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

87–432 PDF 2014

EXAMINING ISSUES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

REAUTHORIZATION 

(113–63) 

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 

APRIL 2, 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 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

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 .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ................................................................................. 8 

William F. Downey, executive vice president for corporate affairs and chief 

security officer, The Kenan Advantage Group, Inc., on behalf of the American Trucking Associations .................................................................................. 8 

Thomas E. Schick, senior director of distribution, Regulatory and Technical 

Affairs, American Chemistry Council ................................................................. 8 

Stephen Pelkey, chairman, Transportation Committee, American Pyrotechnics 

Association ............................................................................................................ 8 

Elizabeth M. Harman, assistant to the general president for hazardous materials, weapons of mass destruction training, and grants administration, 

International Association of Fire Fighters ......................................................... 8 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 47 

Hon. Janice Hahn, of California .............................................................. 50 

William F. Downey, prepared statement ............................................................... 53 

Thomas E. Schick: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Janice Hahn, of California 62 

Stephen Pelkey: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 71 

Hon. Janice Hahn, of California .............................................................. 76 

Elizabeth M. Harman, prepared statement ........................................................... 77 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

request to submit a list of issues surrounding the movement of hazardous 

materials compiled by the following rail organizations: ATDA, BLET, 

BMWED, BRS, IAM, IBEW, TCU and TCU Carmen, IBT Teamsters, TWU, 

and SMART—Transportation Division .............................................................. 4 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, responses to requests for information from 

the following Representatives: 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, of California, regarding the safety and security 

of toxic gas shipments .................................................................................. 23 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida, regarding testing information that 

PHMSA has requested of the American Petroleum Institute ................... 33 

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, of Maryland, regarding PHMSA’s assessment 

of penalties over the past decade ................................................................. 38 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Air Line Pilots Association, International, written testimony ............................. 84 

Page

IV 

John P. Tolman, vice president and national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, written testimony ................ 93 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, written testimony ...................................... 97 

Cynthia Hilton, executive vice president, Institute of Makers of Explosives, 

written testimony ................................................................................................. 100 

LaMont Byrd, director, Safety and Health Department, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, written testimony ................................................................ 107 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 87432.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 87432.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 87432.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 87432.004
(1) 

EXAMINING ISSUES FOR HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS REAUTHORIZATION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 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 2:15 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. Before we 

begin, I have an administrative item to cover. I would like to ask 

unanimous consent that former chairman, Don Young, and Representative Rick Larsen be permitted to join the subcommittee for 

today’s hearing, and ask questions. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. Well, good afternoon, 

and welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials. Our hearing today will focus on reauthorizing of the Hazardous Materials Safety Program of the Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA. The current authorization was part of MAP–21, which expires October 1, 

2014. 

Our goal is to continue the advances made by MAP–21 in reducing regulatory burdens while ensuring hazardous materials are 

transported in a safe and efficient manner. We have a distinguished panel of witnesses today, and it is my pleasure to welcome 

back once again Ms. Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator of 

PHMSA, as well as—as you know, the Transportation Committee 

is working on a reauthorization of MAP–21, and I am proud that 

Chairman Shuster’s leadership on the committee is looking at addressing a wide variety of transportation needs, including the reauthorization of the Hazardous Materials Safety Program. So, I look 

forward to the testimony and discussion today, as we move forward 

in that process. 

The movement of hazardous materials in commerce is integral to 

our Nation’s health and economy. Hazmats include common, everyday products like paints, fuels, fertilizers, fireworks, explosive, alcohols, and batteries, that are essential to such industries as farming, medicine, manufacturing, mining, water purification, and entertainment industries. 

PHMSA is the agency within DOT entrusted with that mission, 

and determines what materials are hazardous, and promulgates 

2 

and enforces, among others, the regulations that set forth the packaging, marking, labeling, placarding, and other requirements for 

the movement of these goods. 

Unlike other modal administrations within the DOT, PHMSA is 

unique in that its regulations apply across the modes, reaching to 

every form of commercial goods transportation. Our role is to ensure that these goods are moved in a safe, reliable manner that 

helps drive our continued economic growth. 

MAP–21 made several reforms and established new requirements for the transportation of hazmats. And I am looking forward 

to hearing about their ongoing implementation. A number of these 

requirements were important to developing new technologies and 

standards for hazmat transportation, improving the data collection 

analysis, and reporting of the agencies, and improving training for 

first responders and hazmat employees. 

MAP–21 also set new requirements and reviews of programs and 

processes to create more regulatory certainty, establish greater 

transparency, and cut red tape. In addition, the act enhanced enforcement power to ensure an already safe industry was made 

safer. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, including PHMSA 

Administrator Quarterman; Mr. Downey, on behalf of the American 

Trucking Associations; Mr. Schick, of the American Chemistry 

Council; Mr. Pelkey, of the American Pyrotechnics Association; and 

Ms. Harman, with the International Association of Fire Fighters, 

regarding these issues concerning hazmat transportation. 

I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Corrine 

Brown from Florida, for 5 minutes for any opening statement she 

may have. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The subcommittee is 

meeting today to hear testimony on reauthorization of the Department of Transportation hazmat program, which was last reauthorized in MAP–21. This hearing is very timely, because the purpose 

of this program is to protect people and the environment from the 

risks of hazardous material transportation. 

In just a few weeks, on April the 28th, we will observe Workers 

Memorial Day to remember those who have suffered and died on 

the job, and to renew efforts to safeguard our Nation’s workers. 

Just 44 years ago, Congress passed the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act, promising every worker the right to a safe job. Since 

that time, many in Congress have fought hard to make this promise a reality. But our work is far from done. 

Many jobs—hazards still exist, particularly in hazardous material transportation. Since I was first elected to Congress, one issue 

comes up every time we authorize the hazmat program: the authorizing of OSHA and DOT to protect hazmat workers. Let me be 

clear. The role these two agencies play in protecting hazmat workers is crucial. Yet some in the industry have proposed to eliminate 

OSHA jurisdiction, claiming that there are overlaps and confusing 

regulation. This is not the case. 

DOT has regulations on packaging and on safety procedures for 

loading and unloading materials. On the other hand, OSHA has 

regulations that provide for worker safety, including noise and air 

quality control, emergency preparation, personal protection equipVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\4-2-14~1\87432.TXT JEAN
3 

ment, and hazard communications. These regulations are not new. 

DOT and OSHA have shared this responsibility for decades, and 

these regulations are critical to maintaining the highest level of 

safety for hazmat workers. 

The fact is that 12 workers die every day in our country from 

work-related injuries. In 2013 alone, more than 4,300 workers were 

killed at work. I am committed to maintaining a safe and healthy 

workplace for all American workers, including those in this critical 

industry. And I will work to defeat any proposal that would eliminate OSHA protection for hazmat workers. 

In my home State of Florida, we recently had several dangerous 

explosions involving hazmat material. In July of last year, eight 

workers were in critical condition following an explosion at a Blue 

Rhino plant that was—forced an evacuation of area residents and 

shook houses 10 miles away. In July of 2007, a devastating explosion at the T2 chemical plant located close to my home in Jacksonville, Florida, killed 4 people and injured 32. 

Not only must we ensure the safety of hazmat workers, but we 

also need to focus on the safety of those responding to hazmat accidents, like our Nation’s firefighters. I want to give a special welcome to the Democratic witness from the International Association 

of Fire Fighters, Elizabeth Harman. With her help last Congress, 

we were able to enact strong training standards in MAP–21 for 

firefighters and other emergency responders, and ensure continuing funding for important firefighters training program. According to DOT, more than 2 million emergency responders received training through their program. 

With that, I welcome the witnesses and look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in today’s 

hearing record a written statement from the Transportation Trades 

Department of AFL–CIO and 10 labor unions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

4 


Insert offset folio 5 here 87432.005
5 


Insert offset folio 6 here 87432.006
6 


Insert offset folio 7 here 87432.007
7 


Insert offset folio 8 here 87432.008
8 

Mr. DENHAM. I would like to again welcome our witnesses 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 you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. 

Ms. Quarterman, you may proceed. Thank you for joining us. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION; WILLIAM F. DOWNEY, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, THE KENAN ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC., ON 

BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; 

THOMAS E. SCHICK, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF DISTRIBUTION, 

REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL AFFAIRS, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; STEPHEN PELKEY, CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, AMERICAN PYROTECHNICS ASSOCIATION; AND ELIZABETH M. HARMAN, ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL PRESIDENT FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, WEAPONS 

OF MASS DESTRUCTION TRAINING, AND GRANTS ADMINISTRATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you for having me. Good afternoon, 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify on 

PHMSA’s progress in implementing Title III of the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act, also known as MAP–21. 

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

Transportation, PHMSA, and all of its employees. All of us at DOT 

appreciate your dedication and leadership in advancing hazardous 

materials transportation safety. For a relatively small agency with 

limited resources, the staff at PHMSA works diligently to protect 

the American people and the environment from hazardous materials transportation incidents, and have made great strides in implementing the provisions included in MAP–21. 

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

meet more than 90 percent of the established timelines for the 32 

separate provisions assigned to the agency. This is very significant, 

especially given the many challenges and emerging issues that 

PHMSA has faced over the same time period, including efforts to 

enhance the safe transportation of crude by rail, and continuing to 

consistently reduce the number of major hazardous materials incidents, as we have done over the past 25 years. 

A significant contributor to PHMSA’s success has been the strategy and action plan we developed and implemented to bolster compliance with hazardous materials regulations. As the transportation sector continues to evolve and become more interconnected 

with the international community, PHMSA has attempted to adopt 

smarter strategies to adapt to the challenges. 

As part of our enforcement strategy, and through the authority 

of MAP–21, PHMSA raised its maximum civil penalty amount for 

violations resulting in death, illnesses, and injuries. In addition, 

9 

PHMSA is moving forward with advancing efforts in hazardous 

materials research and development. Our hazardous materials 

technical assessment research and development and analysis program is allowing us to work cooperatively with stakeholders to 

identify and mitigate hazardous materials risks, and to promote innovative approaches to support a safe, multimodal hazardous materials transportation system. 

We are also working to develop uniform performance standards 

for training our hazardous materials inspectors and investigators 

to ensure field staff continue to accurately identify instances of 

noncompliance and take appropriate enforcement actions. 

In addition to the nonregulatory efforts to improve safety I just 

described, PHMSA is continuing to fulfill our commitment to 

streamline hazardous materials regulations and processes. Since 

2011, PHMSA has been reviewing and analyzing special permits to 

determine which ones can be converted into the hazardous materials regulations. We are currently working on a rulemaking effort 

that will address the conversion of active special permits into regulations that we expect to be published by October of this year. 

These are just a few of the many actions PHMSA has undertaken to address and implement the mandates included in MAP– 

21. As I have stated earlier, PHMSA is committed to improving 

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

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

hazardous materials transportation, and I truly believe our efforts 

will continue to prevent and mitigate accidents and move us closer 

to our goal of zero deaths and incidents. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to safeguard people, 

property, and the environment from hazardous materials transportation risks. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Quarterman. 

Mr. Downey? 

Mr. DOWNEY. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about reauthorizing the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. 

My name is William Downey, and I am the executive vice president and chief security officer for The Kenan Advantage Group, 

which is located in North Canton, Ohio. We are North America’s 

largest tank truck transporter and logistics provider to the petroleum, specialty products, and merchant gas industries. We employ 

approximately 9,000 people, and we are the only fuels delivery carrier with a nationwide presence. I am testifying today on behalf of 

the American Trucking Associations and the National Tank Truck 

Carriers. ATA and NTTC are members of the Interested Parties 

group, and endorse their comprehensive recommendations for 

hazmat reauthorization. 

Of the roughly 800,000 shipments of hazmat on a daily basis, in 

terms of product value, tonnage, and number of shipments, trucks 

move more hazmat than all other transportation modes, combined. 

Today I propose three commonsense solutions to improve the safe, 

secure, and efficient transport of hazmat. First, the present backVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\4-2-14~1\87432.TXT JEAN
10 

ground screening process for hazmat endorsement on a commercial 

driver’s license can be reformed. Second, the proposed wet lines 

rule can be halted. And, finally, the State hazmat permitting process can be improved. 

On background screening, presently a TSA-administered fingerprint-based background check is required for all hazmat CDL endorsements. This costs $86.50 in States that use TSA’s contractor, 

but as much as $150 in States that perform the checks themselves. 

This security check is required for transporting all hazmat, including paint, nail polish, or alcohol-based products like perfume. None 

of those products pose a weaponized threat. 

Congress should limit fingerprint background checks to drivers 

transporting weaponized hazmat, also called ‘‘security sensitive 

hazmat.’’ All hazmat drivers would still be required to pass the relevant safety tests, as well as the name-based background checks. 

Drivers transporting security-sensitive hazmat would also be required to undergo a fingerprint-based background check before acquiring another card demonstrating the driver poses no terrorist 

threat. This proposal passed the House in 2009 with bipartisan 

support as part of the SAFE Truckers Act. 

To my second recommendation, wet lines are fuel-loading pipes 

used to fill and drain cargo tanks. MAP–21 banned PHMSA from 

issuing any final wet line regulation until GAO studied the rule. 

PHMSA’s proposed regulation had very few benefits and high cost. 

Because of this, and the fact that better alternatives are available, 

GAO recommended withdrawing the rule. But, PHMSA has not 

done so. Instead, PHMSA has indicated their intent to promulgate 

a rule, anyway. Given GAO’s finding, and PHMSA’s refusal to 

withdraw the rule, a legislative ban is both appropriate and necessary. 

Finally, hazmat regulations forbid States from enacting any regulation or permit requirements that are not substantively the same 

as Federal regulations. However, States may require motor carriers 

to apply for permits to transport hazmat in their States. State permits are, unsurprisingly, substantively the same as Federal requirements. Carriers compliant with Federal requirements will, by 

definition, also be compliant with State requirements. 

Five States—Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—are currently members of the Alliance for Uniform Hazmat 

Transportation Procedures. The alliance States have amalgamated 

their application process online. A carrier can visit the site once, 

provide all the necessary information through a single interface, select the States in which the carrier transports hazmat, and pay a 

single composite fee. States that wish to require hazmat permits 

should be compelled to join the alliance. States already participate 

in similar programs for administering fuel taxes and processing 

motor carrier registrations. 

ATA and its members, along with The Kenan Advantage Group, 

support safe and secure transportation of hazmat. Hazmat regulations can be improved by reforming hazmat endorsement background check, forbidding PHMSA from issuing a final warning on 

the wet line rule, and compelling all States to join the alliance for 

issuing hazmat permits. All three, I believe, are very commonsense 

approaches. 

11 

On behalf of The Kenan Advantage Group and ATA, I would like 

to thank you for this opportunity, and I would welcome any questions from the Members. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Downey. 

Mr. Schick, you may proceed. 

Mr. SCHICK. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown, members of the subcommittee. My name is Tom Schick, 

I am here on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. We appreciate this opportunity to testify on reauthorization of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. 

ACC represents the leading companies engaged in the business 

of chemistry. Our members apply the science of chemistry to make 

innovative products and services that make people’s lives better, 

healthier, and safer. I would like to underscore the important role 

that the products manufactured and shipped by our members serve 

in virtually every aspect of our lives. The Nation depends on our 

industry to produce the chemicals that are necessary for safe drinking water, life-saving medications, medical devices, safe and plentiful food supply, energy-saving solar panels, and much more. 

Our members rely on all transportation modes to deliver products wherever they are needed to get the job done, from water 

treatment, to farms, to factories. Because a number of the shipments involve hazardous materials, we work constantly with our 

transportation partners to find ways to build upon an already impressive safety record. Through ACC’s Responsible Care initiative, 

our member and partner companies are committed to continuous 

safety improvement in every aspect of transportation. Collectively, 

we have invested billions of dollars in training, technology, and 

equipment, and will continue to do so. 

We have also worked to establish a strong and successful partnership with emergency responders. For example, our members, 

working with other stakeholders, developed transportation community awareness and emergency response, known as the 

TRANSCAER program. This is a voluntary training effort to help 

communities prepare for possible hazmat incidents. 

Emergency responders also have access to a wide range of experts through ACC’s CHEMTREC Center. When an incident does 

take place, the center provides the information on the best way to 

handle all types of hazmat. CHEMTREC provides this service 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, at no cost to emergency responders, 

other callers, Government, or taxpayers. We invite the members of 

the subcommittee and the staff to tour our CHEMTREC Center in 

northern Virginia, or attend a TRANSCAER event. 

Turning to HMTA reauthorization, we believe the Federal Government must continue to play the central role in ensuring safe 

transportation of hazmat. Congress has wisely established a comprehensive national regulatory system that is administered by 

DOT. HMTA has worked well in making the transportation of 

chemicals and other hazardous materials safe for the public, for 

workers, and emergency responders. 

As you consider legislation to reauthorize HMTA, we strongly 

support the uniform national regulatory program that assures that 

all aspects of hazmat transportation are consistent across this 

country. We also support DOT’s excellent work in harmonizing, to 

12 

the maximum extent possible, U.S. hazmat regulations with international standards. This harmonization not only facilitates commerce in these important products, but also promotes safety 

through consistent hazard communication requirements, and consistent procedures and equipment. 

We are concerned, however, about two aspects. One is the loading and unloading of hazardous materials. Several years ago, DOT 

withdrew from the regulation of loading and unloading in certain 

circumstances. Yet DOT, as well as others, are critically aware of 

the importance of loading and unloading in safety. We think that 

loading and unloading are fundamental to safe transportation, and 

that Federal regulation is the way to provide that uniformity to enhance the training of hazmat employees and the preparedness of 

emergency responders. So we would like to see DOT re-establish its 

full regulatory position on loading and unloading. 

Turning to special permits, these allow safety-based variations 

from the existing rules. Applicants for special permits come forward voluntarily with proposals, and these can only be approved if 

DOT finds there is at least an equivalent level of safety to what 

the regulations require. Special permits are a win-win process. The 

applicants gain operational flexibility at no loss of safety. Other 

parties can learn from and even use the same special permits, if 

they are approved by DOT to do so. And the Department learns 

about new procedures and technologies that can later be incorporated into the regulations. In fact, MAP–21, as mentioned earlier, has DOT doing that. 

There has been some talk about user fees for special permits. We 

oppose that at ACC. Special permits are an inherent and beneficial 

part of the regulatory process that governs hazmat transportation. 

We think it is appropriate to maintain that function without imposing user fees that could interfere with the development and implementation of new safety enhancements. 

In conclusion, the country depends on HMTA and the safe and 

reliable system to move hazmat. Where improvements are deemed 

appropriate, we can all work together to continuously improve it. 

We look forward to cooperating with you in this, and I would be 

glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Schick. 

Mr. Pelkey, you may proceed. 

Mr. PELKEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown, other members of the subcommittee. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to discuss 

issues regarding hazardous materials reauthorization, an issue of 

vital importance to the U.S. fireworks industry. I am Stephen 

Pelkey, president and CEO of Atlas Advanced Pyrotechnics, 

headquartered in Jaffrey, New Hampshire. I also currently serve 

on the board of directors of the American Pyrotechnics Association, 

and as the chairman of the APA’s Transportation Committee. 

Atlas was founded in 1950 and is a prominent professional fireworks display company, producing award-winning displays 

throughout New England the world. Atlas employs 24 full-time 

workers. During our busy Fourth of July season, our employment 

rolls swell to 750 employees. 

13 

I am here today on behalf of the APA. APA participates in the 

Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation coalition, commonly referred to as the IPs. I have been tasked to address the IPs and APA’s number-one priority, which concerns the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Hazardous Material 

Safety Permit Program, and the ongoing delays in reforming this 

vital program. 

The HMSP program has been seriously flawed since inception, 

and I have detailed those flaws in my written submission. At the 

present time, to retain an HMSP, a carrier must maintain out-ofservice inspection rates for vehicle, driver, and hazmat violations 

below a set percentile. HMSP holders are judged against all other 

carriers under the vehicle and driver rates. However, they are 

judged against themselves when determining the hazmat out-ofservice rate, which is based on violations that, for the most part, 

are not crash-causal. And this is the most troubling and difficult 

area in which to maintain compliance. 

Unlike large, long-haul freight of all-kind transporters that operate year-round and are inspected frequently, display fireworks 

transporters operate primarily on a seasonal and periodic peaktime basis, typically driving much shorter distances and many 

fewer miles. Thus, we have far fewer inspection opportunities to 

offset any potential violation. 

In order to stay above the designated hazmat threshold, a carrier 

must have 14 clean inspections to overcome the effects of just 1 bad 

inspection. Atlas has firsthand experience with this extremely 

flawed program, as we unfortunately lost our permit in 2011 as a 

result of receiving several erroneous out-of-service citations that 

put our company above the hazmat disqualification threshold. 

Without a permit, in order for us to stay in business, we were 

forced to ship products in separate trucks, each legally transporting 

the less than 55 pounds of fireworks, the threshold which triggers 

the application of the HMSP. 

For the better part of a year, we put 8 to 10 trucks, separate 

trucks, on the road, legally moving less than the 55 pounds in each 

vehicle to each of our contracted display sites, as we aged out of 

the 12-month period to renew our permit. Needless to say, this 

placed an undue burden on our company, and one has to question 

whether public safety was enhanced by having multiple vehicles on 

the road, rather than transporting these products in just one vehicle. 

We appealed the erroneous paperwork-related citations to Federal Motor Carriers’ DataQs. However, the State authority issuing 

the citation incorrectly entered the citation as ‘‘no shipping papers 

offered.’’ As Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration chose to 

side with the State authority, rather than provide us with an opportunity and appropriately appeal the citation directly to Federal 

Motor Carrier. 

While we understand limited agency resources necessitate the 

delegation of enforcement to the States, we believe it is not appropriate that the agency has delegated its ultimate authority to determine whether a hazmat safety permit should be renewed or denied. The APA, along with several other IPs has been advocating 

for the need of an administrative process that would also allow 

14 

Federal Motor Carrier to intervene outside of the DataQs. We will 

call this an additional level of safety review to determine a carrier’s 

fitness prior to the denial of a permit. 

In 2011, Federal Motor Carrier agreed that the HMSP program 

was flawed, and accepted our petition for rulemaking. However, we 

are disappointed that the agency has not made reform of this program a priority. While the agency’s recently released assessment 

report to Congress recognized the need to provide a means for corrective actions and/or second level of review for carriers, the agency 

does not establish a timeframe to address this ongoing problem. 

I am pleased to see a number of recommendations outlined in the 

assessment. Several of the recommendations, however, will require 

rulemaking, which is a lengthy process. In short, hazardous material safety permit holders will have no prospect of immediate relief. 

Providing HMSP holders an opportunity for an additional level of 

safety review before their permit is denied must be a priority. 

We are grateful to members of this subcommittee who have 

joined in efforts to reform this program. Atlas is committed to ensuring safety in the handling, transportation, and execution of our 

fireworks displays. Atlas and members of the APA will continue to 

provide safe and spectacular fireworks displays and delight and 

thrill American families across our great Nation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pelkey. 

Mr. PELKEY. And I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Harman? 

Ms. HARMAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Brown, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Elizabeth Harman, I serve as the assistant to the general president 

for hazmat, WMD training, and grants administration for the 

International Association of Fire Fighters. I am pleased to appear 

before you today on behalf of IFF General President Harold 

Schaitberger and the 300,000 firefighters and emergency medical 

personnel who comprise our organization. 

Fire departments in the United States receive over 350,000 calls 

related to hazmat response each year. When an incident involving 

hazmat does occur, the individuals tasked with responding to the 

incident are most—almost, without fail, firefighters. Unfortunately, 

despite the potential for such an incident in every community in 

America, too many firefighters are insufficiently trained to ensure 

a safe and effective response. 

The reasons for the lack of properly trained firefighters vary, although, for the most part, it is simply a lack of funding. Nationwide, fire departments’ funds are stretched thin, a situation which 

has been exasperated by the recent recession. In tight budgetary 

environments, training is often among the first items to be cut. Unfortunately, the lack of adequately trained personnel in the fire 

service means there are significant portions of the country where 

first responders are not prepared for an incident. This is an untenable situation which must be rectified. 

We must ensure that firefighters receive the type of training that 

is most appropriate for emergency response. Unfortunately, of the 

training that is being provided to firefighters, much is provided at 

an insufficient level. OSHA regulations identify special comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\4-2-14~1\87432.TXT JEAN
15 

petencies for employees who are engaged in emergency response. 

Awareness level training is intended for individuals who are likely 

to witness or discover hazardous substance release, and notify the 

proper authorities, which, in most cases, would be a fire department. 

Operations level training is intended for workers who respond to 

releases or potential releases of hazardous substances. Their function is to contain the release from a safe distance, keep it from 

spreading, and prevent exposures. These regulations clearly indicate operations level training is the minimum level intended for 

firefighters. This is also supported by national consensus standards, such as NFPA 472. Providing awareness level training to firefighters is not sufficient. There is little point in training firefighters 

to learn how and when to call the fire department. 

Unfortunately, the number of firefighters receiving awareness 

level training, rather than operations level training, is growing. 

Congress has begun to address the inadequacies of hazardous materials training among firefighters. In MAP–21 Congress required 

that all training delivered to firefighters via PHMSA’s hazardous 

material emergency preparedness grant program must be at the 

operations level or greater. While a positive step in the right direction, training provided via HMEP represents only a tiny fraction of 

the training received by firefighters nationwide. 

Congress should explore ways to encourage States and localities 

to provide all firefighters with operations level training, regardless 

of the funding source. We must also ensure that training is provided in a manner that must be customized and incorporate realworld events. Under the HMEP grant program, the IFF has received an annual grant to train instructors to deliver hazardous 

materials training to emergency responders nationwide in communities of all sizes. We have also recently, due to amendments in 

MAP–21, begun direct delivery of training, in addition to administering our train-the-trainer program. 

We believe our training provides the best model for training firefighters to respond safely and effectively to real-world hazmat incidents. We provide training to both professional and volunteer fire 

departments at no cost to them. The grant has enabled the IFF to 

sufficiently increase training rates in the first responder community. The IFF’s unique training model provides responders with 

real-world training in hazmat response that few institutions can 

match. Instructors train through the IFF’s program deliver training 

directly to responders in their own communities, allowing them to 

tailor their presentations to address unique concerns or challenges 

facing a particular community, such as a specific hazmat shipping 

route. 

The IFF model also utilizes highly experienced firefighter instructors to each its courses in a peer-to-peer setting. Independent 

evaluations of this training have found the programs to be cost effective, and evaluations have found the instruction to be highly effective. Simply put, the IFF provides exemplary hazmat training at 

a time when first responders need highly effective, appropriate 

training more than ever. We encourage the subcommittee to continue funding this valuable program, and use it as a model when 

considering expanding training opportunities for firefighters. 

16 

PHMSA also has an important role to play in making it easier 

for responders to identify hazardous materials. The paperless hazardous communications pilot program established by MAP–21 represents a significant step forward in the development and advancement of identification tools. Providing first responders with access 

to updating e-shipping papers will help responders identify hazardous substances during a hazmat incident without putting personnel at risk. 

As PHMSA continues to develop HM–ACCESS, the program’s 

success will depend upon meeting certain key criteria. First, responders must have access to e-shipping information. HM–ACCESS must conduct pilot tests in all forms of transportation. And 

PHMSA should consult with first responders, including rank-andfile users, at every step of the system’s development. 

This concludes my testimony, and thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Harman. I will now recognize each 

Member for 5 minutes’ worth of questioning. Mr. Young, you are 

recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the courtesy. 

Administrator Quarterman, in the wake of the recent train 

derailments involving crude oil, the Department of Transportation 

issued a safety alert announcing that Bakken crude oil could be 

more volatile than conventional crude oil, and may need to be handled differently. Instead of focusing on the cause of the derailment, 

your agency seems to be preoccupied with the characteristics of 

crude oil. When crude oil is transported by railcar, it is labeled as 

group one, two, and three. And which of these packing group, Mr.— 

Madam Administrator, is the most dangerous? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you for your question. The Administration is not just focused on identifying the characteristics of the 

crude oil. In fact, we have a three-part approach, which includes, 

as the very first step, prevention of incidents. The second is mitigation of incidents, should they occur. And the third is making response available to incidents. 

In terms of the packing group that is the most dangerous, packing group one, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. And Bakken oil is number two, if I am not mistaken. 

Bakken oil is two. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Bakken oil may be one or two. We have seen 

from our testing—— 

Mr. YOUNG. It is two. It is two. One is the most volatile. Bakken 

oil is two. 

At the last safety hearing you said that cars are not a silver bullet, and we should be focused on preventing derailments. Yet yesterday, you publicly complained that the oil industry has not 

shared Bakken crude characteristics with your agency. What is the 

number one cause for rail—tankers to be derailed? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I think we have been clear from the beginning, sir, that it is a multi—it is a very complicated problem which 

requires a comprehensive approach. Included among that approach 

are determining the characteristics of the crude. And, as I said at 

the beginning, prevention is the very first leg of the three-legged 

17 

stool that we think will prevent this from occurring, and we have 

been working very hard—— 

Mr. YOUNG. In all due respects, madam—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Sure. 

Mr. YOUNG. In all due respects, where is the problem of any rail 

going off because of what you are carrying? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. [No response.] 

Mr. YOUNG. There is none. It is at the rail. It is not the liquid 

which you are carrying in the container. This is not a new process. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Everything has to be—— 

Mr. YOUNG. This has been going on for years and years and—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN [continuing]. Considered, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG [continuing]. Years and years, and I—my interest in 

this, we have—we transport volatile fuel in tank cars, as they are 

made today, the same cars that are used in the Bakken field, and 

yet there seems to be some interest in your agency to say that it 

is the car’s fault. It is the rail’s fault. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I am not here to ascribe blame to anyone. I 

am here to tell you that, as a multiple—it requires multiple responses. It is a comprehensive approach which includes prevention. 

Yes, you are correct, we need to ensure that train cars stay on the 

track, absolutely true. But we also need to ensure that the package 

itself is appropriate, and that the materials that are in the package 

are appropriately packaged, and that the materials are appropriate 

to be shipped. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, my interest in this is this is another 

agency that doesn’t understand what in the world they are doing. 

A multiple facet, and you are going to package something different 

that has been packaged all these years, and you say we have to 

have a new way, area, time of packaging crude oil that—makes no 

difference what we have been doing all these years. Happens to be 

more volume. There is probably rails that have been misused, and 

that is where we should be concentrating. 

And, by the way, how many of the oil companies have shared 

their data with you on Bakken oil? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I believe we have received information from 

three companies so far. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is four, but that is OK. I just—because they have 

communicated with you. And have they ever said anything about 

the cars? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. YOUNG. Have they ever said anything about the cars? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, as I said, I believe that there were three 

companies that provided information to us. And in terms of the 

cars, I don’t understand your question. 

Mr. YOUNG. No. What I am saying—have they ever said anything 

about the cars being inadequate to carry the fuel? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Have the companies—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN [continuing]. Said that the cars were—I have 

no idea. 

Mr. YOUNG. No? OK. Mr. Chairman, again, what I don’t want to 

see is an agency, ‘‘OK, we are going to have a silver bullet, we are 

going to produce new cars, double hull,’’ da, da, da—has nothing to 

18 

do with these derailments. As ex-chairman of this committee, that 

is what we should be concentrating on, not the other stuff. Thank 

you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Young. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. I think we need to follow up on this discussion, because the last meeting we had AAR said the cause was inadequate, 

and they are beginning to develop additional cars. But in addition 

to that, it really doesn’t matter if your city explodes, whether the 

car was at fault or whether what they was carrying is at fault. We 

need to make sure that we do the multiplicity of things, including 

prevention. That is the first thing. 

But the question that I have here is that we asked the last time, 

and seeing your testimony, that the Petroleum Institute said that 

they were cooperating. I need to know. Have they provided you 

with the information that you need for the testing? And, if not, 

what is it that we need to do to make sure that you are getting 

what you need, whether it is this crude, the oil crude, or this new 

crude we using? If it kills you, then it is the same. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, let me just say that we are working 

hard with all the stakeholders involved in this, and asking them 

to come to the table and cooperate with us, in terms of providing 

information, whether they be a rail industry or a petroleum industry. 

We have, as I mentioned, a few companies who have come forward, and we applaud—— 

Ms. BROWN. How many companies are we talking about? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We have had three companies provide us detailed information. We have had conversations with several companies who have provided more anecdotal information. My statement 

went more to the American Petroleum Institute, who has not provided any individual information on that. They have, however, 

come forward to put together a working group to look at classification piece, and try to come forward with the standard, and we appreciate that assistance. 

Other organizations have also stepped forward: the American Petroleum—wait, fuel—the Association of Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers have indicated that they are going to put together some 

information for us. My statement really went to the American Petroleum Institute, who has not supplied any data with respect to 

the characteristics of the crude. And one would think that they 

would know. 

Ms. BROWN. Two questions. What, as far as the material is concerned, the firefighters, when we train them—and this is for you 

also, Ms. Harman—how can we make sure that they have the adequate equipment and training so that they can protect themselves 

when we have an explosion? We have had two in Florida where 

people were killed. And we have got to make sure that that does 

not happen. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you very much. That is an excellent point, 

and I appreciate your comments in your opening comments. And 

you may not be aware, we do have some of our instructors from 

Jacksonville, Florida, who are part of our instructor cadre that 

teach all over the United States, as well as Canada, with other 

funding sources. 

19 

And training, for us, is key. Training for urban areas, rural, and 

suburban, is key. And there are times when our instructors will arrive at locations. They know they need the training, they have requested the training. And I can tell you when our instructors arrive 

there, they don’t necessarily have the proper equipment to do what 

they need to do. And that is where our training model that comes 

into play brings those outside experiences, folks that have dealt 

with experiences—unfortunately, like you have in Florida—to bring 

that to those smaller, rural areas, to say, ‘‘You know what? You 

need this equipment, you need that equipment.’’ 

Then, the next question is, ‘‘Where is the funding that comes 

from that?’’ They are small departments working off a—rural volunteer fire departments working off budgets of $89,000 a year. 

There are large metropolitan areas that are working on much larger budgets. But the key to this equipment is true operations-based 

training, which, at times, is your basic firefighting equipment and 

a whole lot of water. Sometimes foam is at play in some of this, 

but if it is a running liquid that is going, foam is not going to eventually help that. So, our instructors will help guide those departments where they need to go. 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Quarterman, you mentioned in your testimony, 

or the last time, there are grants available. How do you let the 

community know that these grants are available for training, and 

to educate the community? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, there are grants available: the HMEP 

grants, which were referred to earlier. And when those grants come 

out we have a—obviously, we send out a press release, we tweet 

it around the country, we talk to individual members to let them 

know that this is available to their States and localities. And in 

this past instance, we have included a special provision related to 

crude oil. 

Let me just add to what Ms. Harman said on the firefighter 

front. We have put together a working group to talk about the 

Bakken crude in responding to those incidents. As was mentioned 

earlier, we sent out a safety alert, which was focused, in many 

ways, to the emergency response community, so that they would 

know that when they see these trainloads of crude going across the 

country, it is not crude that they may be accustomed to responding 

to. It is really a much lighter, more volatile crude. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. Administrator Quarterman, 

can you answer a quick question for me? Are more hazardous materials—meaning oil, gas, et cetera, natural gas, propane—carried 

underground than over ground? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I think the answer is yes. 

Mr. HANNA. So that the XL pipeline might not be a bad idea? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. That is not under my authority—— 

Mr. HANNA. No, I realize that. I just couldn’t resist. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANNA. The—Mr. Pelkey—thank you. You said that you 

need 14 positive inspections to offset 1. Is that regardless of the 

size or number of trips that your particular business is making? 

20 

Mr. PELKEY. Yes. There is a certain threshold that you have to 

maintain under for any hazmat type of—— 

Mr. HANNA. So that—the conclusion would be that if you are not 

a big company, you may never get back to a point where you are 

making—you have made enough inspections. You may be—find 

yourself in a position where you are begging to be inspected, because you need to get past that 14 threshold. 

Mr. PELKEY. Correct. 

Mr. HANNA. So, shouldn’t it be more flexible for somebody who 

is small, as opposed to big? I mean, does 14 fit every company? 

And, let’s—conversely, if you are a huge company, you may get 

inspected 14 times in a day, which lets them—you know, they 

would actually be able to have an error a day, because they are off 

the hook the next day. Am I getting that—— 

Mr. PELKEY. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great question. 

It is further exacerbated because most display companies across 

the country normally would perform their duties and their work 

over this July 2nd, 3rd, 4th of July, New Year’s Eve or Labor Day. 

And in most cases, there aren’t any enforcement teams that are out 

there that are inspecting on those particular—— 

Mr. HANNA. So you—— 

Mr. PELKEY [continuing]. Nights and weekends, and you are 

lucky to see one. If you did receive one—and sometimes you do— 

often times you wouldn’t even have a hazardous material authorized person to inspect. Therefore, you would be going through the 

inspection process—— 

Mr. HANNA. So you can’t get a ticket if you beg for one on the 

wrong day. 

Mr. PELKEY. We have gone through, and several of our members 

of the American Pyrotechnics Association have gone through a stop, 

a weigh point, and begged for an inspection, for a hazmat inspection, and there just isn’t a certified inspector there. 

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Schick, did you want to say something? 

Mr. SCHICK. I am not going to—we don’t operate motor carriers, 

for the most part—— 

Mr. HANNA. Right, right. 

Mr. SCHICK [continuing]. I am not going to join into that one. 

Mr. HANNA. Well, thank you very much. Chairman? 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hanna yields back. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would—he is not here, 

but I would respectfully disagree with the former chairman. We 

need to know what materials are being carried, and both obviously 

deal with operational issues, which is FRA, and they are not before 

us today, and deal with, you know, the actual containment of those 

materials. And it does make a difference, in terms of the containment. It certainly makes a difference to the first responders, in 

terms of the knowledge of—the training and the materials to deal 

with that. So I would have some disagreement there. 

But on—Madam Administrator, on February 26th we held a 

hearing. And, as you might remember, we had some discussion. I 

was trying to find out about a potential date for rulemaking for the 

new tank cars. I am wondering what the current status is. Have 

you completed your work? Is it at the Secretary’s office? Is it down 

there with the trolls at OMB? Where is it? 

21 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We have made great progress since we—I last 

testified before you. We have a—shall we say a draft in circulation? 

So we are working very hard, and hoping to move that rule out 

very soon. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Can we just go back to what ‘‘very soon’’ might 

mean? Not to belabor my point from the last hearing, but I would 

like—here is the issue—we have one major rail company looking at 

making a huge investment. Whether or not they will have a safe 

harbor if they go ahead with their improved tank car, whether or 

not other people will buy the AAR version, or whether or not people 

will try and make the 111’s safer, depends upon both the rule you 

put forward, what it proposes, and what conditions it puts on the 

existing cars. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. No, I agree with that, and we have been having ongoing conversations with those folks, as well. So we know 

that commitments are being considered, and that is why we are 

working as fast as we possibly can to get a rule out. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So I am not going to get much further with 

that. 

So, there is another issue, which I actually was surprised by. I 

have been on the Aviation Subcommittee for a very long time, and 

I had no idea that the lithium batteries are nominally the jurisdiction of PHMSA, but have been delegated to FAA. And I would note 

that I think we are 8 years or so into a rulemaking, which I hope 

doesn’t happen with tank cars. Can you give me any idea about 

what DOT is doing to harmonize our standards with those of ICAO, 

which would seem to be reasonable to me? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. Yes, it is actually our rulemaking, 

and we are responsible for hazmat, no matter how it moves, as well 

as operational issues related to hazmat in different modes. We 

have a rule that we are hoping to get out very soon to complete 

our harmonization with ICAO on the lithium battery, as well. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And is that rule somewhere other than in your 

agency? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It is. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Would it be down at OMB? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I think it is all public, where it is. It is—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is it there? I mean you can tell me yes or no? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, it is. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. I can find it, yes. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I once had a colleague, Al Swift, from Washington State. And he described to me the people at OMB. He says, 

‘‘DeFazio, they are the trolls with the green eyeshades that hide 

under the bridges, and they come out and gnaw on your leg every 

once in a while.’’ 

I know OMB is concerned about cost effectiveness, but when it 

comes to saving lives or keeping an airplane in the air, I think they 

need to move more promptly. So now I know where to direct my 

concerns. Although, in terms of the tank car, I think they are still 

to you; in terms of lithium batteries, it is to OMB. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Quarterman, the GAO report on the safety of 

wet lines raised significant concerns with the accuracy of the data, 

22 

and found that the costs and benefits were not accurately presented in the proposed rule. Yet PHMSA refuses to withdraw proposed wet lines rule. Do you plan on withdrawing the proposed 

rule? And why, or why not? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Let me just say for my friends at OMB who 

work really hard on our issues, that, you know, that they are supportive, I think, of safety, as well. 

On your question on wet lines, we are in the process of reviewing 

the results from the GAO study to determine—I mean they were 

critical of our regulatory evaluation, determining the costs and benefits associated with the wet lines rule. So we are still in the process of reviewing that, looking at the data that we have associated 

with that, looking at the recommendations that they gave to us 

about how we might improve that data. 

And then, we will determine whether we withdraw the rule or 

move forward with it. Whether we do either, we will certainly want 

to improve the safety of wet lines, whether it is through a rulemaking or something else. My colleague, Mr. Downey, mentioned 

that there are other options available. I welcome him to come talk 

to our staff about ways that we might improve wet lines in the future. 

Mr. DENHAM. So, just to be clear, you do not disagree with the 

GAO report. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. They drew some conclusions about our analysis, our cost benefit analysis. We are going back to look at their 

recommendations, and try to improve that, and then we will make 

a determination on how to proceed. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And what is your timeline on that? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We don’t have a timeline, that I am aware of, 

at the moment. You know, the next few months we will be looking 

at that. 

Mr. DENHAM. This is something you intend on either—making a 

recommendation one way or another within the next couple of 

months? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. We have been a little busy recently. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Downey, you expressed concern 

about the wet lines rulemaking. How would you propose that 

PHMSA use its resources in order to withdraw its proposed rulemaking? 

Mr. DOWNEY. With the GAO report, but also the independent 

evaluation that was done. Our position is that we can take the dollars that would be required to retrofit our trailers, or buy new 

trailers with some type of device that would evacuate the wet lines, 

and put those dollars to training or other types of technologies that 

would prevent accidents, such as anti-rollover stability equipment. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Schick, you are supportive of 

PHMSA’s regulating loading and unloading of hazardous materials. 

What are the benefits PHMSA’s—what are the benefits of 

PHMSA’s doing so? And, specifically, will it help the preparedness 

of emergency responders? 

Mr. SCHICK. Mr. Chairman, we are totally supportive of that. As 

I said in the written testimony, they had somewhat withdrawn the 

application of their authority, which they pretty clearly have. We 

think that that is primarily for operational safety and operational 

23 

efficiency of the shippers and the consignees who do the loading 

and unloading and are present when that happens. It is important 

for safety for everyone that the same kind of activity, say the same 

unloading conducted with the same equipment from the same, let’s 

say, cargo tank, be under PHMSA’s jurisdiction, so they have oversight over everything. It should not matter whether the person 

doing the unloading happens to be the employee of the trucking 

company or happens to be the employee of the consignee. 

I think since that happens mostly on site, it is primarily for 

those kind of operations, rather than emergency responders. But 

more fundamentally, the loading and unloading are known to be 

potential causes of accidents. So, if you are looking to prevent accidents, obviously you want your loading and unloading to be done 

in a safe manner. And we believe that if it is done in a consistent 

manner under Federal oversight, as opposed to possibly disparate 

ways under different State and local jurisdictions, that will enhance safety. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And can you also explain the concerns 

you have with imposing further costs on special permits and approvals of applicants? 

Mr. SCHICK. Yes, I can, sir. As I said in testimony, the special 

permit applications actually come from parties—it could be shippers or carriers, it could be Government agencies who are in the 

role of a shipper, for example—that have come up with a new way 

to do something. But they know, full well, it does not fit under the 

current written PHMSA regulations. So they come forward, they 

acknowledge that, they make a presentation to the agency, and the 

agency evaluates it. It cannot proceed to grant a special permit unless it is shown to be at least as protective as what the rules apply. 

If it passes that test, and it can be put into place by the applicant who gets a special permit, other parties who do the same 

thing can also use that, and the agency, in effect, gets research and 

development. They get new ideas brought to them, and they get to 

look at them. And then, over time, they can move those into the 

regulations. So everyone benefits. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Ms. Quarterman, what steps 

are being taken to ensure the safe, secure shipment of chlorine and 

other toxic gases? The railroad companies recently partnered with 

DOT and TSA to put in place the procedures to further improve the 

safety and secure shipment of the gas. Could you share some of 

those procedures, quickly? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I will have to get back to you for—on the 

record on that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you report that back, please? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, absolutely. 

[The information follows:] 

Working closely with FRA and TSA, PHMSA established several critical requirements to ensure safety and security of toxic gas shipments. Key requirements and procedures include: 

• Security Plans (49 CFR § 172.800)—Each person who offers for transportation in commerce or transports in commerce a PIH material must 

develop and adhere to a transportation security plan. The security plan 

must be based on an assessment of the possible transportation security 

24 

risks for materials transported, stored, or unloaded incidental to movement. Key components of the security plan include: 

• Measures to address assessed risks regarding personnel security, 

unauthorized access, and en route security; 

• Identification by job title of the senior management official responsible for 

development and implementation of the plan; 

• Security duties for each position or department responsible for 

implementing the plan; and 

• Training for hazmat employees. 

• Rail Routing (49 CFR § 172.820)—Rail carriers must assess available 

routes using, at a minimum, the 27 factors listed in Appendix D to Part 

172 of the HMR to determine the safest, most secure routes for securitysensitive hazardous materials. These factors address safety and security 

issues, such as the condition of the track and supporting infrastructure; 

the presence or absence of signals; past incidents; population density 

along the route; environmentally sensitive or significant areas; venues 

along the route (stations, events, places of congregation); emergency response capability along the route; measures and countermeasures already 

in place to address apparent safety and security risks; and proximity to 

iconic targets. The regulations require rail carriers to make conscientious 

efforts to develop logical and defendable routing decisions using these factors. • Speed Restriction by Rail (49 CFR § 174.86)—For trains transporting 

any loaded, placarded tank cars containing a material poisonous by inhalation, the maximum allowable operating speed is 50 mph. • Enhanced Tank Car Design (49 CFR §§ 179.100 and 179.102–3)—Increased tank car design standards for head and shell puncture resistance, 

nozzles, and top fittings protection. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Schick, you were talking 

about the training of loading and unloading. That is a real serious 

issue with me. I have one of the largest corridors of rail transportation and truck transportation in my area. And I visited some of 

the places where they build the double wall for chemicals. 

My concern is that we are providing training at one of the local 

university colleges for firefighting in hazmats. But are we training 

them in the proper procedures of loading and unloading? 

Mr. SCHICK. I don’t believe, ma’am, that the firefighters would be 

doing the loading and unloading. I am talking about the loading 

that happens at the production site, and the unloading at the receiver’s site. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right, but—— 

Mr. SCHICK. Rather than what might happen—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. If there is a spill, the firefighters 

have to come in and help clean up. Do they not? 

Mr. SCHICK. If it is on—if it is outside of transportation, there— 

certainly could be called in certain circumstances. If it happens 

during transportation, obviously, it is out in the public space, and 

it is a different issue, I think, in that sense. 

But, again, I think the loading and unloading itself is not done 

by the emergency responders. The National Transportation Safety 

Board a number of years ago—took a very close look at this back 

in 2001—this was at the time when PHMSA was in the process of 

drawing back its regulatory authority. And the NTSB said in no 

uncertain terms that they are not convinced that if RSPA—it was 

then called RSPA, Research and Special Programs Administration; 

it is PHMSA today—relinquished its regulatory authority over hazardous materials loading/unloading operations, other Federal, State 

agencies would be able—they are concerned whether they would be 

able to exercise the necessary safety oversight of these very specific 

25 

areas of transportation. That is why we at ACC support—and I believe the large Interested Parties community generally supports— 

the re-establishment of loading and unloading as primary functions 

under DOT’s jurisdiction, and not to leave it to disparate points of 

view. 

Another aspect from industry is if someone is involved in that at 

a plant site, if they are going to be transferred and have a job opportunity elsewhere within their corporation, it would also be helpful—it is not a safety issue, but it would be helpful, not only for 

the company, but for the personnel, to be able to go somewhere else 

and have the same rules apply. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But are the chemical companies required to 

report on-site accidents of loading and unloading? 

Mr. SCHICK. I would—I think I will ask Ms. Quarterman, who is 

here. I think that when the carrier is present, the carrier files a 

5800 report, which is the report for the unintended release of hazardous materials. I think what happens without the carrier being 

present—even, as I said, with exactly the same process and equipment, I think you may be having PHMSA deprive itself of exactly 

that kind of knowledge. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Quarterman? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. If there is a loading and unloading incident 

that is associated with transportation, then, yes, it would be reported on the 5800 report. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, thank you. And, Ms. Harman, how much 

placarding information should be displayed on the railcars carrying 

material? And is this important to the local folks to be able to know 

what is being transported? 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you for your question. Yes, it is absolutely 

critical that we understand what is being placarded. Your first responders that arrive to a scene of an incident like that, their job 

is defensive operations, not just to recognize, but also to prevent 

any further damage to the community, whether they have to dam 

and dike. They have got to notify the community, they have got to 

look up that particular item in the ERG book, and figure out if 

there needs to be some sort of evacuation, how far that needs to 

be. So, yes, it is absolutely critical that we are able to know what 

is in that container. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Where should be the best place for displaying 

of such material that is being transported? 

Ms. HARMAN. Right in the public view, of where those are located 

now. In addition, if there is an incident, and that is an obstructed 

view, the shipping papers are critical for us, as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that question has come up in the past, 

because there have been some instances in my area in years past, 

and there was no way of getting to the cab, to the front of the locomotive. And so there was a question about what was inherently 

being carried. 

Ms. HARMAN. Right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Because the placarding was not sufficient. 

Ms. HARMAN. Right. And the key for us—you know, worst case 

scenario—I mean, obviously, the placarding needs to be there for 

us. The shipping papers need to be there for us. Even if—when we 

move into an e-shipping, electronic world, you know, that shouldn’t 

26 

replace the paper shipping papers for us. There is always a way for 

us to go back to the basics. It is critical for firefighters. 

But if we cannot view those, it is going to be treated as any other 

flammable liquid until additional resources arrive. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANNA [presiding]. Ms. Esty? 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really glad we are 

having this hearing today. Just last year, we had one of these 

chemical spills in Fulton Park, in one of my cities in Waterbury, 

Connecticut. 

And, again, the issues Ms. Harman has raised about the preparedness of those who arrive at the scene and often do not know 

what they are encountering, and have to make life-and-death decisions immediately for a community. So I want to drill down a little 

bit more into some of those issues. 

So, Administrator Quarterman, does PHMSA currently have a 

system that can collect and analyze hazardous material incident 

data collected by emergency responders? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We do not have the data that is collected by 

emergency responders. We do require reporting by anyone who has 

an incident, and we have that data, which we correlate. We have 

had conversations. My deputy is actually a former fire chief, and 

he has had conversation with several different firefighting organizations about what data they do collect, and the extent to which 

we might get some of that data and integrate it with ours, because 

we actually collect data not just for us, but for all the modes who 

have involvement in hazmat. 

Ms. ESTY. So is there a reason we don’t have a system that, as 

a regular course of business, collects this data? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I—it is an ongoing conversation. Part of it has 

to be attributed to resources. 

Ms. ESTY. All right. And following up on that, Ms. Harman had 

expressed concern about—that whatever systems are developed, 

that they need to be accessible 24 hours a day, and whether there 

is paperwork there or not. What provisions, if any, is—you know, 

is the agency looking at? 

And, in PHMSA, what is in place now to ensure that electronic 

communications are accessible in these dramatic incidents? It 

might be 2 a.m., chaos is reigning, somebody is trying to look at 

a sheet of paper and determine what these substances are, and 

what they should do. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Currently, paper is the only thing that is 

available. We are in the process of putting together a pilot to do 

electronic reporting for movement of hazardous materials. We actually had a session last year including, most importantly, emergency 

responders, because we viewed their opinions as, you know, paramount, in terms of how do we move from paper to electronic. To 

what extent do we need paper? So that is an ongoing conversation. 

Obviously, when we have a pilot, hopefully this year, that will be 

a part of what we want to learn, a big part of what we want to 

learn, and make sure that things move smoothly. 

Ms. ESTY. For Ms. Harman, I know that the National Fire Protection Agency estimates that 65 percent of departments that are 

responsible for responding for hazmat do not have formal training. 

27 

What can we do in Congress? What can we do to address that? 

And, obviously, as we are seeing—as you can tell by the questioning about Bakken crude, we expect there are going to be more 

transportation within our borders on these issues. 

What do you recommend that we in Congress ought to be looking 

at? It is resources, obviously, some of that. But if it is just up to 

grants, I have got to tell you I represent 41 cities and towns. Some 

of these towns are 4,000 people. And if we are leaving it up to the 

volunteer firefighters in Goshen, Connecticut, to know that there is 

funding available someplace, and a grant application maybe, that 

their 100 volunteers will get life-sustaining training, I don’t think 

that is acceptable. I don’t think that is acceptable for our communities, and it is not acceptable for our volunteers, who put their 

lives on the line. So, what should we be doing on the congressional 

level? 

Ms. HARMAN. Well, not the answer you want to hear, but continued funding is key for us. I mean training is key. The training is 

out there. There are multiple modes of training deliveries. There 

are fixed facility training. We are proud of the portable delivery 

training model that we bring. We have a strong demand for training right now. There is a wait list for classes that we can’t even 

get to. 

The train-the-trainer model is important for us, particularly for 

those smaller communities. We don’t see as many requests for 

train-the-trainer coming in, particularly now, and particularly from 

the smaller volunteer communities, because you have got folks in 

this economy not only trying to volunteer, but working multiple 

jobs, finding it difficult to do training. They take a train-the-trainer, now they have got to prepare themselves as an instructor to 

teach the rest of their community, and they may not have some of 

those larger scale incidents like you have had there in Waterbury 

to bring that experience into their facility. 

So, it is important, I think, for Congress to continue to, number 

one, enforce that operations level training. It should be the minimum level of training for all firefighters, regardless if they are career or volunteer, and encourage them to reach out to organizations. They have got to take a proactive approach. We are certainly 

there to provide training throughout career or volunteer. There is 

other funding sources that are there. There is online training modules that we offer. The resources are there, but it takes a level of 

effort to also get that. 

Ms. ESTY. Also, if you could, quickly, give us your advice on gear, 

what sort of gear they ought to be looking at having. 

Ms. HARMAN. Gear is critical. I mean your traditional turnout 

gear for firefighters, which is your firefighting ensemble, a self-contained breathing apparatus, is key. A lot of water, a lot of hose. 

There has been a lot of discussion about foam, and foam caches set 

up. You know, a large-scale incident, I don’t think any large jurisdiction is going to have enough foam to put out any of these. So 

it is really the traditional firefighter that you see now, if you were 

to call 911 and showed up here, is the same firefighter that is initially going to show up on a scene like that in their regular turnout 

gear. 

Mr. DENHAM [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Michaud. 

28 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank the panelists, as well, for testifying today. This question 

is for Ms. Harman. 

As you are aware, last summer, when the train wreck in LacMe ́gantic—the severity of that wreck. And, since then, several of 

my colleagues and I have advocated for multiple-person crews on 

freight trains, particularly those carrying hazardous materials or 

meeting trains carrying hazardous materials. We believe that this 

is a public safety issue, and the FRA actually believes it is a safety 

issue, as well. And if you look at past rail accidents, there are 

many incidents of multiple-person crews being able to mitigate the 

damage by separating the train from the burning cars, and being 

able to work with first responders. 

My question to you is, could you share with us your thoughts on 

how having multiple crewmembers on hazmat trains could improve 

safety and interaction with the first responders? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. We believe in multiple crews—are crucial for 

us to get the response done appropriately and efficiently. You 

know, the original driver of that train can easily be injured in the 

crash themselves. Having multiple people, particularly multiple 

people who are trained, who are trained to work collaboratively 

with the first responders so they don’t meet for the first time at 

the scene of that incident, that is critical for us. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. The second question is for you, as 

well. I recently met with a mayor who is a head of the Maine Municipal Association and learned that many local fire departments 

only carry enough foam to extinguish a car fire. That would be incapable of responding to a major rail or truck disaster calling for 

additional foam from surrounding areas. 

I recognize that we probably can’t ensure that every fire department in the country has the resources to respond to every kind of 

major disaster, but I do think that local fire departments should 

have the information to quickly locate and call for those additional 

resources in the case of an emergency. Is there something that we 

should do at the congressional level to facilitate this type of information sharing? Or do you have any ideas of what we can do, as 

far as foam, as it relates to major train wreck? 

Ms. HARMAN. No, that is an excellent question. We get a lot of 

questions on foam. How much is enough? How much is not enough? 

The true underlying resolve to a lot of this is pre-planning. It is 

knowing who your partners are, knowing what is coming through 

your community, knowing what you need to be prepared for, and 

potentially how much. 

As I said earlier, I don’t think enough foam is going to cover any 

major incident. And it has to do with the pre-planning. And at 

times, really, if you are in a rural area and there is not an immediate threat to life or significant property, there is going to be a 

time where you are just going to let it burn off. 

So, you know, we are supportive of free planning, of collaborative 

training, and bringing folks together so that they truly—they are 

not meeting for the first time at the scene of that incident. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. Does anyone else on the panel want 

to address the issue about adequacy of foam, particularly if you are 

in a rural area with a major train wreck? 

29 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I will just comment on the end comment from 

Ms. Harman, in that my deputy has said the same thing. It is not 

intuitive for me, not being a firefighter, but he has said, you know, 

in an instance like that, you try to get the people out, and you 

probably just let the fire burn out. So—— 

Mr. MICHAUD. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Quarterman, I had an 

incident that just happened in my district in Wilmington, California, where 40 barrels of crude oil from a crack in an idle oil 

pipeline spewed into a residential neighborhood in Wilmington, 

California. Obviously, this spill endangered the health and safety 

of hundreds of my constituents, as well as caused untold amounts 

in property damage and cost to the local economy. 

And while the spill is still under investigation, information that 

we have learned so far suggests that the spill was caused by an internal corrosion of an idle pipeline that, unfortunately, still contained a lot of oil. The current owner of the pipeline believed that 

the idle pipeline was empty when it was received 15 years ago from 

the previous owner. And no inspection of the inside of the pipeline 

apparently is required under PHMSA or State guidelines. 

So, while there is a clear process for shutting down pipelines that 

are not intended to be used any more through the process of abandonment, and there is clear inspection and monitoring process for 

active pipelines, it seems to me there is no process for ensuring 

that idle, out-of-service pipelines that are believed to be empty, but 

are intended to be used again, are actually empty of hazardous material. 

I just feel like if at any point during this 15 years, if the current 

owner of the pipeline had verified that it was empty, or State officials would have verified it was empty, or the Federal Government 

would have verified it was empty, this spill would have never occurred. And I think it is this lack of verification that led to a hazardous pipeline spill and seriously, you know, endangered my constituents, who are already kind of the—on the short end of the 

stick, living next to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

which is—any manner of hazardous event could happen on a daily 

basis. Also, this community probably sits on more pipelines than 

any other community, I believe, in southern California. 

So, am I not understanding it properly? Is there a process for any 

kind of verification of an out-of-service, idle pipeline, versus an active or abandoned pipeline? And, if not, why not? And is this a 

loophole that we should try to close? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, as you know, the—this current situation 

is under investigation, so we can’t really talk about the details of 

that situation. But you are right, that my understanding is that 

the pipeline was idle, as opposed to abandoned. Whether a pipeline 

is idle for 15 years, I think, is an open question. Certainly, if it is 

an abandoned pipeline, it should have been—— 

Ms. HAHN. It has to be capped and—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It has to be capped and cleaned. So that is 

something that we will follow up with you on as we go through the 

investigation—— 

30 

Ms. HAHN. Are you aware—is PHMSA aware of this kind of a 

loophole in—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It is the first time I have heard anything 

about this before, so—— 

Ms. HAHN. Right. I just think it is—might need to look at how 

we verify. It is all simple verification of a pipeline that has been 

deemed idle or out of service. Particularly when they acquire it 

from another company. Nobody—there was no third-party 

verification that, in fact, it was empty. And while it may not be a 

lot of crude oil to the oil company, they seemed to scoff when I was 

like, ‘‘Forty barrels before you capped it?’’ And they were sort of 

like, ‘‘That is not that much.’’ But, obviously, in a residential neighborhood, that is an extreme problem and hazard and smell and—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, it is a lot—— 

Ms. HAHN. The equipment that has to come in to try to cap it, 

it was a big mess. But I feel like it might be something we should 

work together to solve. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. 

Ms. HAHN. My second question is about strengthening pipeline 

inspections. And right now, California has 5 inspectors inspecting 

over 750 pipelines in the ground. Additionally, in accordance with 

PHMSA guidelines, companies, and not the actual inspectors themselves, are in charge of conducting inspections of pipeline. Inspectors are in charge of conducting audits of the companies’ inspections. Is this the best process we have, going forward? And can you 

give me some assurance that we are—all pipelines are inspected in 

a timely manner? 

And how do we strengthen this current system so there is more 

accountability for the companies who have failed to adequately inspect their pipelines? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, you will see in the Department’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget, we have a large request for the pipeline safety 

program. Included in that is additional grant money for States to 

improve—and our inspection, I mean, the biggest part of that goes 

to our inspection force, adding many, many new people. So, the 

President’s budget supports that right now. 

In terms of inspection—and in some ways it is a misnomer. I 

mean our staff does go out and review the documents of companies, 

but they also go out during construction, and doing some maintenance, so they do inspect to that. 

I think what you are referring to is an internal inspection of a 

pipeline, which is something that—the Government doesn’t own 

these pipelines, so we have no way to put any equipment in them 

to verify that. So that is really reviewing the inspections, or the assessments that companies have performed. Absolutely, we need 

more resources. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Quarterman. 

Ms. HAHN. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I want to dispel a 

notion that PHMSA believes in a silver bullet approach. Ms. 

Quarterman was in my office 21⁄2 months ago. 

31 

And I think I am quoting you when you said, ‘‘There is no silver 

bullet to resolving this issue.’’ 

But classification is part of it. Railcar safety is part of it. Training for first responders is part of it. There is probably other parts 

I am missing. 

But I want to understand the classification issue, because API 

was here with us last hearing and said in 6 months—not a 2-year 

timeline they usually take, but a 6-month timeline they usually 

take to establish a new classification standard for Bakken. That is 

what they said. But the reports the last couple days seems to come 

across, from PHMSA’s perspective, they expected information sooner than that. 

Am I conflating two issues, or am I—or are you—do you have a 

faster timeline than API has? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. There are actually two different issues. One, 

the work that API is doing is on an industry standard for classification, which is what they do quite frequently on different issues. 

And we have a staff person who is on that committee, working towards assisting in that classification standard. Should it be something that we agree at the end of the day is worthwhile, we could 

adopt it and put it in our regulations. That is one thing. 

The other thing is actual data about the attributes of the crude, 

itself. What is its initial boiling point? What is its flash point? 

What is its vapor pressure? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, right. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Those kinds of details, which Mr. Young may 

know, because he suggested this was a class II—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN [continuing]. Crude, whereas we have some information of our own which doesn’t necessarily support that. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It could be class I or class II. 

Mr. LARSEN. So you said that three companies—it could be four 

companies—have provided information. How many other companies 

have you requested information from and have not received information from? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We went out, initially, to API and asked that 

they bring in some of their members. After that, we sort of expanded our reach, and we had a series of crude oil meetings where 

we invited not just API, we invited AFPM, who I mentioned is coming forward with some information. We also individually reached 

out to some of the biggest shippers. I forgot how many, I don’t 

know if it was—— 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN [continuing]. The top 10 or top 20, but we invited them all to come in and talk to us. And those who couldn’t 

come, we sent a letter and said, ‘‘If you can’t come, we will set up 

a separate meeting for you, or we will call you, whatever we can 

to get as much information as possible.’’ 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. And then, so that is where you are right now 

on trying to establish these basic data points about the Bakken 

crude. And those are—that is the basic data that you are trying to 

uncover currently. 

32 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. But let me just add that, you know, we 

can’t wait for data from other companies or from any industry organization. We have been on the ground in an unprecedented effort, with our sister agencies, drawing crude oil from trains, from 

trucks, from pipelines, and sending it to labs and having it tested 

ourselves. So we are getting information on the attributes of that 

crude from the ground up. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. And just—you know, as you know, in my district alone we have four refineries. We are moving from about zero 

gallons a day maybe last year, late last—or early last year, to 

about 12 million gallons a day of Bakken crude moving through the 

district on rail when all four facilities have their offload facilities 

built. So this has really become an issue quickly in our district. 

And part of it, part of the answer, has to do with firefighters. 

And, by the way, before I go further, not just the firefighters, all 

first responders, but certainly firefighters, Arlington Fire District 

and Darrington Fire District and folks from Clark County, Nevada; 

Boone County, Missouri; Colorado, all converging on Highway 530 

to deal with the mudslide and be part of FEMA’s incident command teams. And they are all doing a great job, and this last weekend they have been able to turn over and get some new people in, 

to give people some rest. And we appreciate what firefighters and 

other first responders are doing. I want to pass that on to you. 

And then, Mr. Schick, I want to take up your—you don’t need to 

turn on the mic for this—I just want to take up your invitation to 

visit the facility, so long as you include a briefing on the—not just 

the CHEMTREC, but the—— 

Mr. SCHICK. TRANSCAER, as well? 

Mr. LARSEN. TRANSCAER as part of that. Can you do that? 

Mr. SCHICK. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you so much. Yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Ranking Member Brown for holding this hearing today. Certainly the public safety in the transport of hazardous materials is 

a very important responsibility of this subcommittee, so I am glad 

we are here to look at PHMSA’s progress since the authorization 

of MAP–21. 

One area that I know we all have a great interest and concern 

about is the transport of hazardous material by rail. I know Mr. 

DeFazio had covered some of the issues already. What I want to 

focus on is the paperless manifest for trains that carry hazardous 

materials. I know it is very important, it is an issue that has been 

raised in some of the accidents that have occurred is the need for 

first responders to know what is on the trains in case there is an 

accident, and find out what the risk is from any material on the 

trains. 

So, I was happy that MAP–21, I know, had a requirement for 

PHMSA to evaluate a paperless system. And I know that right now 

the railroads themselves are working on electronic systems. As I 

raised before on this committee to the AAR, that I think more 

should be done in order to make sure that this information is available to first responders. 

33 

So, I wanted to ask Administrator Quarterman. Can you tell me 

where PHMSA is right now on this requirement that was put in 

in MAP–21? And I want to know if you are working with the railroads at all on what they are working on doing with these 

paperless manifests. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We are working with all constituents. I mentioned earlier we had a workshop in July of last year, and included 

the emergency responders and all of the modes to talk about use 

of this electronic format. Right now there is a requirement in our 

rule for—on rail that the train consist must show where the hazardous materials are on the train, and it must be updated if it gets 

moved around, so that emergency responders will have that knowledge, or should have that knowledge if they go to fight a fire at— 

because of hazardous materials. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And do you anticipate PHMSA issuing any further 

regulations in the space—in rail, or any other—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We are at the pilot project phase. We are not 

at the regulation phase. I mean we really need to go and do a few 

pilots, see how it works before we talk about issuing any regs. So 

we are early on. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Well, I just wanted to make sure that we continue to work on this, and as we go down the road, and make sure 

that we do have the best system in place, so that first responders 

can have adequate information. 

And, with that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Ms. Quarterman, this is a yes or no 

question. Yesterday we received your statement that the American 

Petroleum Institute and its members have not been cooperative 

with your agency, and have refused to provide testing information 

with your safety experts. Is that yes or no? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. Could you give us in writing what questions 

that you have asked them and they have not responded to, please? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I would be happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

PHMSA posed the following questions to API and crude oil shippers prior 

to meetings in early February. 

• What tests or methods do you use to determine the properties of the crude 

oil to include its vapor pressure, flammable gas content, flash point, boiling 

point, hydrogen sulfide content and corrosive properties prior to offering it 

in transportation? 

• Who performs these tests and how frequently are they completed? 

• When you find high levels of gases in crude, what actions do you require 

of your oilfield personnel before loading into a transport vehicle? What 

information about the crude oil properties, if any, is provided by the 

producers to you prior to transportation? How is this information 

communicated? 

• What information do you share with truck and rail carriers about the crude 

oil properties? 

• Are there any prescribed limits involving vapor pressure, flammable gas 

concentration or hydrogen sulfide content above which the crude oil is not 

placed into transportation? If so, what are these limits and how are they 

determined? 

To date, PHMSA has received some testing information from individual 

crude oil companies but thus far the data has been limited. As part of ongoing efforts, PHMSA has supported the American Petroleum Institute StandVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:52 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\4-2-14~1\87432.TXT JEAN
34 

ards Committee initiative to develop industry standards for proper sampling techniques, testing criteria and frequency for crude oil. PHMSA is actively participating in the discussions during working group sessions and 

plans to continue up through expected completion in July. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. Now, my next question, Mr. Downey, I was very 

involved with the wet lines issue. And, in fact, I went over to Baltimore to test it, you know. And I know that we are on tight budgets. 

And so, in your testimony, you said it would be better if you all 

use that money for anti-rollover technology, which is really the 

problem in the industry, and not the wet lines. Can you expound 

upon that, please? 

Mr. DOWNEY. That is a very good point, Ranking Member Brown. 

In fact, I was in Baltimore at that hearing, as well. And if you 

look—— 

Ms. BROWN. And I went around—— 

Mr. DOWNEY. I know you did. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Before we went to the hearing. 

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes, and one of our folks was there. 

Ms. BROWN. I recommend the chairman do the same. 

Mr. DOWNEY. I guess our point is that, looking at the cost benefit 

analysis that was done in the surveys, looking at the dangers of 

retrofitting some of the trailers—and I know that when you—— 

Ms. BROWN. I don’t think your mic is on. 

Mr. DOWNEY. It is. I believe it is—— 

Ms. BROWN. Well, pull it up, pull it up. 

Mr. DOWNEY. Is that better? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DOWNEY. OK, thank you. But looking at the risks to retrofitting the trailers—and when you were in Baltimore, I believe that 

they discussed that with you—we could take those dollars and minimize risk and put it into technology that would make the traveling 

public safer, keep our tractors and trailers on the road, with the 

anti-roll stability. That is our position. Does that answer your question? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. And I would be interested in making sure 

that we get some directions to the agency in that vein, because, basically, in—from what I can gather, the information that we have 

gotten, that is where the problem is, and not with the wet lines. 

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. My last question, pertaining to making sure 

that we protect the firefighters and the first responders, and—do 

the firefighters have the gear to respond to the hazmat incidents? 

And I am particularly concerned about the crude oil, ethanol, and 

the lithium batteries. And those batteries, I understand, could play 

a major part when it comes to airplane crashes and other things. 

Ms. HARMAN. The traditional gear for—that firefighters are going 

to be wearing, donning and doffing as they show up to these scenes 

here, is your traditional turnout gear. That is your initial response. 

Your typical firefighter that is coming in here in their bunker jacket, their bunker boots, and their pants with their suspenders and 

their self-contained breathing apparatus, gloves, a lot of hose, a lot 

of fire—not fire—a lot of water. Your second set that is coming in 

are definitely going to be going more into the hot zone. Those are 

your technicians, those are your specialists. So that gear that is out 

35 

there we believe right now is sufficient that is out there. There is 

new technologies coming out every day. We stay abreast of that, 

and there is a cost that comes to that. So we are always watching 

that to see, you know, how is this going to be afforded, how are 

these skill sets going to be acquired. 

But the gear that is there now, so long as the fire departments 

have the minimum level of what they need, and the training that 

they need to respond in an operational capacity, they should be 

pretty well set to go. 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Quarterman? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes? You want me to answer the same question about gear? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, we agree that it is important. We would 

have to look at our grant language to ensure that it is something 

that we could fund through our existing HMEP grant program, the 

extent to which we can fund it. 

Ms. BROWN. Is it possible to let the Members know when the 

grant applications are available? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We would love to. 

Ms. BROWN. So that we could make sure our communities know 

about it? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. If you don’t know, we will make 

sure you know. 

Ms. BROWN. Because are you saying that you put it in the Federal Register? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We put it in the Federal Register, but we realize that not everybody reads that, so we have been tweeting it—— 

Ms. BROWN. And some small communities don’t have a person 

that is looking for that all the time. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, we try to do a press release, as well. But 

we will absolutely let the Members know. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Quarterman, one of 

the other issues I have been dealing with for a long time, even before I came to Congress, is that I have a facility, LPG tanks, which 

are located in San Pedro. I think they were built in 1976, aging facilities, they can hold up to 25 million gallons of LPG. I have been 

trying to get them moved or shut down for as long as I can remember. They are on private property, so I am struggling with what to 

do. But the threat of leakage and vaporizing and igniting and—it 

sits next to a soccer field, an elementary school, residential neighborhood. 

So, just have two things on that. One, in 1986, I guess, Congress 

passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 

Act, EPCRA. And after 9/11, DHS came in and many of these highly volatile facilities now are being classified as a possible homeland 

security threat. You know, attack on one of them, obviously, could 

produce the same effect as a natural disaster. 

So now, that has superseded EPCRA. So now I believe a member 

of the community has to go downtown to their fire department, look 

at documents in secret, not allowed to take out copies of those documents, so it really has undermined, in my opinion, a community’s 

36 

right to know the kinds of hazardous materials and threat to their 

livelihood that exists in their community. 

Is this something that you feel like we should do a better job of 

balancing? Is this something maybe you and Jay Johnson could 

have a conversation about? Because I really do think—I mean I am 

all about homeland security, but I am also about a community’s 

right to know what kind of hazardous material is in their neighborhood, and what they need to do to prepare themselves against disaster. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I agree with you, and we have a similar effect 

on the pipeline side, where, as we had created, I think—or the 

agency had created very detailed maps of the pipeline system, and 

put it on the web, and almost immediately had to pull it down because of 9/11, I think it is worthwhile to have that conversation. 

I have heard that some of those things are no longer as covered 

as they used to be. There are less concerns. But I agree with you, 

the public has a right to know where these facilities are, and to be 

prepared to respond. And certainly emergency responders need to 

be prepared to respond in those instances. So I will take you up 

on that, and have a conversation—— 

Ms. HAHN. Great. And maybe even there is a compromise in how 

they—you know, besides going downtown to a fire department and 

looking at documents in secret, is there a compromise there? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. 

Ms. HAHN. Yes. And the other thing, what can I tell my constituents in San Pedro, California, that PHMSA is doing to protect them 

from a possible leak, vapor cloud, ignite? I mean, the threat of 

something happening with 25 million gallons of propane and butane is just a daily concern. And we can’t figure out which agency 

could help us, you know, protect the community against a disaster. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I am not sure that we have oversight of that 

particular facility. Our oversight is to pipelines and things that are 

moving in transportation. But I would say to your constituency 

that, you know, PHMSA is a small agency with a huge mission, 

and you will see the number of incidents going down, down, down 

over time. 

Our folks are dedicated to ensuring that nothing happens, and 

we really are moving towards zero incidents. So you walk around 

every day—— 

Ms. HAHN. And this facility actually has a rail line now. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. HAHN. And so this product is being—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Is moving in and out. 

Ms. HAHN. Is moving by rail. So—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Most of the time nothing happens. We are all 

surrounded by pipelines, by trucks moving hazardous materials, by 

trains every moment of the day. So we are talking about an infinitesimal possibility of something going wrong. I mean, really, considering the amount of—— 

Ms. HAHN. If it makes them sleep better at night. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I know. 

Ms. HAHN. Well, if you would take a look into this facility and 

the railcars for me, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. 

37 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Hahn. Mr. Cummings? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. Ms. Quarterman, in 2009 

this committee conducted an investigation of DOT’s hazmat program, and were made aware of an internal DOT analysis which 

showed that 60 to 90 percent of all accidents were unreported, and 

that little had been done to address it. 

The audit also found that there were several invisible risks 

where DOT had little to no data, such as LNG facility incidents, 

hazmat incidents in the maritime mode, loading and unloading of 

rail tank cars, and environmental effects of hazmat spills. 

Four years later, in September 2013, the GAO reported that 

DOT’s incident data is still significantly flawed, raising concerns 

for what should be a data-driven agency. What is DOT doing to improve its hazmat data, particularly data on accidents and incidents? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We have had, since the September of 2009, we 

have had teams working on data quality, especially with respect to 

unreported incidents. We now do our own intelligence gathering, if 

you will, for incidents that are not reported to us on the 5800 report. And we include those within our database. So we are trying 

to get data from as many different sources as possible, and include 

it within our system. And then we go out, we follow up with anybody who has not reported that incident. 

So I think our data quality has improved a great deal. I am not 

familiar with the GAO report that you are referring to—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN [continuing]. In 2013. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, do you think we are missing—still missing 

some of these incidents and accidents? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I am certain we are missing some of these. I 

mean if they are not reported any place that we are looking, then 

we are not getting that. 

You know, the—we have very recently completed a data report 

about how we might do even more to clean up our data and make 

it better. But it is a resource-intensive exercise, and we need more 

resources to be able to continue to make our data better. 

We put in place an IT modernization program as part of the response to that 2009. We have had only small pieces of that funded. 

So it is an uphill battle, but I think we are doing a good job at 

cleaning up the data. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, in your testimony you indicated that, pursuant to MAP–21 legislation, PHMSA adopted a new rule on April 

17, 2013, to remove the maximum penalty for a violation of hazardous materials rules, and to raise from $75,000 to $175,000 the 

maximum penalty for a knowing violation, and a violation resulting 

in death, serious illness, or severe injury to any person, or substantial destruction of property. 

How many times over the past decade has PHMSA assessed the 

maximum penalty for either a willful violation, a violation that resulted in death, or injury, or substantial destruction of property, 

and how—have any such penalties been assessed since the enactment of the new rule? 

38 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I would have to go and get that data for you. 

I can tell you that our penalty authority has gone up. And for the 

first time, I think, in many, many years, we also revised our penalty guidelines, which sort of circumscribe how much the penalties 

are. In my view, the penalties are still extremely low. But I will 

provide that record for you—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN [continuing]. That answer for you for the 

record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How soon can you get that to me? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We should be able to do it in a week or so. 

[The information follows:] 

Question: How many times over the past decade has PHMSA assessed the 

maximum penalty for either a willful violation, a violation that resulted in 

death, or injury, or substantial destruction of property? 

Answer: Seven (three at $50,000 and four at $55,000). 

Question: Have any such penalties been assessed since the enactment of the 

new rule? 

Answer: Zero. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I want to thank each 

of our witnesses for their testimony today. If there are no further 

questions, I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have 

provided answers to any questions that have been submitted to 

them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain 

open 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to thank 

our witnesses again for their testimony. 

If no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

39 


Insert offset folio 9 here 87432.009
40 


Insert offset folio 10 here 87432.010
41 


Insert offset folio 11 here 87432.011
42 


Insert offset folio 12 here 87432.012
43 


Insert offset folio 13 here 87432.013
44 


Insert offset folio 14 here 87432.014
45 


Insert offset folio 15 here 87432.015
46 


Insert offset folio 16 here 87432.016
47 


Insert offset folio 17 here 87432.017
48 


Insert offset folio 18 here 87432.018
49 


Insert offset folio 19 here 87432.019
50 


Insert offset folio 20 here 87432.020
51 


Insert offset folio 21 here 87432.021
52 


Insert offset folio 22 here 87432.022
53 


Insert offset folio 23 here 87432.023
54 


Insert offset folio 24 here 87432.024
55 


Insert offset folio 25 here 87432.025
56 


Insert offset folio 26 here 87432.026
57 


Insert offset folio 27 here 87432.027
58 


Insert offset folio 28 here 87432.028
59 


Insert offset folio 29 here 87432.029
60 


Insert offset folio 30 here 87432.030
61 


Insert offset folio 31 here 87432.031
62 


Insert offset folio 32 here 87432.032
63 


Insert offset folio 33 here 87432.033
64 


Insert offset folio 34 here 87432.034
65 


Insert offset folio 35 here 87432.035
66 


Insert offset folio 36 here 87432.036
67 


Insert offset folio 37 here 87432.037
68 


Insert offset folio 38 here 87432.038
69 


Insert offset folio 39 here 87432.039
70 


Insert offset folio 40 here 87432.040
71 


Insert offset folio 41 here 87432.041
72 


Insert offset folio 42 here 87432.042
73 


Insert offset folio 43 here 87432.043
74 


Insert offset folio 44 here 87432.044
75 


Insert offset folio 45 here 87432.045
76 


Insert offset folio 46 here 87432.046
77 


Insert offset folio 47 here 87432.047
78 


Insert offset folio 48 here 87432.048
79 


Insert offset folio 49 here 87432.049
80 


Insert offset folio 50 here 87432.050
81 


Insert offset folio 51 here 87432.051
82 


Insert offset folio 52 here 87432.052
83 


Insert offset folio 53 here 87432.053
84 


Insert offset folio 54 here 87432.054
85 


Insert offset folio 55 here 87432.055
86 


Insert offset folio 56 here 87432.056
87 


Insert offset folio 57 here 87432.057
88 


Insert offset folio 58 here 87432.058
89 


Insert offset folio 59 here 87432.059
90 


Insert offset folio 60 here 87432.060
91 


Insert offset folio 61 here 87432.061
92 


Insert offset folio 62 here 87432.062
93 


Insert offset folio 63 here 87432.063
94 


Insert offset folio 64 here 87432.064
95 


Insert offset folio 65 here 87432.065
96 


Insert offset folio 66 here 87432.066
97 


Insert offset folio 67 here 87432.067
98 


Insert offset folio 68 here 87432.068
99 


Insert offset folio 69 here 87432.069
100 


Insert offset folio 70 here 87432.070
101 


Insert offset folio 71 here 87432.071
102 


Insert offset folio 72 here 87432.072
103 


Insert offset folio 73 here 87432.073
104 


Insert offset folio 74 here 87432.074
105 


Insert offset folio 75 here 87432.075
106 


Insert offset folio 76 here 87432.076
107 


Insert offset folio 77 here 87432.077
108 


Insert offset folio 78 here 87432.078
109 


Insert offset folio 79 here 87432.079
110 


Insert offset folio 80 here 87432.080
111 


Insert offset folio 81 here 87432.081
112 


Insert offset folio 82 here 87432.082
113 


Insert offset folio 83 here 87432.083
114 


Insert offset folio 84 here 87432.084
115 


Insert offset folio 85 here 87432.085
116 


Insert offset folio 86 here 87432.086
117 


Insert offset folio 87 here 87432.087
118 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 88 here 87432.088