduce 

speed, use alternative routes, improve braking, improve crude oil 

testing and classification, and improve emergency responder preparedness and training. 

In addition to regulatory and nonregulatory efforts to improve 

rail safety, we have increased our efforts to improve the public 

awareness and understanding of hazardous materials regulatory 

requirements. Our efforts include enforcement and outreach activities focused on proper classification and characterization, safety 

and security planning, and ensuring emergency responders and the 

public area aware of hazardous materials transportation requirements. 

As I have stated earlier, PHMSA is committed to improving 

transportation safety. And I believe our comprehensive approach to 

addressing safety is working. I truly believe that our aggressive efforts, first efforts, will help to prevent and mitigate accidents, and 

move us closer to our goal of zero deaths and injuries. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to address rail safety 

issues, specifically those dealing with the transportation of flammable liquids. I would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Quarterman. 

Mr. Sumwalt. 

Mr. SUMWALT. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Brown, and members of the subcommittee. 

Rail safety has been in the spotlight for several months, especially since the July accident in Lac-Me ́gantic, Quebec. In that accident, a crude oil derailment resulted in the death of 47 people and 

the destruction of a town center. The Transportation Safety Board 

of Canada is leading that investigation, and the NTSB is assisting. 

As Congressman Cramer mentioned, on December the 30th, just 

one-half mile outside of Casselton, North Dakota, 20 cars of a 

BNSF crude oil train derailed, spilling about one-half million gallons of crude oil and igniting a fire that burned for more than 24 

hours. Fourteen hundred people were evacuated from their homes 

and businesses. 

In cooperation with the TSB of Canada, we issued recommendations last month related to the Lac-Me ́gantic accident, calling for 

proper classification of hazardous materials, a review of routes for 

these trains, and development of comprehensive response plans for 

worst case scenario accidents. We believe these recommendations 

are necessary, as hazardous material transportation by rail continues to grow exponentially. 

For example, crude oil and ethanol transport are both up over 

400 percent since 2005. Many times these products are transported 

in unit trains, meaning that the trains have, on average, about 100 

loaded tank cars of the same flammable product. That is over 3 

million gallons of hazardous material per train. Along these lines, 

we are encouraged by the voluntary measures announced last week 

by the AAR and the DOT. 

Let me turn now to discussing tank car safety. As it relates to 

crashworthiness, the NTSB has longstanding concerns about the 

current regulatory specifications for DOT–111 tank cars. Quite simVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Aug 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\2-26-1~1\86845.TXT JEAN
10 

ply, continued use of current regulatory specifications for these 

tank cars to ship flammable liquids poses an unacceptable public 

risk. Following a 2009 ethanol train accident in Illinois, we called 

on PHMSA to improve tank car design to prevent breaches, or to 

mitigate a breach, if one occurs. 

In response to these concerns, beginning in October 2011 DOT– 

111 tank cars have been built to a nonregulatory industry spec 

known as CPC–1232. This standard is meant to replace the socalled legacy DOT–111 cars, but the NTSB is not convinced that 

these modifications offer sufficient improvements. An improved 

Federal standard would provide the certainty needed on tank car 

design. Improvements like enhanced head shields, tank jackets, 

and increased tank shell thickness could all improve tank car 

crashworthiness. 

I would like to now switch to discussing passenger rail safety. As 

mentioned by Senator Blumenthal, the NTSB is investigating four 

accidents involving the Metro-North commuter railroad in New 

York and Connecticut. Last week we issued three recommendations 

to Metro-North that we feel are immediately needed to improve the 

safety of their operations. As our work continues on these four investigations, we are paying close attention to Metro-North’s safety 

culture, to the crashworthiness of passenger rail cars, to worker 

protection, and to track inspection and maintenance. 

Lastly, we believe that positive train control, or PTC, which the 

NTSB has called for since the 1970s, is an important component 

in improving both passenger rail and freight rail safety. As you 

know, Congress has imposed a deadline for December 2015 for implementing PTC. Last year, the NTSB shone the spotlight on this 

issue at a forum on PTC. Many railroads indicated then that they 

would not meet the deadline. 

We at the NTSB feel that there should be a transparent accounting for actions taken and for those not taken to meet the deadline, 

so that regulators and policymakers can make informed decisions. 

After all, the NTSB’s files are filled with accidents that could have 

been prevented through PTC. For each and every day that PTC is 

delayed, the risk of an accident remains. 

For PTC to reach the greatest safety potential, it must be implemented, subject to the requirements specified by the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act. After all, lives depend on it. 

Thank you. This concludes my testimony. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Sumwalt. 

Mr. Melaniphy. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. Thank you, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My written comments have more detail 

than I will be presenting in the oral testimony. 

APTA’s commuter railroads are unequivocally committed to safety. Passenger and employee safety is the number one priority for 

this Nation’s commuter railroads. Public transportation is one of 

the safest modes of transportation, and the commuter and passenger rail, specifically, are among the safest ways to travel. The 

FRA recently released statistics for the railroad industry, saying 

that since fiscal year 2004 train accidents and derailments have 

11 

each declined 47 percent, and highway rail grade crossing accidents 

have declined 35 percent. 

Commuter rail ridership has grown 42 percent since 1990, going 

from about 328 million rides to more than 466 million rides taken 

on commuter rail in 2012. Over 10 years, fatalities have climbed 

by—declined by 44 percent. That said, we are always looking for 

ways to improve safety. 

The growth of commuter rail ridership makes safety more important than ever. As we work to improve safety, we need comprehensive programs to address safety in all aspects of our operating environment. Any single technology or practice is just one part of an 

integrated approach to system safety. An effective safety culture is 

as important as any specific procedure or technology. It begins with 

a commitment to the organization’s senior leadership, and working 

with the employees and labor to adopt common safety goals and expectations. 

In the 1990s, APTA developed the Passenger Rail Equipment 

Safety Standards Program, commonly known as the PRESS Program, to develop safety standards for commuter rail cars. These 

standards led to the design of crumple zones that protect passengers in a crash, and have helped save lives. 

APTA, working in cooperation with the FRA, FTA, and TSA, 

have developed more than 270 standards and recommended practices, 71 of which address particular safety needs for the main line 

rail equipment, and over 111 for rail transit alone. Standards define safe operating practices, inspection, and maintenance of equipment, and other areas, as well. 

In 1989, APTA initiated the Rail Safety Audit Program. All of 

the Nation’s commuter railroads had developed system safety management plans. Under the program, each agency develops comprehensive protocols for system safety. Agencies are then audited 

on a regular basis to review compliance with the practices and 

goals established by the plan. 

Further, APTA provides peer review panels. An agency can request a team of industry professionals who will visit the agency, review the specific operating, security, or safety issues, and then 

make action recommendations. APTA also partners with the FRA, 

AAR, and labor to help design, build, and operate safe transportation systems. APTA works with the FRA Rail Safety Advisory 

Committee and our own standing committees, who meet regularly 

to discuss issues, effective practices, and lessons learned. These 

findings are then shared at our APTA conferences. 

Finally, APTA’s commuter railroads face big challenges on the 

implementation of positive train control, PTC. I want to emphasize 

that APTA’s commuter rail agencies support and are fully committed to implementing PTC systems on all of their railroads. 

Like the freight railroads at AAR, commuter railroads do not believe they can fully implement PTC on the entire commuter rail 

system by the 2015 deadline in the current law. We went to Congress in 2010 with this message, not wanting to wait until the 

deadline was imminent. We asked for Federal funding to help publicly fund commuter railroads—the publicly funded commuter railroads, to help them pay for some of the nearly $3 billion in implementation costs. We sought help from the Federal Communications 

12 

Commission to obtain required radio spectrum, and we asked Congress to provide a way to extend the 2015 deadline on commuter 

railroads unable to implement PTC by that deadline despite good 

faith efforts, and due to systems out of their control. We continue 

to seek your help with these issues. 

There is no ready-made off-the-shelf product for this new technology. And the Nation will not be well served by shutting down 

important commuter railroad operations if they are unable to implement PTC by the deadline. We support the use of PTC, but urge 

Congress to establish a more realistic timeline for implementation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We are happy to take 

questions later on. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Melaniphy. 

Mr. Gerard, you may proceed. 

Mr. GERARD. Thank you, Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to testify in regards to this most important issue of rail safety. As mentioned earlier, I am Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. We represent 590 companies that provide 

most of the energy that our Nation consumes. 

The revolution in North American energy development has been 

made possible by technological breakthroughs and decades-old 

methods of energy development, which has set this Nation on a 

path to energy security, a concept unthinkable just a few short 

years ago. The energy policies we choose today will determine if 

our Nation will continue its march towards global energy leadership, a unique and once-in-a-generation opportunity. 

America’s dramatic increase in domestic energy production has 

fundamentally altered the global energy markets and, more broadly, the geopolitical landscape for decades to come, all while providing a much-needed boost to our economy. In order to achieve our 

Nation’s full potential as a global energy leader, all of us have to 

work together to ensure that our energy infrastructure is capable 

of safely, reliably, and efficiently transporting ever-increasing 

amounts of domestically produced energy, whether by truck, barge, 

pipeline, or, the focus of today’s hearing, by rail. 

Meaningful and lasting improvement in rail safety will only come 

from a holistic and collaborative approach to accident prevention, 

mitigation, and response. And the oil and natural gas industry will 

continue to work with our colleagues in Government, the rail industry, and others in continual safety improvement. 

The memorandum of understanding released last week between 

the railroad industry and the Department of Transportation, which 

outlines operational changes to improve rail safety, is an important 

step in our shared goal of improving the safety of America’s freight 

rail system. While it is true that 99.997 percent of hazardous materials transported by rail reach their destinations without incident, 

the oil and natural gas industry is committed to getting to zero rail 

incidents because, when it comes to safety, the only number that 

matters is zero incidents. 

Getting to zero will take the long-term commitment to working 

collaboratively with all stakeholders, and applying all of our best 

science, research, and real-world data in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. Being a safe steward of our Nation’s energy reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Aug 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\2-26-1~1\86845.TXT JEAN
13 

sources and providing leadership in raising the bar on industry 

performance isn’t new to the oil and gas sector. 

For 90 years, API has been the world leader in developing and 

improving equipment and operating standards—now 600 and 

counting—for the oil and natural gas industry through a collaborative process that involves all stakeholders, as well as Government regulators. This process is credited by the American National 

Standards Institute, or ANSI, which is the same organization that 

accredits the Government’s national laboratories. We have already 

assembled the best experts from our industry, the railroads, scientists, and engineers, and others to tackle some of the tough 

issues raised by the recent rail incidents involving the transport of 

crude oil. 

PHMSA also committed to join our effort to develop a comprehensive standard that addresses the classification of crude oil to 

ensure we are moving that product in the safest manner possible. 

This includes possible safety improvements from material characterization, transport classification, and quantity measurement of 

crude oil, based on the best available science and data. This is part 

of our industry’s longstanding commitment to safety. 

In 2011, the oil and natural gas industry helped lead the multiindustry effort that led to significant improvements in the design 

of our tank cars. And we move forward voluntarily with those improvements so that this year we are now approaching 40 percent 

of the crude tank cars in use by our industry will exceed the current Federal safety standard. 

In the final analysis, the women and men of the rail and oil and 

natural gas industries, as well as the communities traversed by our 

Nation’s freight rails, deserve our laser focus on this challenge. Our 

potential as a global energy leader is rooted in our ability to safely 

transport our game-changing energy resources safely every time, be 

it by truck, barge, pipeline, or rail. 

We look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues in the 

Government, in the rail industry, and elsewhere, and look forward 

to working with the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Gerard. 

Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown, members of the subcommittee. I want to sincerely 

thank you for the opportunity to speak about our views on rail 

safety. 

Whenever there is a major rail accident, we often find ourselves 

sitting in front of the T&I Committee with all the stakeholders— 

labor, Government, and the railroads—trying to find out how we 

can best prevent these accidents and other accidents into the future. After listening to the previous witnesses, I want to begin by 

addressing the elephant in the room on the issue of rail safety, and 

that is fatigue. 

Addressing the issue of fatigue could drastically improve safety 

in the railroad industry. The majority of our locomotive engineers 

and conductors in freight service work on call 24/7, 365 days a 

year, and receive as little as an hour-and-a-half notice before they 

have to go to work for a 12-hour shift. 

14 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act could have addressed this fear 

by providing operating employees with predictable schedules, calling windows, and train lineups that they could rely on, so they 

could plan to sleep accordingly. I continue to believe these similar 

ideas will help alleviate fatigue in the industry. But nearly 51⁄2

years after the enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act, the 

industry has yet to engage labor in any serious discussion about fatigue. 

On the issue of PTC, it is apparent that even numerous PTC-preventable fatal accidents and an Act of Congress cannot sway the 

railroads to install PTC. I often wonder, if we could turn back the 

clock, how many lives we could have saved. Those who have given 

their lives deserve to be honored by saying enough is enough with 

the delay and foot-dragging. The carriers have had ample time to 

prepare for the implementation of PTC since the passage of the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act. We believe that there should be no 

blanket delay of its implementation. PTC was suggested by the National Transportation Safety Board 46 years ago. 

We also reject the notion that PTC provides a justification for reducing the crew size, as the railroads contend. PTC should not be 

a pretext to eliminating a member of the train crew. It is simply 

another safety overlay of operating systems. The BLET has spent 

significant time and resources countering these and other efforts to 

understaff train crew size. A one-member crew is not only unsafe, 

but it is also inefficient, and also can be deadly, as we found out 

in Quebec. This issue is before your subcommittee in the form of 

H.R. 3040, which was introduced by Congressman Michaud last 

summer, which would require two federally certified train crewmembers in every freight locomotive, and has 60 cosponsors. 

Another simple and old, inexpensive technology is an alerter. It 

is a low-tech alarm that could automatically apply the train’s 

brakes if an engineer is incapacitated. While the alerters are in 

most locomotive trains today, there are exceptions to their requirement within the existing regulations. This, to me, is inexcusable, 

not to be used in all locomotives and control cabs today. 

Another issue we would like to touch upon is the installation of 

inward-facing cameras in the cabs of all locomotives. This will have 

absolutely no effect on safety. The proponents of these cameras 

suggest that video surveillance of locomotive engineers and conductors in the workplace will somehow abate fatigue and foster rule 

compliance. However, it is absurd to suggest that inward-facing 

cameras are a tool to reduce fatigue. In the absence of operational 

changes to reduce the likelihood that the locomotive engineer or 

conductor will be fatigued while operating a train, these cameras 

will do nothing but document that the crewmembers did not fall 

asleep. 

Last, but certainly not least in our minds, locomotives on our Nation’s railroads need to be secure and equipped with locking mechanisms that keep train crews safe, not only when a train is unattended, but also provides ready ingress and egress by crews who 

perform their jobs safely, and the ability to escape quickly in an 

emergency. 

15 

The men and women working on our Nation’s railroads are professionals that are dedicated to safety, and would like to be partners on improvement. 

I would like to end by paraphrasing a quote from Oliver Wendell 

Holmes, when he was talking about progress. He said, ‘‘The great 

thing in this world is not so much where we stand as in what direction we are moving.’’ I challenge the railroads and the Government 

to work aggressively to prevent the accidents of tomorrow by working with labor to make sure that the necessary changes in the industry on fatigue, PTC, securement, and alerters. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Brown, members of the subcommittee. I agreed with a couple of 

things Mr. Tolman said, most importantly of which is our employee 

base is the most important part of our industry, and we thank 

them for their professionalism and dedication every day that they 

move freight around this country. 

On behalf of the AAR, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

rail safety. My comments this afternoon will focus on two issues: 

positive train control and moving energy by rail. But I would be delighted to engage in discussion on other issues that have been 

raised. 

As Mr. Gerard pointed out, the development of new crude oil resources in the United States represents a tremendous opportunity 

for our Nation to move toward energy independence, something we 

have been talking about for decades, and it is within sight. This 

means less reliance on oil imports from unstable foreign sources, 

more economic development all over the country, thousands of jobs, 

tens of billions of dollars in savings in our Nation’s trade deficit. 

One thing I would like to emphasize: Our Nation cannot take full 

advantage of new crude oil resources without a safe, efficient, financially health freight rail system. And notice I started with safe 

because, unfortunately, with a few high-profile accidents starting 

last July in Quebec, there is some concern and doubt about whether or not we can move crude safely. Let me say for the record right 

here the answer to that question is yes, we can. We do move it 

safely. Mr. Gerard pointed out the statistic, 99.997 percent of the 

time, origin to destination, without an accidental release. 

Having said that, we too believe that 100 percent safety is the 

goal. And that is why we were pleased to get together with Secretary Foxx, Administrator Quarterman and Szabo last Friday to 

announce even additional steps that we can take to try to make 

sure that the confidence of the public, your confidence, the confidence of State and local elected officials is not shaken by these 

high-profile accidents. 

Under the agreement, tracks on which trains carry large 

amounts of crude oil will be subject to more frequent track inspections than required by statute or regulation. Speed restrictions, required use of advanced braking technologies, and the use of a sophisticated routing model, which we currently use for our most 

hazardous chemicals, will now be used for crude to assess the 

safest and most secure routes. 

16 

I would be remiss not to point out, as I have in the past, that 

railroads also prevent accidents by investing back into the infrastructure. This year will be $26 billion. A well-maintained railroad 

is a safe railroad. 

All of these steps are meant toward addressing prevention. The 

first way to reduce risk? You prevent the accident. But the second 

big bucket is mitigation. And there we believe that you address two 

issues. 

One is the tank car itself, and then what goes into the tank car. 

We joined the NTSB in questioning and, in fact, saying that the 

CPC–1232, the tank car standard that was adopted voluntarily by 

our industry, API, and others in October of 2011, can itself be improved upon. We believe that it should have thicker steel shelves. 

It should have an outer jacket. It should have thermal wrapping. 

It should have protection for top fittings and bottom fittings. It 

should have full height head shields, among others. We believe that 

that is ready to go, and urge PHMSA to move quickly on its rulemaking. 

We also believe that the existing legacy cars need to either be 

outfitted—retrofitted, or phased out of service for flammable liquids 

as quickly as possible. 

The third leg of dealing with risk is emergency response. Over 

the past years—last year, 22,000 emergency responders were 

trained by our industry: 20,000 in their home communities; 2,000 

out at Pueblo. Some of you have had the opportunity to be there, 

Transportation Technology Center, 2,000 there. We are committed 

to doing more on that with our agreement with the Secretary. 

Let me quickly turn to PTC. I hope to have an update for you. 

We believe again, with the NTSB, it needs to be very transparent. 

I will submit for the record our update through 2013. We have 

made great progress. We hope to have 24,000 miles in operation by 

2015. But I must tell you about a disaster at the Federal Communication Commission. 

We are being told not to install any communication poles since 

last May—22,000 poles. These are not on Native American property. These are on our rights of way, 97 percent of them, 18-inch 

diameter poles about 20, 40, maybe 50 feet high, 10 feet into the 

ground. Very minimal chance of any cultural or historic impact. We 

think that there should be an exemption for that. And, unfortunately, the FCC has placed adherence to bureaucratic process 

above enhancing public safety. 

And I apologize for being 15 seconds over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. And I would ask our 

witnesses’ indulgence. Our vote schedule has moved up now, so we 

are looking at taking a break when—we will probably go a little 

after the buzzer goes, but we are planning on coming back after 

that vote series. It is a short vote series, so we would ask—if you 

can stay, we would ask you to stay, so—we have a number of very 

important questions. 

Let me start by a frustration that I have. Mr. Szabo, I know that 

we are here to talk about a very important rail safety issue, an 

issue that you and I had started discussions on last November. But 

during that same discussion, we also had a discussion about highVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Aug 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\2-26-1~1\86845.TXT JEAN
17 

speed rail. And during that discussion you said Metro-North was 

a high priority, we had to address the situation, and you needed 

some time to work on that. So, at your request, I moved that highspeed rail meeting 6 weeks to facilitate your schedule. 

Now, I got to tell you the frustration that I felt from my Democrat colleagues that wanted this hearing to happen. But we knew 

full well in November that, by moving that high-speed rail hearing, 

we were also moving the timeline of this hearing. You failed, after 

6 weeks’ notice, to attend that hearing. And you can obviously 

sense my frustration with that. 

But going deeper than that, the bigger frustration that I have is 

that you also communicated with me on what the funding level 

would be for high-speed rail in California. Now, I believe very 

strong in credibility. I believe very strong that actions speak 

stronger than words. And if your actions are going to change from 

what you previously committed or told me, or what your staff had 

also committed to our staff, if there is going to be a change, I expect you to give me a phone call, not have a communication between press releases between the two of us. 

So, as we move forward, if you have changes on something you 

have committed to me or to this committee, I would expect a phone 

call, rather than a press release. 

Mr. SZABO. Do I have the opportunity to respond, Mr. Chairman? 

I mean is that a—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I am not looking for a response—— 

Mr. SZABO. I think it is only appropriate. 

Mr. DENHAM. It is—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes—no—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I will allow you a few seconds, yes. 

Mr. SZABO. Please, if I may. I regret you are frustrated. But, as 

you know, when we talked, when that date was set, I said my 

schedule would allow me to be available on the 14th of January. 

When it moved to the 15th, we made very clear immediately to 

your staff that I would be on travel speaking to 550 shippers, including the crude rail industry. 

Mr. DENHAM. I understand. You also had a commitment 

today—— 

Mr. SZABO. You and I—— 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. And I appreciate you canceling that 

commitment—— 

Mr. SZABO. You and I—— 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. For this hearing. 

Mr. SZABO [continuing]. Had a conversation in advance of that 

hearing, where I let you know that I would not be available. So, 

you know, it wasn’t like—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I am not going to go back and forth with you here. 

Mr. SZABO [continuing]. There was a surprise. 

Mr. DENHAM. The issue is not whether or not you committed to 

this hearing. The issue was we held this hearing up 6 weeks, which 

then forced us to move this hearing today. So you have held up our 

committee, based on your schedule that we moved it 6 weeks for 

you. 

Again, the bigger issue here, though, is when you commit something to this committee, as you did on the high-speed rail funding 

18 

issue, that I at least get a phone call because you have now 

changed that funding formula for California and for—— 

Mr. SZABO. We didn’t change the funding formula. But if that is 

what you want, I have no problem. You know, staff gave a personal 

briefing to your staff. We have continued to communicate almost 

daily with your staff. I don’t know how much more communication 

we can do. 

Mr. DENHAM. You have got my cell phone. You can give me a call 

any time if you have—— 

Mr. SZABO. I don’t, but I will sure—I will—I would be happy to 

take it from you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Quarterman—— 

Mr. SZABO. Mr. Chairman, to say that you moved it at my request—now, you and I did have a conversation. But I also made it 

clear that because you were calling this hearing, scheduling it—2 

days was when the notice came out, 2 days after the Metro-North 

tragedy—that it wasn’t just me. My agency could not be available. 

And I also said that if you would just go to the 16th of December, 

1 more week, 1 more week, I would be happy to be available. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Again, my issue is on grant agreements. You have changed the grant agreement several times now. 

Mr. SZABO. No, in fact—— 

Mr. DENHAM. You had made the commitment to me that it 

wasn’t going to happen. 

Mr. SZABO. The—— 

Mr. DENHAM. If you have to change something, I expect a phone 

call. That is it. 

Mr. SZABO. We will keep talking. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Quarterman, I appreciate our conversation 

yesterday. And yesterday also DOT issued an emergency order regarding crude oil movement and classification. That order mandates the proper testing conducted with sufficient frequency and 

quality and classification of petroleum products prior to being offered into transportation. 

Can you please clarify what is considered sufficient frequency, 

and what quality, sufficient quality, would be? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We did talk about 

this Executive order, or emergency order, yesterday, when we met. 

And we specifically left those terms to be determined by the shippers based on their operations. We did not want to say, in each and 

every instance before a shipment occurs, that testing needed to 

occur. It may be that a shipper, if they are a producer, are producing from one play and that play is inconsistent, and over time 

the test results would be the same. And another shipper might 

have a different experience. 

We are happy to talk further with those shippers who may have 

questions and needed clarification, but that was the intent. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And can you also give us a rough timeframe for when you expect to issue the proposed rule for the DOT– 

111 tank car standards? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. I can tell you that the staff of 

PHMSA and FRA have been in sequestration over the past several 

weeks, drafting the terms of the notice of proposed rulemaking. As 

you know, we got comments at December 5th of last year; over 

19 

100,000 individuals sent us comments. We are very, very close in 

our drafting, but there are processes that follow our process within 

PHMSA and FRA. 

Mr. DENHAM. When do you expect a final rule? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I would like to see, well, a final rule. Are we 

talking about a—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Basic timeframe. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. A proposed rulemaking we want to see as soon 

as possible this year. A final rule will depend upon the comments 

that we get back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And one final question and then this 

is a question I have for others as well. You know. You and I talked 

yesterday about the manufacturing capacities and the current 

backlog of tank cars as somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 tank 

cars. 

That backlog is installed since, well, not having standards to 

build those. Could you explain from your standpoint what you 

think that manufacturing capacity could be as far as moving forward? I know we discussed it in detail yesterday some of those 

challenges we have and those 111 backlog and how we’re going to 

move forward. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I think that question is probably best answered by the railroads. I don’t think we discussed that yesterday. 

Mr. DENHAM. Let me come back to that question. How much 

crude is spilled on an average derailment? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I don’t know off the top of my head. We will 

have to get that information for you. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. In the sake of time, I know votes are going 

to get called here shortly. I yield the rest of my time or I yield 

back, and now recognize Ranking Member Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just say, once 

again, thank you for holding this hearing. The Democrats on this 

committee sent a letter requesting this hearing. This is a very important hearing and we waited for a very long time to have this 

hearing. And this hearing is on safety of the rail industry; and, I 

asked so many questions, but I know my colleagues have a lot of 

questions. But I guess I want to start with Mr. Gerard. 

You mentioned, and I am interested in, you know, we are all together as one team, one fight, and we have these stakeholders. And 

in talking to some of the stakeholders, they have indicated they 

could not get the information on the composition of the crude to inform the first responders so we’d know what’s on the tank cars. 

Can you tell me what kind of sharing that you had with the other 

agencies, like, you know, the other stakeholders, whether we’re 

talking about the Department of Transportation or PHMSA? 

Mr. GERARD. Yeah. I think there’s a couple of things there, Congresswoman. Thank you for the question. 

The first is we believe we should approach his challenge of safety 

holistically. So we look at it for prevention to mitigation and then 

to response. The piece that you are talking about is the mitigation 

piece in terms of knowing exactly what the test results show, how 

we use those for classification to make sure we are hauling our 

product in the appropriately approved package. 

20 

The current regulatory regime requires us to seek a classification 

wherein Class III is flammable liquid is the way we classify today. 

And then we look at boiling point and flash point under the current 

regulatory regime to decide then which package it goes in, either 

packaging I, II, or III. And so we provide that testing as an industry. 

And, back to Chairman Denham’s question, the emergency order 

that was issued, yesterday, from our standpoint actually creates 

confusion, and part of it goes to the very question you asked. The 

current regulations requires to test and classify. What we have 

done as an industry is we have put together under our standard 

setting group the best minds to make and to set a standard, if you 

will. How often should we test? How do we make sure we are looking at the right issues? 

Today, we are looking at the question of, like I say, flashpoint 

and boiling point. Are there other questions that should be considered? This is an improved process where we collaborate with the 

regulator. We collaborate under this accredited process with anybody who would like to participate. So we welcome all to come join 

us, because these are questions we need to find the answers to and 

decide are there other issues we need to look at. 

The emergency order, unfortunately, says that we need to look 

at proper testing with sufficient frequency and quality. We don’t 

know what that means, and yet in the same order it reminds us 

there are criminal penalties and $175,000 in infraction attached to 

this. I guarantee there is an impact, a chilling effect, if you will, 

to our industry that’s trying to collaborate to come up with the 

right answers to make sure we are testing and classifying this correctly. 

Ms. BROWN. DOT is saying that they are not getting the information that they need from you. Do your members share that information with them? 

Mr. GERARD. Yes, I believe they are. I know there has been some 

frustration there and I understand that frustration. As a trade association, we don’t collect all that data. Our members do a lot of 

tests on a lot of different things. We, historically, have not collected 

it. So I can’t show up and deliver that in one package, but we have 

encouraged the meetings that we have been part of where our 

members have come and given their information. And we encourage them, particularly, if it is proprietary information, to work with 

the regulator to share that information so they can answer their 

questions. 

Ms. BROWN. DOT, Mr. Szabo, do you want to respond to that? 

[No response.] 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Quarterman? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Sure. What would you like me to respond to? 

Ms. BROWN. The information that you need from the petroleum 

industry. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, the reason for the Executive order or the 

emergency order yesterday was that we had heard concerns from 

industry that they were unsure how to respond to our regulations. 

And we wanted to be clear that we would identify those characteristics of crude that we would want them to test for that—clarify 

our existing rules. These are the things that you should be testing 

21 

for. And the reason why that is so important in this particular area 

is because ordinarily you have products on a railroad that are 

being shipped that are known commodities. 

There may be anhydrous ammonia or liquified natural gas, or 

chlorine. And they are known commodities. When you talk about 

petroleum crude oil, you are talking about something that is an organic product that’s being mined from the earth. When it comes 

from the earth, we don’t know what we are getting. You know. Gas 

comes from the earth, normally occurring radioactive materials 

come from the earth. Oil comes from the earth, sulfur. So before 

you take something from production and immediately put it into a 

tank car, you need to know what you have there so you can look, 

characterize it so you can look at our table—you have nine classifications of materials—and determine which one of these nine is 

this. 

Is it a petroleum product that is a flammable liquid? Is it a flammable gas? Is it a corrosive or poisonous product? And then you 

move on from there to determine does it have—maybe it has a multiple number of constituents, and you have to determine what the 

appropriate packaging is for that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Quarterman. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Barletta? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all I just 

want to say I am very encouraged by the safety and best practices, 

both the railroads and the oil and gas industry have maintained 

their 99.9977 percent of all rail hazmat shipments reach their destination, as was noted, without a release caused by a train accident. That’s a strong safety record and something that you should 

be proud of. 

Even more, you have gone ahead and voluntarily agreed to additional limitations. So I want to say that to start. The safety alert 

issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on January 2nd regarding operation classification states that 

PHMSA will share the results of these tests with interested parties 

as they become available. 

Ms. Quarterman, in the spirit of collaboration, have you shared 

the information from operation classification with interested parties? If you have not yet shared it, when do you plan on sharing 

it? And then could you therefore give any examples of how you are 

working in good faith with the private industry to improve safety? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. The short answer to that question is yes. We 

have had a series of meetings since our meeting with the rail and 

crude oil industries where we brought in API and some other organizations and individual shippers and asked them if they could tell 

us about the attributes of the crude as well as about what they 

were doing to test and characterize that crude. 

During those conversations we did share with them on a gross 

level the kinds of information we were finding in terms of the attribute to the crude, and asked them for the same. We also—I have 

talked to several companies, CEOs of several companies that are 

shipping Bakken crude. Many of them have been willing to talk on 

an individual basis—not as part of a bigger group—about what 

22 

they are finding with respect to the characteristics of that crude, 

including those who are subject to current enforcement actions. 

So I really appreciate those individual companies who have been 

willing to step up and provide information. So, yes, we have been 

providing that information. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And through the course of carrying out operation 

classifications issued to-date, three notices of violation for 

misclassifying crude oil. In light of these finds, are you finding that 

companies are free to come forward and voluntarily share their 

testing and classification data? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. No. Actually not. As I mentioned, during the 

conversations I’ve had with some of those companies that were part 

of that enforcement push, they did come and share with us openly 

what the characteristics of their crude were. So, no. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I think we can all agree that the proper classification of materials in these tank cars is critical to safety. I know the 

DOT recently issued new testing requirements for crude by rail. 

Mr. Gerard, do your member companies have specific enough instructions to comply with Secretary Foxx’s emergency restriction? 

And, if not, what areas require further classification? 

Mr. GERARD. Well I think a couple things, Congressman, and I 

appreciate the question. Because the emergency order we saw last 

night, the response we have gotten in the last 20 hours or so, we 

have had a chance to look at it as one of confusion. And, let me 

clarify one thing that Ms. Quarterman said. 

Our companies know what they have and have tested. I think, 

earlier, there may have been some doubt or some question left: Do 

we know what it is. We’ve been testing this for years. We understand what it is. We know how to test it consistent with the current guidelines. And, part of this working group we have is to look 

at other determinants, other characteristics, to see if there’s other 

ways to test it. But I think in light of this we need to sit down with 

the Administrator and others now and seek clarification on exactly 

what it is they would like us to do in light of this order. 

I think it is very important so we understand their expectation, 

so we can satisfy that expectation. And I would hope it would be 

much more collaborative as we move forward so that we can do 

that, because we need to keep our eye on the focus here, which is 

safety. That’s what this is all about. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. Walz? 

Mr. WALZ. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I don’t know how 

the two of you came to it. I’m just glad you have the hearing. So 

I’m glad you worked it out, but I am grateful. I want to thank all 

of you for being here, and I think Mr. Cramer was right. I certainly 

feel a sense of collaboration. We are all the same goal here. We 

want to keep our citizens safe and we want to move important 

products, and we have to figure out strike that balance. We need 

to listen to all the perspectives. 

I was down on Monday in Winona, Minnesota, on the river down 

there on the Mississippi with fire chiefs, mayors and first responders from our side of the river and over in Wisconsin, and discussing 

23 

some of the things, looking at this from what do you do in those 

first minutes of a catastrophic incident that we all hope doesn’t 

happen. How do you mitigate it and make it less catastrophic, if 

there is such a thing, and then how do you prevent it. 

The thing I came out of that with, though, is the folks. They referred to these as incidents—not accidents. And it kind of changes 

the point of view on how we’re getting after it, of let’s look at it 

that way, and let’s try to mitigate them. Let’s try to see them as 

the incidents. And they welcomed some of the news that was coming out of there. 

I think the thing to keep in mind for these, these are mid-sized 

communities out there. But as they pointed out—Chief Bittle pointed out to me—he doesn’t believe there are three fire departments 

in America that could respond in an urban area to a Casselton type 

of incident, making the case that on these catastrophes the best 

they can do is triage for life and limb. So they brought up the suggestion—and this is one we are looking—does there need to be a 

broader response. Does their need to be some help in this. Because 

their point was they can’t keep enough foam; nor does it make 

sense to do that in one of those places. And their concern—they are 

grateful they received training; from both our shippers and our 

railroads give their members training. But, they said, one of the 

things is the continuation and the institutionalized nature of it. 

They said when chlorine was the big issue, folks came in, gave 

their firefighters chlorine training, gave them equipment, and then 

5 or 6 years later after that had stopped, most of those firefighters 

were gone. The equipment was old and that ended. And their point 

was we want to do this; we want the help. We wanted to come in, 

but let’s stay consistent with it. So I asked how do we do that. How 

do we institutionalize it and how do we prepare for something that 

there is no way that the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and Winona, 

Minnesota, can prepare in an urban setting like that? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you for asking that question. I am fortunate to have as my deputy a former fire chief. And over the past 

several weeks, he brought together a group of all of the fire organizations across the country: The International Association of Fire 

Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National 

Association of State Fire Marshals, the U.S. Firefighters Association, the API, the AAR; and sat them down at the table to say, OK, 

what is the readiness for response to this across the country. What 

kind of training do you need to have to be prepared for this? 

And I think that was a good first step. You look at the agreement 

that the secretary has with AAR, you will see again that it is something that the railroads are willing to step up and talk about making sure there are no gaps along the routes that would be moving 

these key trains. And, finally, we just went out with our hazardous 

materials, emergency responder grants. We have HMEP grants 

that go to States and to local communities; ordinarily, they are 

going on a much more random basis. 

One of the pieces that grant program we put into our request for 

proposal was request for grants that would address the crude oil 

issue in communities that had problems; and we are hoping to see 

a lot of—— 

24 

Mr. WALZ. Ms. Quarterman, and I appreciate and this is that collaboration. They felt very good about it. The problem we have, 

sometimes, though is the city of La Crescent was there also, and 

they said I happen to know Winona’s got a better grant writer, because we’re smaller. So their concern was we can’t just depend on 

that. And what do we do to our smaller communities that have the 

same issues? 

Mr. SUMWALT. Congressman Walz, the NTSB agrees with what 

you are saying. One of the three recommendations we issued in 

conjunction with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is exactly the issue you are referring to. 

Many communities in the United States are not prepared to respond to something the size of Lac-Me ́gantic or Casselton, North 

Dakota. We want the railroads themselves—not just the communities, but the railroads themselves—to be prepared by pre-staging 

equipment, just like they do in the pipeline industry. 

Mr. WALZ. That was my followup there. And, if I could, I’m going 

to yield back my time. But if Mr. Hamberger could, I would really 

appreciate it, Chairman, if you would indulge a bit of an answer 

on that side, because I appreciate that. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Congressman. Just to clarify and 

emphasize that one of the things we have in our agreement with 

the Secretary is the first thing you have to do is do an inventory. 

Every one of our railroads does have an emergency response plan; 

but it is not in any way coordinated with other members of the industry and we ought to put that into inventory, see what’s there, 

see what needs to be done. 

We cannot anticipate having pre-staged foam along 140,000 

miles of right-of-way, but we do have to have some sort of a better 

and a coordinated plan, and we are committed to doing that. We 

also put up $5 million. I say ‘‘we’’—my members—put up $5 million 

to pay for stipends to take up to 1,500 people, just this year, out 

to Pueblo, Colorado, Transportation Technology Center, which has 

an emergency response training center. 

Working with the API, we’re going to put together a very specific 

module, training module on crude. We have one on ethanol. We are 

going to do it on crude, and this is in addition to 2,000 we normally 

have each year. This will be another 1,500. We want to make that 

a long-term plan so it isn’t something that runs out. We’ve talked 

FRA. 

Mr. DENHAM. Time. Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for your testimony today. I am from 

Texas. We have got a lot of railroads in Texas. We appreciate you 

being here. My question would be to President Hamberger. The industry has stepped forward. 

Mr. WALZ. He just gaveled me down. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well he’s got a quick one, so. 

The industry has stepped forward, as we have talked about 

today, with proactive steps for crude training safety, especially 

after the Quebec accident and then again this month as the Secretary’s announcement shows. These are efforts aimed at accident 

prevention, but there’s also discussion about the accident mitigation and the tank car design, which we talked about also. 

25 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway has made announcement 

last week that it was issuing an RFP for the next generation tank 

car. My question would be what can you tell us about that, and 

what does it mean for the transportation of crude by rail. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well I think it says a number of things. It says 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which is the origin carrier of a vast 

majority of the crude being produced in the United States is as our 

entire industry does stepping forward and putting their money 

where their mouth and saying that we believe as the origin carrier 

there needs to be a safer tank car, even safer than the CPC–1232. 

And that’s a commitment they have made and we have consensus 

to use that car for crude. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it shows the private sector can do the 

right thing. Can’t they? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Another question, too; I’d like to go back on something you said earlier. Can you expand on what you talked about 

on the FCC’s position of laying the BTC? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, sir. Thank you. I was hurried there at the 

end, though. About a year ago, after we had installed 10,000 communication polls, the FCC told us that they did not believe we were 

complying with their regulations to implement Section 106 of the 

Historic Preservation Act. They have a very complex system set up, 

unlike any other agency, and they told us to stop installing these 

poles. 

We have already lost one construction season and right now they 

have tried to come out with a way to streamline their process. I appreciate Chairman Wheeler’s personal attention to this, but I can 

tell you it does not work. It is still a pole by pole analysis. We need 

to have an exemption for these poles, which are not on Native 

American property, they are on our right of way. And the worst 

thing is they have now made a requirement that we have to prove 

that there is no cultural or historic interest in the site where we 

want to put a communication pole. It seems to us that the clear 

reading of the Historic Preservation Act that if someone believes 

there is a cultural, historic value there, they come forward to show 

that there is; not that we have to prove the negative. It just flips 

everything on-side. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. How do you prove that? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Exactly; you can’t prove a negative. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Big Government. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In 1991 NTSB identified the 111 car as inadequate. Then, after 

20 years of inaction by regulators, first the Secretary’s office and 

later by PHMSA, AAR, out of frustration, adopted their own standard. And, now, NTSB says that standard isn’t adequate and you 

have a number of suggestions on how it should be improved. 

So are the cars—are you familiar with the cars BNSF is ordering, because they do exceed that standard—do they address the 

concerns you’ve raised on the new AAR approved model? 

Mr. SUMWALT. I understand that BNSF has said that they want 

to get the next generation cars, but there are no specifications for 

26 

those cars. You’re right—the NTSB has had longstanding concerns 

about the current regulatory standards for the DOT–111 cars. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right; but, I guess here’s my concern. We are creating a great deal of uncertainty. We know we can make 111s a 

little safer with the head shields and other things we could do with 

modifications. We know the AAR-approved version is better than 

the 111s, even if they weren’t improved. 

BNSF, from what I understand, is going to go further with thermal shielding and double walls, and there’s an argument over the 

thickness and all those things. But I guess my concern then turns 

to PHMSA. PHMSA was created in 2004 and it took them until 

2013 to put out an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which 

is the kind of stuff that drives you nuts around here. 

What is the earliest date that that advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking could be translated into a final rule so that we have 

some certainty, so people know what to order and what the future 

is for safer cars? What’s the earliest date? The chairman asked you 

a question about this, but you couldn’t really give us what is the 

earliest date if everything went as quickly as you can move it. 

What is the earliest date at which we could have a standard, a new 

standard? 

Mr. QUARTERMAN. Let me go back to—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No, just give me that. What is the earliest date? 

I mean advance notice and then proposed rule, and then revised 

proposed rule, and then more. You know. What is the earliest date, 

using whatever extraordinary or emergency procedures are out 

there, could we have a new approved design standard so people 

could start building them and be assured that what they’re buying 

and building is going to be—you know—is going to be approved for 

the next 25 or 30 years, the life of the car? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. The DOT–111 tank car was designed back in 

the 19—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ma’am, I am asking a specific question. Given your 

bureaucracy, what is the earliest date at which you could approve 

a new standard, since NTSB is very specific about what they want 

to see in that standard. It isn’t like this is creating something new. 

They have said what needs to be approved over what AAR has, and 

when is the earliest date which you could have a final rule so people can start buying these things? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I will get to answering your question, but the 

beginning—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Beginning in 2011, PHMSA, the FRA, the Department worked very closely with AAR in their Tank Car Committee, looking at a new generation tank car as well as other operational fixes for a highly flammable crude. As you have heard from 

the NTSB and also AAR itself, PHMSA, DOT and FRA at the time 

did not think that that standard was adequate, which is why we 

went forward with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. During the process of putting out the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, we continued to get comments and petitions, and that continued to drag out the advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

27 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Hmm-hmm. OK. Fine. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Even today you hear from—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. All right. I am going to just stop you there, 

ma’am. I am going to reclaim my time, because you are not going 

to answer my questions. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I will answer your question. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ma’am, just suspend, please. 

Look. The problem is we could make the existing cars safer. We 

are not requiring that. We could, you know. We could condone the 

existing new design and say if you buy that you can use it for the 

next 30 years. We could look at what NTSB has proposed as a design and put that out there. 

We could have some certainty. Right now, there is so much uncertainty, people are not going to make the investments in safer 

cars. Are we going to keep running these crummy 111s as they are 

and killing people? So the bottom line is how quickly can you have 

a new design, period. Answer, please. You get 30 seconds. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. The companies, as you heard, are making investments, and we appreciate the fact that they are making those 

investments. But we need to get this right, which means we need 

to hear the comments from all the parties involved and all the improvements. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. But if you would set the deadline, ma’am. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. And—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What is the earliest deadline you can set to get it 

done? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I can tell you when I could get the rule done, 

but I cannot tell you when everybody else—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You don’t. You close comments. You say we’re 

done, done with comments. We are going to come up with a design. 

We are going to look at this. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well we are done with the comments. As I 

mentioned earlier, we are drafting the rule as we speak. The process for rulemaking, once it leaves my shop and FRA’s shop is another 120 days at a minimum. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Finally, thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. We have had votes called. I do have an agreement 

from the Republicans that we are going to go out of order so that 

we can facilitate some of the schedules over here. So, next, I would 

call on Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tolman, thank you for your prepared testimony and support 

for the Safe Freight Act. You mentioned that many tasks cannot 

be accomplished by one person. Can you go over some of those 

tasks for us and explain how multiple crewmembers improve safety? 

Mr. TOLMAN. Sure. Thank you for the question. 

First of all, let’s take the accident in Quebec. There was an unattended train, but it was a single-person operation. They left the 

train on an incline, and if they had two people they could cut a 

crossing. In other words, you cannot possibly cut a crossing that 

had 72 cars, 3 locomotives alone. You had to pull up, to pull the 

train up at this incline and leave it. It was the only place they 

could leave a train of that size in that particular area. 

28 

If you had a two-person crew, somebody could drop back and 

open up a crossing, and split the train in several different ways on 

a public crossing. That is one particular thing. In the Casselton accident in North Dakota just recently, I don’t know whether you 

know that most people don’t know there was a locomotive engineer 

and a trainman that pulled cars and equipment away from the explosion that already happened that mitigated that particular accident. 

The redundancy of two people in a train is vitally important. The 

communication about what the signal is, what the safety is, what’s 

the rule we are running under, et cetera, et cetera, is absolutely 

vital. You don’t get on a commercial airline today with a single person up there. You have two people for obvious reasons. Safety redundancy in having two people is absolutely necessity. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

Administrator Szabo, you have heard Mr. Tolman on the benefits 

of multiple-person crews. Is it your believe that multiple-person 

crews enhance safety? 

Mr. SZABO. FRA is officially on the record stating that we believe 

a multiple-person crew enhances safety. Mr. Tolman is correct 

about the role that they played in Casselton that likely averted 

what could have been a much more serious situation. Effective 

crew resource management just dictates that you have to have this 

interaction amongst multiple crewmembers with good operating 

rules in ensuring safety redundancy. You never want a single point 

of failure. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

Mrs. Quarterman, AAR, NTSB safety advocates, and numerous 

lawmakers, including myself, have called for retrofit or phase-out 

of the older tank cars. Are you considering such a requirement? 

And I would like to get back to when will that be done. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We are in the middle of a rulemaking process, 

and, yes, that is one of the things that is being considered. On the 

tank car, itself, I want to be sure that I am making this point 

about the importance of having a comprehensive solution here. The 

reason that I and almost every witness at this table talk about the 

different elements of a comprehensive plan is it is so important. 

First, we need to prevent derailments. Getting a new tank car is 

not a silver bullet. Tank cars are designed for normal operating 

conditions. That means moving around in the yard, going from sidings. They are not built to withstand 40-, 50-, 60-mile-per-hour 

derailments. So this is just one piece of the mitigative puzzle that 

we have to put together to ensure the safety of these trains. 

Mr. MICHAUD. OK. Thank you. This is both for you, Mrs. 

Quarterman, and actually Administrator Szabo. And then I know 

DOT’s recent agreement with AAR did address some of the aspects 

of the NTSB recommendations, but that agreement only applies 

with Class I railroads, which do not operate in Maine. What are 

you doing to ensure that all railroads take the necessary safety 

precaution—not just Class I? 

Mr. SZABO. A couple of things. I mean, first-off, we are in conversations with the short line industry also. They have made a separate set of commitments that we are continuing to refine; one that 

they would reduce operating speeds to 25 miles per hour or lower, 

29 

very different operations from the Class I. So it is much easier for 

them to achieve, as well as working with my agency on a pilot 

project where we are going to start teaching them risk-based analysis, getting out and doing a thorough risk-based analysis, safety 

analysis, on these routes. In addition, some of the small operators—I need to change that. Some of the larger short line railroads 

are interested in actually signing on to the AAR agreement. 

Mr. DENHAM. We have a number of Members who still have 

questions, and certainly a number of Members who had requested 

this very important hearing. Votes have been called. We are planning on coming back after votes to make sure we get to everybody. 

Before we go, we are going to allow one, last question from Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very happy that we are becoming more self-sufficient on energy needs; and, hopefully, we are all here because we are concerned about the rail safety. One thing I wanted to talk about, last 

week’s call to action was an important step forward, I think, in ensuring safety in several different ways. I was happy to see that 

risk-based train routing would be used beginning later this year. 

It would consider local emergency response capabilities, among 

other matters. 

I know that was talked about earlier about the local emergency 

response capabilities. What I wanted to ask, and I wanted to ask 

Mr. Hamberger about this. One of the problems that it seems that 

we have seen is first responders—emergency response people— 

knowing the materials that they are dealing with in the case of an 

accident. Now, let’s leave aside the issue of mislabeling, for a moment. The question that I have is is it possible, right now. Is there 

a way that first responders can readily access what is on a particular train? 

I hear different stories. I hear that on some trains it is just a 

paper manifest. You know. My assumption, from what I am hearing, it varies by railroad. It would seem to me it would be very 

helpful if there was a readily accessible manifest that first responders could get to almost immediately—as quickly as possible—from 

the railroad, if there is an accident; that there could be an electronic manifest that is out there. 

There is a phone number—or however you want to do it—that 

first responders could call and immediately they could be told 

what’s on there. What is possible right now? Does it vary by railroad, and is there more that needs to be done in this matter? 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hamberger, before you answer, I need to recognize Mr. Barletta for a motion. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I request unanimous consent that the 

chairman be permitted to declare recess during today’s hearing. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Hamberger, you may proceed. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. The answer, the short answer to your question, 

Congressman Lipinski, is right now there is a paper consist that 

the crew has in the head end of the locomotive. There is also a 1– 

800 number that emergency responders are provided to call the 

railroad; but, we are working on—to your point—an electronic conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:46 Aug 13, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\2-26-1~1\86845.TXT JEAN
30 

sist that an emergency responder could get right away over the 

Internet. And we hope to have that developed by midyear this year. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So that is in your plans right now. Will every railroad do this, then? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, at least the members of the AAR, yes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. We will make sure that we follow up with that 

then. Thank you. 

Mr. Tolman? 

Mr. TOLMAN. Congressman Lipinski, I would be happy to announce that the National Firefighters Association and Brotherhood 

of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen have applied for a grant to 

make sure that we know what to communicate, who to communicate with. And we are trying to get our hands around the same 

issue that everybody on this table is trying to do. The grant has 

not been approved, obviously, but it is in process, and we believe 

that it is a very important issue that needs to be pursued together. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I will finish up here. One thing I want 

to ask, but I will pass on it. I just want to bring up PTC. There 

is funding. And, maybe for the record, Mr. Szabo will want to ask 

you about what is going to be for the funding for PTC, the money 

that was—what was in the omnibus bill. And it is something that 

I have certainly pushed for. We certainly need to do more to help, 

especially, commuter rail to implement PTC, but we don’t have 

much time. 

So I will leave that question for the record. I just wanted to put 

that out there right now, and would like to have a discussion with 

you about what is going to be done with the funding made available beyond this week. 

With that, I will yield back. So we can all go vote. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Lipinski yielding back. Thank you. 

We do have votes. We plan on reconvening at 4:30. And, again, 

we would ask all of our witnesses to stay here until we get back. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DENHAM. The committee will come to order. 

I would like to first thank our witnesses for indulging our vote 

schedule here. And, at this time, I now recognize Ms. Esty for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And particularly want to 

thank our witnesses and our guests here for their patience with 

our ever changing vote schedule. I want to thank and I know ranking member not here, but thank them for holding this hearing. 

I indeed was one of those Members, as a Representative, living 

in Connecticut who was extremely eager, shall we say, to have you 

here today. I want to thank my colleague, Sen. Blumenthal, for testifying and for his commitment and being such a strong leader on 

this issue and partnered for us. This is a matter of incredible importance for the people of Connecticut, and I appreciate the chairman’s willingness to work with those of us who have been calling 

for a hearing. 

Concern for passenger rail safety has been heightened since two, 

major accidents occurred on the Metro-North Railroad in Connecticut last May. A train derailment in Bridgeport injured more 

than 50 people. And a Metro-North employee was killed, less than 

31 

2 weeks later, while conducting a railroad maintenance and construction project. Since then, Metro-North has experienced power 

outages, they had interrupted services as well as the tragic derailment in New York that killed four passengers. 

Now, for Administrator Szabo, FRA launched a voluntary Confidential Close Call program, allowing railroad carriers and their 

employees to report near-miss accidents to the FRA. The program 

provides a safe environment for employees to report unsafe events 

and conditions, and shields railroads from FRA enforcement for 

events reported within the program. It has helped railroads, like 

Union Pacific, substantially improve safety on their system. FRA 

has urged all 28 commuter railroads to participate in the Close 

Call program. Out of the 28 commuter railroads operating in the 

United States, which ones currently participate in the program? 

Mr. SZABO. Well thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 

We consider Confidential Close Calls so critically important. As you 

saw my testimony, I talk about the three pillars; good database enforcement and then these proactive safety efforts. Close Call is just 

an absolute, imperative part of that, because it informs us in advance, in advance of an accident. 

To date, there is only one, current commuter railroad participating in Confidential Close Calls Reporting. That would be New 

Jersey Transit, although both—now Long Island Rail Road and 

Metro-North—are in the ‘‘formatory’’ stages, and we are working 

with them very closely on that. And we have had some decent conversations with a couple of others, but we still have a lot of work 

to do to cultivate interest with other carriers. 

Ms. ESTY. Yes. And if you could expand a little bit, what was 

Metro-North’s reaction to participating in this program, both before 

and after the accident that’s occurred? 

Mr. SZABO. You know, I was actually pretty frustrated back in 

May after the first series of accidents, and approached the president, Howard Permut, at that time to talk about Confidential Close 

Calls. And, I was a little disappointed in the fact they just didn’t 

seem to get it. And, even later when I talked to him, there was a 

frustration. 

The bottom line with this program, it’s not something you can 

force upon somebody. You have got to believe in it. You have got 

to believe in its value and you have got to be committed to making 

it work. And on Union Pacific, with the original pilot project in 

North Platte, Nebraska, they get it, and it helped them generate 

a 70-percent reduction in certain accidents and injuries. 

Ms. ESTY. Well thank you very much. As I’m sure you and Mr. 

Sumwalt know, Metro-North has now undertaken a number of initiatives to approve the safety culture, which many of you discussed 

earlier today, and practices throughout the railroad, including a 

change in leadership and a commitment to implement a Close Call 

Reporting System. And we want to work with you in whatever way 

possible to expedite that. 

Mr. SZABO. And, Congresswoman, if I could add, I am very, very 

encouraged by the commitment to this from both Chairman Tom 

Prendergast as well as the new president there, Joe Giulietti. I 

have had a conversation with him. He gets it. He is a forward 

thinker. 

32 

Ms. ESTY. Well thank you. We are very eager to move forward 

and get this resolved as quickly as possible. But I did also want 

to flag—so one of my concerns as we move forward is we do so in 

a way that guarantees passenger safety while also promoting reliable service. Passenger rail has to be safe and reliable, because if 

a railroad isn’t reliable, it will be safe, only because nobody is 

riding on it anymore. And if you look at what has happened with 

the numbers recently in Connecticut, we are having a drop of ontime performance and a reduction of people taking the rails. And 

that has implications too for our ability to maintain with the revenue flow. 

I know that the FRA has concluded its Operation Deep Dive and 

plans to release that report in March. I also note that the NTSB 

investigations are ongoing and plan to release those reports later 

this year. And I want to know from both of you, if I have your commitments to work directly with the State of Connecticut and with 

Metro-North so that we can restore serviceable liability as quickly 

as possible and any prior information you can share with us to expedite. 

We are in the middle of a legislative session that is 3 months 

long in Connecticut. They need to know budget priorities. They 

need to have direction, right now, or they will have to come back 

in special session. It will delay safety and delay reliability. 

Mr. DENHAM. Quick, all, a quick response. 

Mr. SZABO. Definitely, yes, already been in conversation with 

Commissioner Redeker up there in Connecticut and have promised 

him a briefing on this. So both commissioners’ offices in New York 

and Connecticut, as well as the Governor’s office, will be a part of 

our—— 

Mr. SUMWALT. Thank you. 

Mr. SZABO. Absolutely. That’s the short answer, and I would be 

glad to provide more for the record, if you like. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you and we will follow up. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

About 2 years ago, there was approximately zero gallons of 

Bakken crude running up the BNSF line north of Seattle to the 

four refineries, four of the five refineries located north of central 

California on the west coast. When all the reception facilities are 

built out, there will be about 12 million gallons per day traveling 

through the North. So this issue has really come on strong; and, 

as Representative Cramer said earlier, the technological ability to 

pull stuff out of the ground is kind of ahead of our ability to plan 

ahead for it, for its transportation. 

And so a lot of communities are playing catchup. So I have some 

questions, really, about that. A lot of great questions have been 

asked, but just some generated out of the committee meetings I 

had, first for FRA. What is the current inspection requirement before the agreement—for rail line inspection before the agreement 

came out? 

Mr. SZABO. Are you talking about for track inspection? 

Mr. LARSEN. Track inspection. 

33 

Mr. SZABO. It would depend on class of track and tonnage; but, 

in many cases, what that agreement does is take it from what was 

a foundation of two and up it to five. 

Mr. LARSEN. Two inspections? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. It does depend. There is not a simple answer 

to that. It is more kind of a—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. It is a formula base. Does the formula take 

into account the classification of the material being hauled, or is 

it strictly tonnage? 

Mr. SZABO. At this point the current reg I don’t believe addresses 

that. But, you know, that’s essentially where we are getting at with 

the agreement, where we get some immediate improvements. And, 

of course, everything will be continued to be reviewed as we look 

at our additional next steps. 

Mr. LARSEN. And we will do a followup with you on that. What 

is the oversight from the DOT to ensure that the signatories of the 

agreement maintain their commitment to the agreement? 

Mr. SZABO. We consider it, or plan to treat it as an enforceable 

agreement. You know. Even though it does not have the power of 

regulation and does not give us the ability to fine, we fully intend 

to inspect and audit in accord with that agreement. And should 

there be any slippage from the commitments, we are prepared to 

engage with those properties or call them out on it. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. So, again, as I understand the formula depends upon tonnage. It’s also what? 

Mr. SZABO. Class of track. 

Mr. LARSEN. Class of track. 

Mr. SZABO. For the record, we will get you full details. 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. That would be a great help for the folks that 

I represent. In the category we really can’t predict when the next 

incident will occur. Obviously, the committees that tackle Tim 

Walz’s comments, they really don’t believe they are prepared to respond to derailment of crude oil where there is an explosion. And 

pre-staging of equipment kind of gets—the only way to really be 

ready is to have equipment every half a mile, or whatever—just 

way too much equipment. 

So for Mr. Hamberger, one question we got out of the meetings 

I had is what does $5 million of additional training buy, exactly? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you. And, if I can just for the record also 

indicate from the standpoint of enforcement of this voluntary 

agreement, this is something that CEOs or chief operating officers 

have put their personal name on and their companies’ names behind. We stepped up in 35 days and said that we would take these 

actions. And so I think that there is no doubt in my mind that 

there will be a great deal of commitment within the companies to 

make sure we live up to those. 

The $5 million is designed in the short term to develop this module of focused on crude rail transport and to prepare at Pueblo, 

where we have the emergency response training center; to go out 

and get 20 tank cars, array them as if there had been an accident. 

Outfit them so in fact they will burn; buy foam; buy equipment for 

people to wear to go out at 2 o’clock in the morning to deal with 

the emergency; and, then also pay—help pay—for about 1500 local 

34 

emergency responders to go out there for a three or four—I guess 

it would be a three-day, very intense hands-on. We hope that—— 

Mr. LARSEN. I can send you 1500 tomorrow. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Understood. And to also pay for development 

of—granted it will be a 101 level, but to go into the communities. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. OK. All right. 

Ms. Quarterman, Administrator Quarterman, on the grants you 

announced, is this a 1-year deal? Is this a multiyear deal? Because 

I don’t know that our folks are ready to do it, but we have a history 

of doing, sort of, multijurisdiction grants. But I don’t know that 

we’re ready to do it this year. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It is every year these grants come forward, 

and if you need help or the folks in your community need help in 

filling out grant applications, please contact our office and we will 

help them. 

Mr. LARSEN. We will put it together. This has been a 21⁄2-month 

education for me, and I think we are going to be in this for a while. 

So I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

My friend, Mr. Hamberger, I thought you was going to build the 

car right here, the new car. But I want to commit that I am sure 

that the committee will work with you to help solve your positive 

train control problem with the poles. And so anything that we can 

do, whether it’s legislation, calling in the agency, we are willing to 

work with you, because we want to move forward. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. My question, really, a lot of discussion has been 

that it is not just one answer. You know, the new car; it is comprehensive. It is the tracks. It is the people that are driving the 

train. It is comprehensive. Can you expound on that for me, starting with—and resources? Because, basically, I understand that 

PHMSA—you only have how many employees? What, 704? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I wish we had 700. We have less than 500 in 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of 

which 200 work on pipeline issues, on the hazardous material 

issues for every mode, including air, rail, truck and ship. We have 

less than—about 175 people, about $45 million. There are approximately 50 inspectors that handle the movements of approximately 

1 million shipments of hazardous materials every day in this country to address this ongoing issue. 

We have had to pull resources from across not just the Department of Transportation, but also other agencies in Government to 

help us with testing, to help us get on top of this issue as quickly 

as possible. We have been doing these testings. So far we have 

spent, I would say, about one-half million dollars for budget of $45 

million. It is a lot of money, especially since we were in a hiring 

freeze last year. 

We have plans to do further testing this year that will cost another $400,000. Thankfully, we have—when our sister agency, 

FRA, is going to help us on some of the testing and research that 

needs to be done, but it is a mountainous challenge. You know. We 

35 

like to say we are small, but effective—mighty. There you go. But, 

certainly, it is a big resource challenge for us. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir? 

Mr. SZABO. Well you are talking about what does comprehensive 

mean, and it means, actually, from the moment it comes out of the 

ground through the delivery to the refinery, and we need to be taking a look at every, single step in that process, every single stakeholder in that process and understanding everything that everybody must be doing to ensure the safe delivery. 

First and foremost, it is about preventing an accident; but then 

the next steps are in what better become those rarer and rarer occasions—occurrences—how we mitigate the impact and then lastly 

the emergency response piece. And so we think we have had a very 

good start with what we have put together with the industry here 

over the past week, but there is more to come. We have got more 

work to do, and so this is just—you know—a continuation of ongoing efforts. 

Ms. BROWN. And NTSB, I met with you all in—I want to say— 

New York. And I understand you all have had to turn down some 

responses because of lack of funds. 

Mr. SUMWALT. We also are a very lean organization. We are trying to do as much as we can with what we have. As you know, we 

have four current investigations with Metro-North. The same day 

that we launched in Casselton, North Dakota, we sent an investigative team to Louisiana on a different rail accident. We have a 

lot going on, and we make sure that the products we come out with 

are thorough, accurate and complete. However, with more funding 

we could reduce our backlog and produce more products on a timely basis. 

Ms. BROWN. I would. 

Mr. SZABO. And, Chairwoman, if I could add on the resource 

piece, I didn’t touch on that. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, yes, sir. 

Mr. SZABO. You know, the Rail Safety Improvement Act did 

pledge 200 additional employees to FRA, and we have not received 

all of those. I would like to thank, obviously, Congress for the 45 

that were a part of the fiscal year 2014 appropriation. But we have 

not yet received all that we were promised almost 6 years ago. 

Ms. BROWN. But the last—do you want to say something about 

the employees? We constantly discuss the work hours. 

Mr. DENHAM. Quickly, Mr. Tolman. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Yeah, sure. As I mentioned in my testimony Congresswoman Brown, we need to work together with the carriers 

Rail Safety Improvement Act. There is a means for management to 

meet with labor and come up with risk assessment and reducing 

fatigue in the industry; that hasn’t happened in 51⁄2 years. It has 

to happen sooner than later. 

Ms. BROWN. Does it come up during contractual discussions? 

Mr. TOLMAN. No. It can come up in contractual. We have had 

great programs prior to the Rail Safety Improvement Act. We have 

had 7 and 3, 6 and 2. What’s happened in industry is really harmful to some of the members. They are leaving them over in their 

layover facilities. They operate away from home and stay over 

there 24, 36 hours, reset their clock, and now they get back home 

36 

after a 12-hour run. They haven’t been with their family for the 

last 36, 24 hours. They want to spend a little time with their family. Before they know it, they are back out, and that is no way to 

treat people, to make a living, or to have any quality of life. And 

it’s fatigue. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Tolman. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. TOLMAN. Thanks. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Szabo, I wanted to follow up on PTC. First of 

all, are any of the Class I freights going to meet the PTC deadline? 

Mr. SZABO. No. Certainly, most of them will reach some portion 

of deployment. BNSF is probably the furthest along, but I am not 

aware of any Class I that will meet full deployment. 

Mr. DENHAM. Why not? What are the major obstacles that are 

delaying them? 

Mr. SZABO. There is, basically, our report to Congress, almost 2 

years ago now, clearly articulated the technological, programmatic 

challenges that the industry faces in full deployment, and that is 

the point I want to make. The industry can and should continue 

to be both pressed and encouraged to deploy as far as possible, as 

quickly as possible. 

And I really think that it is important that Congress do give my 

agency the tools that we need for provisional certification of these 

implementation plans. Because right now, all we are authorized to 

do under the law that is given to us is to say yes or no on that 

implementation plan. And we are required, essentially, to say no 

if it doesn’t adhere to full deployment on that 2015 deadline. So we 

need some additional tools. 

Mr. DENHAM. Now, what obstacles are the FCC presenting? 

Mr. SZABO. It is significant and very concerning. We engaged 

with them again last month, you know. So we are certainly doing 

our job in making them understand how important this is to the 

public. This is about public safety—how important it is to the industry, how important it is to my agency; and, you know, continue 

to file comments with them to again heighten the importance of 

timely deployment. So that’s one additional obstacle over and above 

the list that was in our report to Congress. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Tolman, on PTC? 

Mr. TOLMAN. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Important necessity? 

Mr. TOLMAN. Extremely important. We do understand that there 

are obstacles. We clearly do, and I think it was echoed very loud 

and clear about transparency. I mean we need not delay this any 

further, and I know it has to be delayed because of the obstacles 

that are put in front of us. We are realists, but it needs to make 

sure that we have different benchmarks to say, OK, where are we 

in this process? I mean it’s extremely important. Otherwise, it is 

never going to get done. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Gerard, on PTC, is that something that can be helpful to you 

guys? 

37 

Mr. GERARD. Well I’m not a rail expert, but I will tell you that 

is one of those things we should consider as we look at this holistically to work on the prevention side. 

Mr. DENHAM. And Mr. Melaniphy, your testimony, you talked 

about the disconnect when the FCC says delays to PTC towers and 

construction approvals do not impact commuter railroads. Can you 

further explain that? 

Mr. MELANIPHY. There is some confusion as to what they can deploy and when they can deploy it; and if they want to put this 

equipment in place and they can’t do that, whether it is a dozen 

towers or hundreds of towers have got to put into place. They need 

to know what they can put in an application, when they can apply 

and how they can do that. Without that, they are left hanging and 

we can’t complete our systems if we don’t have that information. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening statement we will hopefully have by next 

week an update through December 31, 2013, railroad by railroad, 

and where we are each of these steps. The last, big stumbling block 

is backup of server technology, the software that does enable the 

actual communication inter operability between and among the 

railroads. So we will have that up here for you right now. We are 

projecting there are about 24,000 miles would be operable by the 

end of 2015, but not 60,000. But we will have made, I think, a very 

good progress by that time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Walz? 

Mr. WALZ. Well thank you. I am going to move to the other end 

of that spectrum from the catastrophic and then move to the prevention side of things. And Mayor Cabot in La Crescent, Minnesota, pointed out to me on that Mississippi River crossing, which 

is not unique. And I understand everyone’s going to line up. Everybody has their unique challenges, but that swing bridge there is 

one of the oldest in the country, one of the oldest crossing the Mississippi. Its companion road traffic bridge, highway bridge, was 

closed down for several months. It had catastrophic economic damage, because it was the same design as the one in Minnesota. We 

were very nervous after the I–35W bridge collapsed. The mayor 

told me that bridge has been struck five times in the last 10 years 

in accidents at the crossing. 

There is no other option, because that is how you get across the 

river. And my question to all of you is I understand you have a lot 

of these, and each Member could bring up one of these things, but 

my mayor is saying, you know, we’re going to prepare for things. 

We want to do this. But, really, the thing you could do is make 

sure this bridge is not 90 years old and gets there. How does that 

play out? 

What is the role of rail infrastructure investments that are being 

made? What’s the role of our State rail plan, which it’s on there? 

But, as they tell me, so are some other things. How do we address 

and how are those being laid out in terms of priorities for what 

they are? Because my fear is, down there, the life and limb and all 

that; but, if you get a catastrophic derailment on that bridge, you 

38 

shut down the Mississippi River. You will find out how quickly the 

economic numbers will go out the roof, because that’s the major— 

very important things being shipped. So I will leave it to the experts. How does it work in terms of coming together and how do 

we address that piece of it, that this is an infrastructure deficiency 

that is just waiting for an accident to happen, as my mayor said? 

So whoever wants it. 

Mr. SZABO. I guess I’ll go first. I mean I think two things. One, 

shortly after I came here as Administrator, we passed an out of 

regulation that sets up a rather rigorous bridge inspection protocol 

that all railroads are required to follow. And then we, in turn, 

audit their plan to make sure they are complying with all aspects 

of the regulation as well as their own bridge inspection protocol. 

On the capital investment side, if it is a short line, in particular, 

this is a drumbeat that I have been beating inside a lot of TIGER 

deliberations, particularly for capitally starved short line railroads. 

You know, track upgrades and bridge upgrades are very, very difficult improvements for the short lines, and yet they are critically 

necessary for this last mile delivery. And so continued support of 

the TIGER program, and if you are talking about a small railroad, 

identifying those things and supporting them through a TIGER application is one, potential way of helping generate some improvements. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Congressman, you raised exactly the two points 

that Mr. Szabo said was going to be my answer. There is on the 

safety side the requirement that these are inspected and that indeed they will continue to be able to operate safely. And then on 

the capital investment side, each railroad does make its own decisions as to where the investment is needed, based on traffic patterns and other needs. And so I don’t know the specifics of that 

particular bridge, but with that—— 

Mr. WALZ. What’s our responsibility, Mr. Melaniphy? I mean 

what is the State’s responsibility? The Federal Government’s responsibility? The short line railroad, itself, as Mr. Szabo kind of 

laid that out with the TIGER grants and all that? Because I certainly understand that it is critically important? 

Again, everybody’s deficient bridge is the most deficient in their 

mind. I understand that part. I’m not trying to say that, but what 

is our role to get these things upgraded and get it fixed? It is in 

our best interest to do that. 

Mr. MELANIPHY. From the public sector side, we must invest in 

a service transportation bill. Public sector entities were investing 

$3 billion in PTCs. Something has to give. And so we are taking 

dollars from one place and putting them in another. We have to invest in all the infrastructure. It all has to work together, whether 

it’s the switches, the rail bed, the bridges. All those things have to 

work together. We need a good service transportation bill so we can 

fund that infrastructure and make sure the entire system functions 

well. 

Mr. SZABO. Then I would say that we continue to urge a robust, 

sustained and predictable source of funding for rail to allow us to 

make capital grants. And to the extent that these are for short 

lines or for passenger rail improvements, safety improvements, it 

39 

is something that would be eligible under the program that we 

have proposed in the last couple of rounds of budgets. 

Mr. WALZ. Right. 

Mr. Gerard? 

Mr. GERARD. Mr. Walz, I was just going to add perhaps a different component or dimension to this, which is very important to 

the committee’s jurisdiction. We just recently conducted a study 

that over the next 12 years, when we look at infrastructure generally in the United States from an energy standpoint, we are projected to expand $1 trillion in the next 12 years in the United 

States building energy infrastructure. It is estimated that will generate 1.1 million new jobs, just building this infrastructure. 

Mr. WALZ. And that infrastructure can’t be separate from the 

mobile infrastructure that we are going to need to move. 

Mr. GERARD. Precisely, and it all brings us back to the safety 

question, to make sure we are safe. The other thing, though, that 

we keep emphasizing policy matters, not only from a safety standpoint, but our ability to move permitting operations. To be able to 

invest this capital is a great opportunity for the country as we 

move to energy security, but those are real dollars, and they are 

all private sector dollars that assist a broader economy. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would be remiss if I didn’t answer that question as well, if I can, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Very quickly, quickly. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. That our ability to reinvest does depend upon 

this committee continuing to support the balanced economic-regulatory system that governs our industry. So, thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So back to my community meetings. There is some question, Mr. 

Gerard, about the vapor pressure of Bakken. And you’ve also mentioned on page 2 of your testimony regarding the 600 accounting 

standards, and I understand you are working on your 601st with 

regard to classification crude. Could you explain to me, one, what 

the project is? And, second, could you talk about what you all know 

about Bakken regarding vapor pressure and if it’s—at least from 

your perspective is it any different? Is it the same? How should the 

communities be thinking about this? 

Mr. GERARD. Let me take the second one first, if I can, Congressman. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. 

Mr. GERARD. Bakken oil is comparable to other light crude oils. 

Now, I know in the media there’s been speculation. There’s been 

talk about volatility and other things, but it falls within that range 

when you test it, and this is what we are hearing back from our 

members, that it falls within that range of typically what you see 

from light crudes, same or see in Texas and elsewhere. 

The vapor pressure issue is an important one, because that’s one 

currently that’s not required by the regs to test for purposes of 

classification. However, the boiling point and the flash point, which 

we do test for today under regulation, we believe was an indication 

of volatility. Because up until about 1990, I believe, the regulator 

used to require a vapor pressure test. 

40 

So when you look at it today, there has been some news reports 

that we believe are unfounded that are not based on good data. If 

you look at the data today, once again, it shows that that Bakken 

oil is in that range of vapor pressures that you typically find in a 

light crude. So, again, it’s so important we get to the data. We get 

to the facts and away from the speculation to make sure we are 

treating these commodities, these products just to—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, I understand you have some work to do. 

Mr. GERARD. Absolutely. 

Mr. LARSEN. Because you could also say that the Seattle 

Seahawks are comparable to a Boy’s Club team and that they are 

both football teams. 

Mr. GERARD. I would never say that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Neither would I, and I think that’s what folks had 

the impression that, yes, they are both crude. They are comparable 

and they are crude, but there’s a wide difference between that 

crude and this crude. 

Mr. GERARD. Well, no. There is not a wide difference, and that’s 

the point. 

Mr. LARSEN. I’m telling you what people in my community think. 

Mr. GERARD. Oh, I understand. I understand. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. That is what I am talking about. 

Mr. GERARD. I understand. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. 

Mr. GERARD. Now, to the standard setting part, and this is 

what’s most important about where we are today, because we are 

looking at things like vapor pressure. We were looking holistically 

at the entire regulatory regime from a standard setting process. 

The 600-plus standards we’ve developed, the API was originally established as a standard setting organization. So we have to get accredited. We get audited every 5 years by the American National 

Standards Institute. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Mr. GERARD. Which comes in and makes sure that we are transparent in our operations, that we are all inclusive, and that we 

bring the best minds together to look at these issues. These go well 

beyond the industry. We have got FIMs that participate in this 

process. We have academics. We have the railroads and others. So, 

really, what we are trying to do is look holistically. 

We know that we can move 99.99 percent of the products safely. 

Our challenge is to move that last piece of risk out of the system, 

so we get to zero incidents, so you can have confidence. Your constituents can have confidence. We have done everything we can to 

have zero incident system here. So in that process we go through, 

we bring in the experts. We look at vapor pressure. We are looking 

at coercivity. 

We are looking at a lot of issues well beyond this. And we expect 

to come back with a best practice, with a standard that oft-times 

is well above what the law requires. And many times, at least in 

the oil and gas base, we are the most heavily highly quoted, standard setting group on a global scale in the oil and gas space. 

That’s our hope. That’s our expectation with a single focus: safety 

and improvement in the performance that we are trying to achieve. 

Mr. LARSEN. And a timeline? 

41 

Mr. GERARD. We expect to have that done in 6 months or less. 

It’s on a fast track. Most of these under the accreditation processes 

take about 2 years to develop. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Mr. GERARD. We are expediting this. We are moving it forward 

quickly, and expect to have an earlier outcome. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gerard. 

Mr. Hamberger, could you explain again about the information 

available, you mentioned online information put online about— 

well, I thought I heard you say about the material coming through 

our communities. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Right now, any community can request and will 

be given exactly what is coming through that community on a lookback basis. We try to gauge the training of the emergency responders in that community to what is going through. The paper consist 

is on the head end of the train with the crew if there is an accident. 

There is also, of course, a 1–800 number that the emergency responders are given to call into the dispatch center to find out 

what’s on that train, and we are developing an Internet base that 

you could get electronic consist immediately. We hope to have that 

by the third quarter of this year. 

Mr. LARSEN. Third quarter of this year. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, and thank you for the safety hearing. 

And I think the next hearing should be in what—North Dakota, 

wherever it is? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. When it warms up. 

Mr. GERARD. We’ll invite you out in the spring. 

Ms. BROWN. They said in the spring, but I think that that would 

be the next step, because I think the industry has just grown so 

much in the past. You said every 5 years, I mean, but it seems like 

in the last 6 months to a year it has totally changed. 

Mr. GERARD. Yes, it is really remarkable when you look at what’s 

happened; and, 5 years ago, no one would have predicted it, but it 

is a very unique American opportunity for us today. So we are 

hopeful to be able to deal with the challenges, like safety and others, to really seize this moment. We are seeing it not only in job 

creation, but most recently, we are the single largest sector that is 

reducing our trade imbalance today. 

Foreign imports today are down in the small 30-plus percent 

range, down from over 50 just a few years ago. So it is really making a big difference. We got a lot of manufacturing coming back to 

the country, because of this affordable, reliable energy. So we think 

this is an issue that transcends political parties and everybody 

else, and we want to go to work collectively together to make sure 

we achieve it. 

Ms. BROWN. Well we are really excited about it, but I guess I 

hear a lot of talk, so I need to go see it. There is a difference in 

the crude and that you may need a different kind of pipeline or a 

different kind of car. So I think, you know, we are talking about 

it and we are discussing it. But it is nothing like us going on an 

actual field trip. So I am recommending that we take that. 

42 

Mr. GERARD. We would love to help facilitate that, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Brown. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And it is on our plans. It is something 

very important to this committee, something very important to the 

Nation. We want to be able to see, first-hand, the tank cars, the 

pipes, the full transportation and production up there. 

I want to thank all the Members today. This, again, was such an 

important hearing. I heard from a lot of Members on both sides of 

the aisle on how important this was; and, certainly, there’s not 

enough time in one of these hearings to get through all questions. 

So we will be submitting a number of others with you. But let me 

close in saying we have got a lot of hurdles, you know, especially 

with—well, we have a very, very safe record. In all of our discussions and all of our meetings we have continued to say there are 

more things that we can do. And so we need to continue these discussions on; but, especially, where we are awaiting action from the 

Administration—PTC, for example—still continue to have big hurdles with FCC. 

I know that there are certain areas of the Nation where we can 

move forward and should move forward, and can prevent other 

safety issues. With tank cars, we know that there are newer opportunities, newer tank cars, newer developments, but we certainly before any private company—before any industry is going to commit 

to a huge capital expenditure—they need standards. And so we are 

going to be working with each of the different agencies to make 

sure that we are getting this information back out to you, so that 

we can continue to improve upon safety across the board. 

If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent 

that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as 

witnesses have provided answers to our questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record 

remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information 

submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in today’s 

record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for the testimony 

today and your patience with our voting schedule. 

The committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

43 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86845.006
44 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86845.007
45 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86845.008
46 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86845.009
47 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86845.010
48 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86845.011
49 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86845.012
50 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86845.013
51 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86845.014
52 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86845.015
53 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86845.016
54 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86845.017
55 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86845.018
56 


Insert offset folio 19 here 86845.019
57 


Insert offset folio 20 here 86845.020
58 


Insert offset folio 21 here 86845.021
59 


Insert offset folio 22 here 86845.022
60 


Insert offset folio 23 here 86845.023
61 


Insert offset folio 24 here 86845.024
62 


Insert offset folio 25 here 86845.025
63 


Insert offset folio 26 here 86845.026
64 


Insert offset folio 27 here 86845.027
65 


Insert offset folio 28 here 86845.028
66 


Insert offset folio 29 here 86845.029
67 


Insert offset folio 30 here 86845.030
68 


Insert offset folio 31 here 86845.031
69 


Insert offset folio 32 here 86845.032
70 


Insert offset folio 33 here 86845.033
71 


Insert offset folio 34 here 86845.034
72 


Insert offset folio 35 here 86845.035
73 


Insert offset folio 36 here 86845.036
74 


Insert offset folio 37 here 86845.037
75 


Insert offset folio 38 here 86845.038
76 


Insert offset folio 39 here 86845.039
77 


Insert offset folio 40 here 86845.040
78 


Insert offset folio 41 here 86845.041
79 


Insert offset folio 42 here 86845.042
80 


Insert offset folio 43 here 86845.043
81 


Insert offset folio 44 here 86845.044
82 


Insert offset folio 45 here 86845.045
83 


Insert offset folio 46 here 86845.046
84 


Insert offset folio 47 here 86845.047
85 


Insert offset folio 48 here 86845.048
86 


Insert offset folio 49 here 86845.049
87 


Insert offset folio 50 here 86845.050
88 


Insert offset folio 51 here 86845.051
89 


Insert offset folio 52 here 86845.052
90 


Insert offset folio 53 here 86845.053
91 


Insert offset folio 54 here 86845.054
92 


Insert offset folio 55 here 86845.055
93 


Insert offset folio 56 here 86845.056
94 


Insert offset folio 57 here 86845.057
95 


Insert offset folio 58 here 86845.058
96 


Insert offset folio 59 here 86845.059
97 


Insert offset folio 60 here 86845.060
98 


Insert offset folio 61 here 86845.061
99 


Insert offset folio 62 here 86845.062
100 


Insert offset folio 63 here 86845.063
101 


Insert offset folio 64 here 86845.064
102 


Insert offset folio 65 here 86845.065
103 


Insert offset folio 66 here 86845.066
104 


Insert offset folio 67 here 86845.067
105 


Insert offset folio 68 here 86845.068
106 


Insert offset folio 69 here 86845.069
107 


Insert offset folio 70 here 86845.070
108 


Insert offset folio 71 here 86845.071
109 


Insert offset folio 72 here 86845.072
110 


Insert offset folio 73 here 86845.073
111 


Insert offset folio 74 here 86845.074
112 


Insert offset folio 75 here 86845.075
113 


Insert offset folio 76 here 86845.076
114 


Insert offset folio 77 here 86845.077
115 


Insert offset folio 78 here 86845.078
116 


Insert offset folio 79 here 86845.079
117 


Insert offset folio 80 here 86845.080
118 


Insert offset folio 81 here 86845.081
119 


Insert offset folio 82 here 86845.082
120 


Insert offset folio 83 here 86845.083
121 


Insert offset folio 84 here 86845.084
122 


Insert offset folio 85 here 86845.085
123 


Insert offset folio 86 here 86845.086
124 


Insert offset folio 87 here 86845.087
125 


Insert offset folio 88 here 86845.088
126 


Insert offset folio 89 here 86845.089
127 


Insert offset folio 90 here 86845.090
128 


Insert offset folio 91 here 86845.091
129 


Insert offset folio 92 here 86845.092
130 


Insert offset folio 93 here 86845.093
131 


Insert offset folio 94 here 86845.094
132 


Insert offset folio 95 here 86845.095
133 


Insert offset folio 96 here 86845.096
134 


Insert offset folio 97 here 86845.097
135 


Insert offset folio 98 here 86845.098
136 


Insert offset folio 99 here 86845.099
137 


Insert offset folio 100 here 86845.100
138 


Insert offset folio 101 here 86845.101
139 


Insert offset folio 102 here 86845.102
140 


Insert offset folio 103 here 86845.103
141 


Insert offset folio 104 here 86845.104
142 


Insert offset folio 105 here 86845.105
143 


Insert offset folio 106 here 86845.106
144 


Insert offset folio 107 here 86845.107
145 


Insert offset folio 108 here 86845.108
146 


Insert offset folio 109 here 86845.109
147 


Insert offset folio 110 here 86845.110
148 


Insert offset folio 111 here 86845.111
149 


Insert offset folio 112 here 86845.112
150 


Insert offset folio 113 here 86845.113
151 


Insert offset folio 114 here 86845.114
152 


Insert offset folio 115 here 86845.115
153 


Insert offset folio 116 here 86845.116
154 


Insert offset folio 117 here 86845.117
155 


Insert offset folio 118 here 86845.118
156 


Insert offset folio 119 here 86845.119
157 


Insert offset folio 120 here 86845.120
158 


Insert offset folio 121 here 86845.121
159 


Insert offset folio 122 here 86845.122
160 


Insert offset folio 123 here 86845.123
161 


Insert offset folio 124 here 86845.124
162 


Insert offset folio 125 here 86845.125
163 


Insert offset folio 126 here 86845.126
164 


Insert offset folio 127 here 86845.127
165 


Insert offset folio 128 here 86845.128
166 


Insert offset folio 129 here 86845.129
167 


Insert offset folio 130 here 86845.130
168 


Insert offset folio 131 here 86845.131
169 


Insert offset folio 132 here 86845.132
170 


Insert offset folio 133 here 86845.133
171 


Insert offset folio 134 here 86845.134
172 


Insert offset folio 135 here 86845.135
173 


Insert offset folio 136 here 86845.136
174 


Insert offset folio 137 here 86845.137
175 


Insert offset folio 138 here 86845.138
176 


Insert offset folio 139 here 86845.139
177 


Insert offset folio 140 here 86845.140
178 


Insert offset folio 141 here 86845.141
179 


Insert offset folio 142 here 86845.142
180 


Insert offset folio 143 here 86845.143
181 


Insert offset folio 144 here 86845.144
182 


Insert offset folio 145 here 86845.145
183 


Insert offset folio 146 here 86845.146
184 


Insert offset folio 147 here 86845.147
185 


Insert offset folio 148 here 86845.148
186 


Insert offset folio 149 here 86845.149
187 


Insert offset folio 150 here 86845.150
188 


Insert offset folio 151 here 86845.151
189 


Insert offset folio 152 here 86845.152
190 


Insert offset folio 153 here 86845.153
191 


Insert offset folio 154 here 86845.154
192 


Insert offset folio 155 here 86845.155
193 


Insert offset folio 156 here 86845.156
194 


Insert offset folio 157 here 86845.157
195 


Insert offset folio 158 here 86845.158
196 


Insert offset folio 159 here 86845.159
197 


Insert offset folio 160 here 86845.160
198 


Insert offset folio 161 here 86845.161
199 


Insert offset folio 162 here 86845.162
200 


Insert offset folio 163 here 86845.163
201 


Insert offset folio 164 here 86845.164
202 


Insert offset folio 165 here 86845.165
203 


Insert offset folio 166 here 86845.166
204 


Insert offset folio 167 here 86845.167
205 


Insert offset folio 168 here 86845.168
206 


Insert offset folio 169 here 86845.169
207 


Insert offset folio 170 here 86845.170
208 


Insert offset folio 171 here 86845.171
209 


Insert offset folio 172 here 86845.172
210 


Insert offset folio 173 here 86845.173
211 


Insert offset folio 174 here 86845.174
212 


Insert offset folio 175 here 86845.175
213 


Insert offset folio 176 here 86845.176
214 


Insert offset folio 177 here 86845.177
215 


Insert offset folio 178 here 86845.178
216 


Insert offset folio 179 here 86845.179
217 


Insert offset folio 180 here 86845.180
218 


Insert offset folio 181 here 86845.181
219 


Insert offset folio 182 here 86845.182
220 


Insert offset folio 183 here 86845.183
221 


Insert offset folio 184 here 86845.184
222 


Insert offset folio 185 here 86845.185
223 


Insert offset folio 186 here 86845.186
224 


Insert offset folio 187 here 86845.187
225 


Insert offset folio 188 here 86845.188
226 


Insert offset folio 189 here 86845.189
227 


Insert offset folio 190 here 86845.190
228 


Insert offset folio 191 here 86845.191
229 


Insert offset folio 192 here 86845.192
230 


Insert offset folio 193 here 86845.193
231 


Insert offset folio 194 here 86845.194
232 


Insert offset folio 195 here 86845.195
233 


Insert offset folio 196 here 86845.196
234 


Insert offset folio 197 here 86845.197
235 


Insert offset folio 198 here 86845.198
236 


Insert offset folio 199 here 86845.199
237 


Insert offset folio 200 here 86845.200
238 


Insert offset folio 201 here 86845.201
239 


Insert offset folio 202 here 86845.202
240 


Insert offset folio 203 here 86845.203
241 


Insert offset folio 204 here 86845.204
242 


Insert offset folio 205 here 86845.205
243 


Insert offset folio 206 here 86845.206
244 


Insert offset folio 207 here 86845.207
245 


Insert offset folio 208 here 86845.208
246 


Insert offset folio 209 here 86845.209
247 


Insert offset folio 210 here 86845.210
248 


Insert offset folio 211 here 86845.211
249 


Insert offset folio 212 here 86845.212
250 


Insert offset folio 213 here 86845.213
251 


Insert offset folio 214 here 86845.214
252 


Insert offset folio 215 here 86845.215
253 


Insert offset folio 216 here 86845.216
254 


Insert offset folio 217 here 86845.217
255 


Insert offset folio 218 here 86845.218
256 


Insert offset folio 219 here 86845.219
257 


Insert offset folio 220 here 86845.220
258 


Insert offset folio 221 here 86845.221
259 


Insert offset folio 222 here 86845.222
260 


Insert offset folio 223 here 86845.223
261 


Insert offset folio 224 here 86845.224
262 


Insert offset folio 225 here 86845.225
263 


Insert offset folio 226 here 86845.226
264 


Insert offset folio 227 here 86845.227
265 


Insert offset folio 228 here 86845.228
266 


Insert offset folio 229 here 86845.229
267 


Insert offset folio 230 here 86845.230
268 


Insert offset folio 231 here 86845.231
269 


Insert offset folio 232 here 86845.232
270 


Insert offset folio 233 here 86845.233
271 


Insert offset folio 234 here 86845.234
272 


Insert offset folio 235 here 86845.235
273 


Insert offset folio 236 here 86845.236
274 


Insert offset folio 237 here 86845.237
275 


Insert offset folio 238 here 86845.238
276 


Insert offset folio 239 here 86845.239
277 


Insert offset folio 240 here 86845.240
278 


Insert offset folio 241 here 86845.241
279 


Insert offset folio 242 here 86845.242
280 


Insert offset folio 243 here 86845.243
281 


Insert offset folio 244 here 86845.244
282 


Insert offset folio 245 here 86845.245
283 


Insert offset folio 246 here 86845.246
284 


Insert offset folio 247 here 86845.247
285 


Insert offset folio 248 here 86845.248
286 


Insert offset folio 249 here 86845.249
287 


Insert offset folio 250 here 86845.250
288 


Insert offset folio 251 here 86845.251
289 


Insert offset folio 252 here 86845.252
290 


Insert offset folio 253 here 86845.253
291 


Insert offset folio 254 here 86845.254
292 


Insert offset folio 255 here 86845.255
293 


Insert offset folio 256 here 86845.256
294 


Insert offset folio 257 here 86845.257
295 


Insert offset folio 258 here 86845.258
296 


Insert offset folio 259 here 86845.259
297 


Insert offset folio 260 here 86845.260
298 


Insert offset folio 261 here 86845.261
299 


Insert offset folio 262 here 86845.262
300 


Insert offset folio 263 here 86845.263
301 


Insert offset folio 264 here 86845.264
302 


Insert offset folio 265 here 86845.265
303 


Insert offset folio 266 here 86845.266
304 


Insert offset folio 267 here 86845.267
305 


Insert offset folio 268 here 86845.268
306 


Insert offset folio 269 here 86845.269
307 


Insert offset folio 270 here 86845.270
308 


Insert offset folio 271 here 86845.271
309 


Insert offset folio 272 here 86845.272
310 


Insert offset folio 273 here 86845.273
311 


Insert offset folio 274 here 86845.274
312 


Insert offset folio 275 here 86845.275
313 


Insert offset folio 276 here 86845.276
314 


Insert offset folio 277 here 86845.277
315 


Insert offset folio 278 here 86845.278
316 


Insert offset folio 279 here 86845.279
317 


Insert offset folio 280 here 86845.280
318 


Insert offset folio 281 here 86845.281
319 


Insert offset folio 282 here 86845.282
320 


Insert offset folio 283 here 86845.283
321 


Insert offset folio 284 here 86845.284
322 


Insert offset folio 285 here 86845.285
323 


Insert offset folio 286 here 86845.286
324 


Insert offset folio 287 here 86845.287
325 


Insert offset folio 288 here 86845.288
326 


Insert offset folio 289 here 86845.289
327 


Insert offset folio 290 here 86845.290
328 


Insert offset folio 291 here 86845.291
329 


Insert offset folio 292 here 86845.292
330 


Insert offset folio 293 here 86845.293
331 


Insert offset folio 294 here 86845.294
332 


Insert offset folio 295 here 86845.295
333 


Insert offset folio 296 here 86845.296
334 


Insert offset folio 297 here 86845.297
335 


Insert offset folio 298 here 86845.298
336 


Insert offset folio 299 here 86845.299
337 


Insert offset folio 300 here 86845.300
338 


Insert offset folio 301 here 86845.301
339 


Insert offset folio 302 here 86845.302
340 


Insert offset folio 303 here 86845.303
341 


Insert offset folio 304 here 86845.304
342 


Insert offset folio 305 here 86845.305
343 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 306 here 86845.306