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

65–645 PDF 2011

RAILROAD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS: REFORMS 

AND IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE 

REGULATORY BURDENS 

(112–23) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 7, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Bruno, Stephen J., Vice President, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and 

Trainmen .............................................................................................................. 5 

Chambers, Ray B., Executive Director, Association of Independent Passenger 

Rail Operators ...................................................................................................... 5 

Conley, John L., President, National Tank Truck Carriers ................................. 5 

Fauver, Toby L., AICP, Deputy Secretary, Local and Area Transportation, 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation .................................................... 5 

Hamberger, Edward R., President and CEO, Association of American Railroads ...................................................................................................................... 5 

Hart, Hon. Christopher A., Vice Chairman, National Transportation Safety 

Board ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Hart, Thomas A., Jr., Esq., Vice President, Government Affairs and General 

Counsel, US High Speed Rail Association ......................................................... 5 

Inclima, Rick, Director of Safety, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division ...................................................................................................... 5 

McHugh, Joseph H., Vice President, Government Affairs and Corporate Communications, Amtrak ........................................................................................... 5 

Millar, William, President, American Public Transportation Association .......... 5 

O’Connor, Kevin B., Assistant to the General President, International Association of Fire Fighters ........................................................................................ 5 

Parker, Leonard, National Legislative Director, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen .................................................................................................................. 5 

Paul, Scott N., Executive Director, Alliance for American Manufacturing ........ 5 

Pileggi, Mary L., North American Logistics Manager, Dupont, on behalf of 

American Chemistry Council .............................................................................. 5 

Self, Gary, Vice President and General Manager, Nelson Brothers, Inc., representing the Institute of Makers of Explosives ................................................ 5 

Simpson, Thomas D., President, Railway Supply Institute, Inc. ......................... 5 

Sramek, Helen M., President, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. ..................................... 5 

Stem, James A., Jr., National Legislative Director, United Transportation 

Union ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Timmons, Richard F., President, American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association ............................................................................................................ 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bruno, Stephen J. .................................................................................................... 46 

Chambers, Ray B. .................................................................................................... 53 

Conley, John L. ........................................................................................................ 56 

Fauver, Toby L., AICP ............................................................................................ 58 

Hamberger, Edward R. ........................................................................................... 62 

Hart, Hon. Christopher A. ...................................................................................... 87 

Hart, Thomas A., Jr., Esq. ...................................................................................... 97 

Inclima, Rick ............................................................................................................ 103 

McHugh, Joseph H. ................................................................................................. 118 

Millar, William ......................................................................................................... 128 

O’Connor, Kevin B. .................................................................................................. 145 

Parker, Leonard ....................................................................................................... 152 

Paul, Scott N. ........................................................................................................... 160 

Pileggi, Mary L. ....................................................................................................... 169 

Self, Gary .................................................................................................................. 173 

Simpson, Thomas D. ................................................................................................ 177 

Sramek, Helen M. .................................................................................................... 183 

Page

VI 

Stem, James A., Jr. ................................................................................................. 187 

Timmons, Richard F. ............................................................................................... 196 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

request to include the statement from the Air Line Pilots Association, 

International, entitled, ‘‘Reducing Regulatory Burdens and Ensuring Safe 

Transportation of Hazardous Materials’’ ........................................................... 33 

Inclima, Rick, Director of Safety, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division, request to submit the following documents for the record: 

Letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, and to Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ........................................................................ 199 

Docket No. DOT–OST–2011–0025: Regulatory Review of Existing DOT Regulations, Joint Written Comments of Rail Labor Organizations .................. 201 

Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety of Railroad Transportation of 

Hazardous Materials, Docket No. FRA–2011–0004, Joint Written Comments of Seven Rail Labor Organizations ...................................................... 207 

Risk Reduction Program ANPRM, Docket No. FRA–2009–0038, Joint Written Comments of Seven Rail Labor Organizations ........................................ 213 

Evaluation of U.S. Department of Transportation/Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration Hazardous Materials Instructor Training 

Program (HMIT), 2009–2010 Program Year, Railway Workers Hazardous 

Materials Training Program—National Labor College (tables, appendices, 

and chart omitted) ............................................................................................ 229 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Bennett, Bruce, President, Stage 8 Locking Fasteners, statement for the 

record .................................................................................................................... 265 

Capon, Ross B., President and CEO, National Association of Railroad Passengers, statement for the record ....................................................................... 268 

Wilkins, Phyllis, Chairman of the Board, United States Maglev Coalition, 

testimony for the record ...................................................................................... 271 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 65645.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 65645.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 65645.003
(1) 

RAILROAD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS: REFORMS 

AND IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE 

REGULATORY BURDENS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The hearing will come to order. I thank everybody 

for being here this morning. I apologize for being tardy. I would 

blame it on the traffic, but really I have to blame it on myself. I 

did not plan to deal with the traffic, so I should have got up earlier 

and put more time out there to make sure I could get around town. 

But we are here, and again I want to thank everybody for being 

here this morning. 

We are going to do a transportation bill here in the coming 

months, and we wanted to have an opportunity for stakeholders to 

be able to have one last shot at telling us what they think we 

should be doing. So we are going to get everybody on record today. 

We have got 19 witnesses today. They tell me that Jimmy Duncan did the same amount of witnesses in 2 hours. So if those of you 

in the room believe that rail is more efficient, we are going to do 

it in less time than Jimmy Duncan did it in his highways hearing. 

Four minutes per witness, I am going to be brutal with the gavel. 

I will probably start tapping when the yellow light comes on, just 

to remind you that your time is going to end. 

But again, we are looking forward to hearing from everybody 

here today. John Mica and myself and others on the committee 

crisscrossed the country, listening to folks to hear across this country what they wanted to see in a new transportation bill. Our message was very clear, that we are going to have to figure out ways 

to do more with less. And that is the reality of Washington and 

this country today. 

But I am confident, after traveling the country, that we can do 

more with less. The States are on board. The stakeholders that we 

heard from across the country understand that we have to do this. 

And it is going to be incumbent upon us here in Washington to 

produce a bill that gets the Federal Government out of the way, or 

2 

at least gets them lined up as we move these projects forward to 

move them forward with speed and to be financially responsible, as 

we move forward. 

I am going to give Members an opportunity—first of all, yield to 

the Ranking Member, Ms. Brown, for her opening statement. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, thank you. I want to thank Chairman 

Shuster for holding today’s hearing, allowing all of the stakeholders 

to express their views on the upcoming bill to reauthorize the Nation’s surface transportation program. 

I believe wholeheartedly that authorizing a 6-year surface transportation bill with the appropriate funding levels and policy will 

give the economy just the kind of kick-start it needs. 

We are experiencing a renaissance in passenger rail in this country. And if we want to keep up with our international competitors, 

we need to make a significant investment in passenger and highspeed rail. I have advocated for the support of a dedicated source 

of funding for rail that would encourage the committee to include 

a minimum of $53 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger 

rail over the life of the bill, and $53 billion is what the administration had requested. Compared to the funding levels in the overall 

bill, and the money being spent in other countries on rail, $53 billion is a drop in the bucket. 

Although we have some very small-minded governors, support for 

high-speed rail is still very high in this country. The FRA received 

more than 90 applications from 24 States, the District of Columbia, 

and Amtrak for the $2.4 billion that Florida turned back. The request was for nearly $10 billion. 

I also believe that this reauthorization offers us an opportunity 

to improve the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Finance, 

RRIF, loan program. RRIF can help railroads, shippers, and State 

meet their rail infrastructure investment needs. But I do not think 

we are taking full advantage of the program. I met with several 

railroads and others, and they tell me time and time again how difficult the application process is to navigate, how time consuming, 

how expensive, how they cannot use studies from one DOT agency 

to the other. I really do believe this is an area that we can work 

together to do better. 

The draft surface transportation authorization act of 2009 made 

significant changes in the RRIF program, which I proposed. The 

bill authorizes the Secretary to reduce the interest to be paid on 

direct loans provided to railroads, State and local government, and 

eligibility for the sole purpose of installing positive train control, allowing applicants to use private insurance, including BUN insurance, in lieu of credit risk premiums, allowing applicants to pay the 

credit risk premium over the life of the loan. 

The draft bill also authorized appropriations to the Secretary in 

reducing the interest rate for loans using—installing PTC. I hope 

that these provisions will be included in the new bill. 

I want to take this time to also express my strong support for 

Amtrak. Congress has micro-managed and financially starved them 

for most of their existence. We created Amtrak because the freight 

rail could not make a profit on passenger service, yet we continue 

to hammer Amtrak for not making enough money. The Bush adVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\4-7-11~1\65645.TXT JEAN
3 

ministration even went so far as to propose zero funding for Amtrak, trying to bankrupt it. 

I know that Chairman Mica wants to revisit some issues in the 

Amtrak bill that was signed into law on 2008. I hope that whatever 

he proposes, that we can work together and that we do negotiations 

like we did during the 2008 negotiation of the bill. 

Our subcommittee is also making major strides in improving the 

safety in the railroad industry. We are improving hours of service 

and training standards, improving the working and living conditions of railroad employees, and implementing several critical 

NTSB standards, including positive train control, which can save 

both lives and money. 

All of the stakeholders are working very hard together to implement these rules and make adjustments where we needed—we 

need to do this working together. 

Another issue that is critically important to the Gulf States—and 

really, the entire Nation—is restorement of the Sunset Limited 

route. This route served my home State of Florida and other States 

along the Gulf Coast. But sadly, it has been shut down since Hurricane Katrina. The people of the State have been denied the ability 

to travel by rail, and most important, they have lost the ability to 

move from harm’s way during a disaster. If Amtrak is unwilling to 

operate the line, then we may very well be a good place for a private company to provide service on this route. 

Lastly, I want to encourage the committee to include language 

that ensures that minorities, veterans, and women-owned businesses are getting their fair share of the transportation pie. Federal transportation spending has historically served as a critical 

means to empower socially disadvantaged business. Thanks to the 

effort of the Congressional Black Caucus and a bipartisan group of 

members of the House Transportation Committee, including former 

Chairman, Bud Shuster, every major transportation bill since 1983 

has mandated minimum levels of participation for minorities or 

women-owned companies. 

Unfortunately, because the Federal Railroad Administration has 

not historically been a significant grant-making agency, it is not 

currently authorized to require opportunities for disadvantaged 

business. I strongly encourage the committee to take steps necessary to provide the FRA with the authority and to develop other 

programs such as small business set-aside, subcontracting, setting 

goals, and other avenues that ensure that minorities and disadvantaged businesses have their fair share of Federal funding contracts. 

During the hearing process, we heard from witnesses who want 

to limit the scope of the bill to just build roads. That would be a 

mistake. We need a comprehensive bill that improves our transportation system for everyone who uses it, whether they are driving, 

walking, or taking public transportation—public transit. My transportation person is here, Mr. Mike Blalie, who runs my transit system and my roads system. Wave, Mr.—thank you. 

The stimulus bill has proven that transportation infrastructure 

funding provides benefits to the community and puts people back 

to work. From every billion dollars in infrastructure funding, 

32,000 permanent-paid jobs are created. And that is exactly what 

this country needs. 

4 

With that, I want to welcome our panelists, and I am looking forward to the hearing. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the Ranking Member. If nobody took notice, she is fired up this morning. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. I am glad I am not the governor of Florida. 

Thank you for that opening statement. None of the other Members have an opening statement, so we are going to proceed. I trust 

that Jimmy Miller has explained to you how we are going to do 

this. After you get done, get up, the next person is going to sit in 

your seat, and we are going to roll through this. Again, we have 

got to make sure we do it faster than Jimmy Duncan did it. 

But—and if you have a longer statement, it will be in the record. 

So, as we move forward to write the bill, we will have all your 

thoughts on paper and in the record. 

So again, thank you, everybody, for coming. Remember, 4 minutes. 

And we will start with the Honorable Christopher Hart, who is 

the vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

So, Mr. Hart, proceed, please. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. HART, VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; JOSEPH 

H. MCHUGH, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND 

CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, AMTRAK; EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN 

RAILROADS; RICHARD F. TIMMONS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION; WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; THOMAS A. HART, JR., ESQ., VICE 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND GENERAL COUNSEL, US HIGH SPEED RAIL ASSOCIATION; RAY B. CHAMBERS, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT 

PASSENGER RAIL OPERATORS; TOBY L. FAUVER, AICP, DEPUTY SECRETARY, LOCAL AND AREA TRANSPORTATION, 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THOMAS D. SIMPSON, PRESIDENT, RAILWAY SUPPLY INSTITUTE, 

INC.; SCOTT N. PAUL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR 

AMERICAN MANUFACTURING; HELEN M. SRAMEK, PRESIDENT, OPERATION LIFESAVER, INC.; JAMES A. STEM, JR., NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION; STEPHEN J. BRUNO, VICE PRESIDENT, 

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN; LEONARD PARKER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN; RICK 

INCLIMA, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION; GARY SELF, VICE 

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, NELSON BROTHERS, 

INC., REPRESENTING THE INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES; JOHN L. CONLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TANK 

TRUCK CARRIERS; MARY L. PILEGGI, NORTH AMERICAN LOGISTICS MANAGER, DUPONT, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN 

CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; AND KEVIN B. O’CONNOR, ASSISTANT 

TO THE GENERAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS 

Mr. CHRISTOPHER HART. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

Brown, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving the 

National Transportation Safety Board the opportunity to appear 

today to discuss improving transportation safety. I am Christopher 

Hart, Vice Chairman of the NTSB. 

My written testimony addresses the safety of several railroad 

and hazardous materials transportation programs, including positive train control, air transportation of lithium batteries, wet lines 

on highway cargo tanks, loading and unloading of hazardous materials in railroad tank cars and highway cargo tanks, and highway 

cargo tank rollovers. 

In the few minutes I have this morning, I will focus on the first 

of these topics—positive train control—and the significant improvement to rail safety that it will bring. The competent, highly trained 

professionals in the railroad industry all share a common trait. No 

matter how good they are, they may occasionally make mistakes, 

just like any other human being. Positive train control provides a 

very important back-up, a redundancy, against the inevitability of 

human error in four railroad accident scenarios that are most likely to cause injury and death. 

6 

Those four scenarios are: collisions between trains, overspeed 

derailments, incursions into work areas, and going through a 

switch that is incorrectly aligned. That is why the NTSB placed 

positive train control on its Most Wanted List when it created the 

Most Wanted List in 1990. Positive train control remained on that 

list until we removed it when Congress, in its wisdom, enacted the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This Act requires Class I 

railroads to implement positive train control by December 31, 2015, 

over rail lines that carry poisonous by inhalation or toxic by inhalation hazardous materials, or that carry regularly scheduled intercity or commuter passenger trains. 

In the past 5 years, the NTSB has investigated 20 railroad accidents that involve collisions or derailments, some of which are 

shown on these slides. Of those 20, most resulted from operator 

error, and more than half could have been prevented or mitigated 

by positive train control. 

The redundancy that is provided by positive train control is becoming even more crucial as we are beginning to see a very disturbing increase in operator distraction from personal electronic devices in all modes of transportation. An example of this is the distraction that led to the tragic collision in 2008 between a passenger 

train and a freight train in Chatsworth, California, that resulted 

in 25 fatalities and more than 130 injuries. 

Another technology implementation success story occurred with 

the airlines, with the advent of terrain awareness warning systems 

to warn pilots when they are dangerously close to terrain, and dangerously close to one of the most lethal types of aviation accidents, 

commonly known as controlled flight into terrain, or CFIT. That 

warning system serves as a very important backup or redundancy 

for the occasional human error by competent, highly trained pilots. 

Thanks to the requirement in the U.S. for terrain awareness 

warning systems, we have not had a domestic CFIT fatality involving a passenger air carrier since 1996, despite the fact that CFIT 

is the second leading cause of aviation accidents worldwide. 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the Federal Railroad Administration’s 2009 rulemaking implementing the Act will 

significantly improve rail safety by creating much-needed safety redundancy for the inevitable failures of human performance, such as 

those listed in this slide. 

In closing, the NTSB was created to advocate for transportation 

safety, and to push Federal and State agencies and industry to do 

the right thing for safety. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

Brown, and members of this subcommittee, implementing positive 

train control is the safe thing to do and the right thing to do. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Mr. Stephen Klejst, director of the NTSB’s office of Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigations, will remain to respond to questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hart. I appreciate that. 

And next, Mr. Joe McHugh, vice president of government affairs 

and corporate communications for Amtrak. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Shuster, Ms. Brown. It is very 

nice to see all of you here, members of the committee. Thank you 

for this opportunity to testify. 

7 

Briefly, we have been doing very well at Amtrak. We have just 

this week announced our 17th consecutive month of ridership increases. And over the period from 2000 we have had a 40-percent 

increase in ridership for the corporation. 

Briefly, we at Amtrak like the broad contours of the administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, which begins to move rail 

in the direction of making it an equal partner in surface transportation funding and policy. The proposal would consolidate traditional Amtrak and high-speed rail programs and provide some degree of funding stability and certainty that would help us to advance our systems, and would make it similar to those available for 

highway and aviation systems. 

As the only intercity rail passenger provider, and the only currently operator of high-speed service in the United States, we believe that a rail title—the surface bill should build on the proposal 

advanced initially by the administration. And we would recommend 

five objectives to that. 

First, we would recommend that the rail title provide a multiyear 

dedicated funding source for high-speed service and for intercity 

passenger rail. We can define what high-speed means, but we 

should begin to look at opportunities to advance rail passenger 

service, particularly connecting major metropolitan areas. Major 

capital programs such as railroad construction require a commitment of funds, and are very hard to initiate, let alone accomplish, 

without some funding certainty. 

Second, we would hope to establish a national investment strategy to guide project planning and execution. We would look to future trends, and we would look to work with the FRA, regional 

body, State governments, and other key stakeholders that we have 

traditionally worked with. 

Third, we would ask that the legislation not overlook some of the 

unique assets and practices that Amtrak has to offer. We have a 

lot of experience now, over 40 years of operating service throughout 

the United States, in 46 States, and we have an incredible amount 

of reserves, assets, and knowledge. We would hope that the committee would seek to leverage some of those capabilities as they 

move forward on the legislation. 

Fourth—five ideas here—fourth, the rail title should also ensure 

coordination between various stakeholders, better planning, and 

project execution among FRA, Amtrak, the region States, and our 

host railroad partners as a requirement to ensure that new and existing services are integrated with other systems. And that will 

help maximize benefits and provide better economies of scale. Planning coordination should facilitate and not hinder multistate partnerships, such as what we have in the northeast corridor and what 

we have also seen developing in the Midwest, with the Midwest regional rail initiative. 

Finally, we would ask that—the rail title is an opportunity to 

bring some order to licensing and insurance requirements for passenger rail operators. Amtrak is required by statute to have $200 

million in insurance coverage. Other operators do not necessarily 

have to carry insurance, even if they receive funding under other 

Federal programs other than PRIIA. The lack of a standard Federal liability requirement is a major impediment, and makes it difVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\4-7-11~1\65645.TXT JEAN
8 

ficult to develop new services, and raises the risk that liability for 

damages could be offloaded on the taxpayer. 

It is very clear that the basic assumptions about travel that had 

governed our policy for decades have changed. Even the development of electric automobiles raises the implicit question of whether 

a gas tax will continue to be a reliable funding mechanism 8 years 

out. 

So, we look forward to working with you on addressing those 

problems, and we hope that this surface reauthorization bill will 

become a revolutionary and not evolutionary advancement in transportation. And we hope that we will reduce some of the funding 

silos and have a more results-based funding requirement. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. McHugh. I appreciate that. 

And next up, Mr. Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of Association of American Railroads. Mr. Hamberger, please proceed. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

committee, for the opportunity to present the views of AAR members on reauthorization of SAFETEA–LU. 

An efficient and safe transportation system is, of course, essential to the growth and prosperity of our Nation. The system today 

is overburdened. And it is important that you have acknowledged 

this problem, and are seeking ways to fix it. Be assured that America’s railroads stand ready to work with all policymakers and 

stakeholders to be part of that solution. 

Indeed, moving more freight and passengers by rail can provide 

enormous public benefits: less pollution, less congestion, less energy consumption. 

As you work toward legislation, we would like you to consider 

three key points. The first is the importance of a level playing field 

to freight railroads. This does not exist today. America’s freight 

railroads operate almost exclusively on infrastructure that they 

own, build, maintain, and pay for themselves. Indeed, we pay taxes 

on our own right of way. 

By contrast, trucks operate on publicly financed highways, and 

the taxes they pay do not come close to covering the damage they 

inflict on the Nation’s highways. This already places railroads at 

a competitive disadvantage. A recent study of DOT data indicates 

that 80,000-pound trucks underpay their fair share today by $.28 

a gallon. Yet there are several proposals to increase the current 

size and weight limit on trucks. None of these proposals contains 

measures that would meaningfully reduce the tax subsidy enjoyed 

by larger trucks. 

In fact, at 97,000 pounds, the taxpayer subsidy to the trucks would be $1.17 a gallon. And the result would be significant diversion of freight rail to highway—freight from rail to highway, with 

particularly dire consequences for short line railroads. 

The second point we would like you to consider is the importance 

of regulatory certainty for railroads. Thanks to partial deregulation 

brought on by the Staggers Act, railroads were able to significantly 

increase investment and infrastructure and equipment. Since 1980, 

we have invested some $480 billion private funds—that’s $.40 out 

of every revenue dollar—into infrastructure and equipment. The industry appreciates the letters sent by the bipartisan leadership of 

9 

the full committee and this subcommittee to the Surface Transportation Board opposing changes to the regulatory system that would 

impeded our ability to continue to make these needed investments. 

This year alone we anticipate a record $12 billion of investment in 

CapX. 

However, our ability to continue this level of investment is 

threatened and undercut by uncertainties created by issues such 

as: an overly broad positive train control mandate, as we discussed 

with this committee last month; high potential liability stemming 

from the common carrier obligation to carry extremely hazardous 

materials; proposals to impose a safety fee on railroads not charged 

to other industries; and proposals to create a freight fund to be financed by a fee on freight shipments. 

This imposition of such a fee would be especially egregious, since, 

as I have just noted, we already pay for our own infrastructure. 

Finally, there are a number of existing programs covered by this 

legislation that work very well, and we would hope they would continue. Among these is the section 130 grade crossing program that 

financing grade crossing safety improvements, which, along with 

educational programs and outreach from Operation Lifesaver, is 

credited with the fact that today grade crossing accidents, deaths, 

and injuries are at historic lows. 

We also believe Congress should continue to encourage metropolitan planning organizations to consider freight transportation 

needs, and we support, including the short line tax credit, CMAQ 

program, and public-private partnerships. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamberger. And next, 

General Richard Timmons, president of the American Short Line 

and Regional Railroad Association. General, please proceed. 

General TIMMONS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members 

of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I 

am Rich Timmons, president of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. We represent 550 Class II and Class 

III railroads across North America. I appreciate the opportunity to 

list those items the Short Line Association believes should be included in the rail title of the SAFETEA–LU reauthorization bill. 

First, let me say that we endorse the concepts presented by Mr. 

Hamberger and the AAR, and I will expand on a number of those 

in this testimony. But each of their recommendations help the 

short line industry or make for a stronger Class I industry, which 

is good for the entire railroad industry, as a whole. 

Our first priority is to extend the short line rehabilitation tax 

credit, which expires at the end of this year. We know this is dealt 

with in the tax title of the bill, but our hope is to include the extension in your final SAFETEA–LU reauthorization. And we want to 

emphasize how important this is to the short lines, to members of 

this committee. 

Congressman Shuster and Congressman Costello are original cosponsors of our current extension legislation, H.R. 721. In the last 

Congress we had 262 House cosponsors, including 57 members of 

the Congress’ T&I committee. We hope every member of the current T&I committee will sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 721. 

10 

We also hope that in your discussions with the Ways and Means 

Committee you will take the time to emphasize how important the 

tax credit is to maximizing investment in infrastructure, preserving 

service to small and medium-sized shippers, and improving track 

safety. In a fiscal environment where Federal funds are funds for 

maintaining freight rail infrastructure will undoubtedly be constrained, the fiscally responsible step is to encourage private enterprise to fund private sector improvements with private dollars, and 

the section 45D does just that. 

We strongly encourage the committee to enact the so-called 

SHIPA legislation extending the current freeze on longer and heavier trucks to the entire national highway system. Increasing truck 

size and weights will divert rail traffic to the highways, increasing 

congestion and highway repair costs. The change will also create a 

huge shortfall between the truck share of highway damage and 

their contribution to those costs. 

As indicated, we support the AAR recommendation on positive 

train control. In addition, we believe the Federal Government 

should help pay for this unfunded mandate. Funding PTC is well 

beyond the resources of short line railroads. It will force short lines 

to reallocate money from much more important rehabilitation 

projects to a highly complex system that will result in virtually no 

safety benefits for the typical short line operation. 

As Chairman Mica and many other members of the committee 

have stressed repeatedly, the RRIF program has the ability to invest $35 billion into rail improvements without an appropriation, 

and using private sector commitments to repay the loans. However, 

absent improvements, this program will remain stuck where it has 

been for the past 10 years. 

In February, the short line industry testified before this committee concerning the RRIF program. And last month we participated in a T&I staff workshop on the same subject. We have made 

a number of recommendations, including providing a TIFIA-like 

subsidy that would allow more flexible loans, increasing FRA staffing resources, bringing the credit council and OMB participation 

into line with the 90-day requirement, and easing certain collateral 

requirements. We will work with the Congress to draft language on 

these subjects. 

We encourage the committee to eliminate the unintended impact 

on small railroads, the hours of service provisions in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Clearly, they were drafted to address 

long-haul conditions, but do not fit the mostly daylight short-haul 

operations of small railroads. Granting relief from restrictions not 

at all relevant to small railroad operations will not impact safety, 

and continue the service which shippers expect from their Class II 

and Class III carriers. 

Finally, we urge you to reauthorize the rail relocation program. 

This is a—one of the very few programs that provide direct financial assistance to railroads. While railroads were able to compete 

for last year’s Tiger funding program, the rail relocation program 

is geared specifically to railroads, and can be enormously effective 

in addressing rail safety issues associated with grade separations 

and improving movement in and out of yards and industrial parks. 

11 

I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the short line 

industry. We would be pleased to answer any questions that you 

may have at the appropriate time. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, General. Next, Mr. William 

Millar, the president of the American Public Transportation Association. 

Mr. Millar, please? 

Mr. MILLAR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Brown. On behalf of APTA’s 1,500 public and private sector members, it is my pleasure to be here. 

APTA urges the Congress to enact a well-funded, 6-year, 

multimodal surface transportation bill as soon as possible. It is one 

of the most important actions Congress can take to improve mobility while preparing our Nation for the coming economic and population growth. 

Increasing ridership on commuter railroads and Amtrak indicates that Americans are clamoring for options to avoid high gas 

prices, congested roadways, and crowded airports. Commuter railroads are eager to meet demands for more service, but face significant obstacles in that effort. 

At the same time, operators want to improve safety. We are 

grateful that this committee, on March 17th, held a hearing on the 

Rail Safety Improvement Act, which requires, among other provisions, that commuter railroads implement positive train control by 

December 31, 2015. 

As the APTA witnessed explained that day, there are three key 

items needed to implement positive train control: first, adequate 

Federal funding; second, sufficient radio spectrum; and, third, more 

time to develop, test, and implement the required technologies. Implementing PTC on the Nation’s commuter railroads will cost more 

than $2 billion. These costs are forcing commuter railroads to consider reducing service or deferring other critical system safety and 

state of good repair projects, in order to redirect limited funds to 

get PTC online by 2015. Examples of these deferrals include bridge 

replacements, electrical substation modernization, and shop and 

yard improvements. 

Deferring safety projects or cutting service should not be the 

price of implementing PTC. We urge the Congress to fund at least 

80 percent of PTC costs for commuter railroads, extend PTC implementation deadline for commuter railroads by 3 years, and direct 

the Federal Communications Commission to set aside adequate 

radio spectrum at no cost to commuter railroads. If these things 

are done, PTC can happen very quickly. 

Turning to high-speed and intercity passenger rail, a recent survey of nearly 25,000 Americans found that 62 percent expected to 

use high-speed rail, if it were available, while only 11 percent said 

they would not. Amtrak reported record ridership last year with its 

higher speed Acela service ridership growing twice as fast as its 

regular service. 

Some 32 States plus the District of Columbia are forging ahead 

and planning and implementing rail improvements. A recent study 

found that each billion dollars invested in high-speed rail supports 

at least 24,000 jobs. That means that the 6-year investment proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\4-7-11~1\65645.TXT JEAN
12 

posed by President Obama would spur nearly 1.3 million jobs in 

construction, manufacturing, and service industries. APTA supports the President’s proposal, and we urge this committee to carefully consider the importance of creating and sustaining 1.3 million 

mostly private sector jobs. 

In order to properly fund—besides properly funding high-speed 

and intercity rail, a long-term legislative authorization is also required. APTA supports passenger rail that connects with other 

modes of transportation, encourages the growth of rail freight service, provides for strong investment by the private sector, requires 

open and fair competition, expedites program delivery, and establishes common standards across DOT agencies for the efficient implementation of NEPA provisions, while adhering to Federal rail 

laws, Americans with Disability Act, and the inclusion of disadvantaged business enterprises. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be with you. I 

will look forward to answering your questions at the appropriate 

time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Millar. 

Next, Thomas Hart, the vice president of government affairs, and 

general counsel for the US High Speed Rail Association. 

Mr. Hart, proceed, please. 

Mr. THOMAS HART. Thank you, Chairman Shuster and Ranking 

Member Brown. On behalf of the United States High Speed Rail 

Association, its president, Andy Kunz, and its 250 members, I extend greetings to this prestigious subcommittee on railroads, pipelines, and hazardous material. I am here representing the USHSR 

as its vice president for government affairs and general counsel. I 

also serve as the director of the Washington office of the national 

law firm of Quarles and Brady. 

The United States High Speed Rail Association is a non-profit 

trade association committed to advancing the state of—and our nationwide true high-speed system, completed in phases across the 

country. Our mission is to build widespread public, business, and 

political support for a major investment in the Nation’s high-speed 

rail network. We support a 6-year authorization bill under consideration by this subcommittee. 

The United States High Speed Rail Association is pleased to 

share its thoughts on how to expedite the development of highspeed rail in the United States through the investment of private 

funds in this infrastructure. 

On January 27th I had the pleasure to testify in New York before the full committee. Many of you were there in New York. And 

the issue of public-private partnerships was discussed at great 

length. Shortly thereafter, we had a summit hearing in Washington, where subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking 

Member Corrine Brown and other Members of Congress and over 

400 attendees participated in that focus discussion on the deployment of high-speed rail in America. 

We are delighted today to offer model legislation to establish a 

Federal program that will assist in the rapid creation of a true 

high-speed rail system funded in part by innovative public-private 

partnerships. Mr. Chairman, the model legislation is part of my 

testimony. I would like to have it introduced into the record. 

13 

Mr. SHUSTER. It will be in the record. Thank you. 

Mr. THOMAS HART. Thank you. Presently, most of our national 

transportation systems are overloaded and in a state of disrepair. 

This causes delays and costs more than $100 billion per year in lost 

time and wasted fuel. The price of oil is already traded at over 

$100 a barrel, and is expected to continue to rise. The quicker we 

can build alternative forms of transportation, the better for the Nation. 

There are many corridors in the United States that are of high 

interest to private investment. One, of course, is the northeast corridor, which we have discussed among this panel, and among the 

committee on numerous occasions. The northeast corridor is ripe 

for high-speed rail investment and private investors stand ready to 

assist in that effort. 

Chicago is also a hub for high-speed rail traffic that could be very 

profitable. And the West Coast systems in California and Las 

Vegas also have great potential. 

To very quickly focus on the legislation that is being offered by 

the US High Speed Rail Association today, let me highlight a couple of key provisions. Section 19 talks about the small business initiatives that are necessary. It is true that the FRA has not yet developed a small business program, and they should do so rapidly. 

Also, we propose an economic development credit for transportation 

infrastructure developed around the train stations for high-speed 

rail. 

We also propose a creative way for private investment to come 

into Amtrak. There is only one shareholder of Amtrak, and that is 

the United States Government. We suggest that a private offering 

be made of Amtrak stock up to 5 percent. So let us test the market 

and see if Amtrak can stand the test of Wall Street. 

We also encourage expanding the RRIF program and the TIFIA 

program, and we do support the creation of an infrastructure bank. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we are pleased to work 

with you through these issues, as this legislation moves through 

Congress and the Senate. Thank you again for your leadership in 

this issue, and we are ready to answer any questions or comments 

that you have regarding the legislation. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Next, Mr. Ray Chambers, 

who is the executive director of the Association of Independent Passenger Rail Operators. Mr. Chambers, please proceed. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you. 

Our organization is only about 6 weeks old. We are dedicated to 

increasing the passenger rail network and increasing the development of the Nation’s rail infrastructure. We testified before you on 

March 11th. We outlined a specific program at that time for reforms in the Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act. 

At that time, Chairman Shuster, you made a statement that— 

on PRIIA—‘‘For the first time, rail capital infrastructure programs 

were established that gave the States primary control to improve 

and expand intercity passenger rail services.’’ Expanding on that 

idea is the heart of what our association is all about. 

We are recommending a self-contained section to the rail title 

that would promote public-private partnering and passenger railroading. We are calling for a strong passenger rail commission that 

14 

would oversee that program. One role of the commission will be to 

identify regulatory burdens and put forward new and expedited 

procedures. 

In the written testimony here I have outlined several areas 

where we believe reforms can be taken in the rail title of this bill. 

One of those is RRIF. What Ranking Member Brown outlined is 

very much in accord with where we would like to see RRIF go. 

We believe the section 214 passenger pilot program is too complex and should be streamlined. Similarly, the State-supported rail 

program should be reformed. On that program, we believe that the 

authority of the States should be increased over State-supported 

routes of fewer than 750 miles, and that competition for operations 

should be encouraged. 

Also on the regulatory front we think that the environmental and 

other regulatory permitting of work, particularly on existing track, 

is too lengthy, too expensive, and is too complex. Right now, if a 

freight railroad wants to build a second track on an existing right 

of way with private money, it can be done with no regulatory approvals. If public funds are used to do exactly the same thing, there 

is a full-blown environmental permitting and approval process. We 

recommend that if the line exists and a public project is approved, 

the freight standard for permitting improvement should be applied. 

Now, while passenger expansion is essential, we also believe it 

must not be at the expense of the freight railroads or labor. Negotiations for access should be arm’s length, in terms of the freight 

railroads. PRIIA labor protections should be carried forward. 

Now, public-private partnering is relatively new to the American 

rail scene, and that is why we need a specific initiative or proposal 

to support it and enhance it. Many issues need to be worked 

through, and that is the purpose of the commission that we are 

proposing. 

We know that, in the final analysis, private partners will create 

efficiencies and cost savings that will be passed back to the States 

that will lower operating subsidies, will help guarantee loan repayments, and will improve services. These partnerships, by definition, 

include private sector participation. 

We think that our proposal is in direct line with what Chairman 

Mica and Shuster have called for to reduce regulatory burdens, to 

increase competition and private sector participation in passenger 

rail service. We also think that it is the best way to reach President Obama’s goal of putting high-speed and intercity passenger 

rail option within the reach of most Americans. 

Finally, we applaud the leadership of this committee with the decision to make the next 6-year surface transportaion act a full 

inter-modal bill, along the lines of Ms. Brown’s comments. 

We believe that a strong P3 program in the rail title with Federal oversight and State responsibility can begin to establish rail 

as the third American transportation option, along with highways 

and aviation. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chambers. Next, Toby Fauver, 

who is the deputy secretary of local and area transportation for the 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Or, as we like to call 

him, he is the Rail Guy. 

Mr. FAUVER. Right. 

15 

Mr. SHUSTER. So—— 

Mr. FAUVER. Correct. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Proceed, please. 

Mr. FAUVER. I am going to spend a little bit of time giving you 

some highlights of some of my written testimony. I want to start 

off by talking briefly about the projects that we have done in Pennsylvania and, in particular, just to give you a highlight of what we 

have accomplished. 

In 2006, we completed a partnership program with Amtrak to restore the Keystone Corridor between Harrisburg and Philadelphia. 

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done there. But we 

achieved a lot of success. We reduced travel time in that corridor 

to make it competitive with the automobile. Our express trains actually—you can travel between Harrisburg and Philadelphia faster 

than the automobile. And since 2006, ridership on that line has 

grown by 45 percent. 

But there is still a lot of challenges. Thirty years after the ADA 

law passed, we still have stations that do not meet ADA, that are 

not accessible. We still have challenges with equipment that does 

not meet ADA, and is not accessible. And we need to address that. 

Much of our infrastructure is still 80-plus years old, needs to be replaced and meet state of good repair and improve reliability of the 

line. 

So, where are investment priorities? High-speed and intercity 

rail programs are about connecting high-density city areas. And 

doing so will promote higher levels of sustainability. In Pennsylvania, our population increased about 1 percent over the past decade, but our population spread out in Pennsylvania, consuming a 

50-percent increase in land for that population growth. And I believe that promoting intercity rail and good development around 

stations will help to reduce that trend. 

It is important to note that Federal dollars we were talking 

about for high-speed rail and the cost—they are focused on the cost 

for building systems. States and cities still have to address with 

how they are going to pay for the operating expense and maintenance expense, long term. In Pennsylvania, we have made those 

choices, and have been doing that since the 1980s, and have been 

contributing more and more every year. This past year we are contributing over $9 million, just the service between Harrisburg and 

Philadelphia. 

Many States, including Pennsylvania, are struggling with the 

new Federal requirements under section 209 of PRIIA, and it is 

something that States and AASHTO are working actively with Amtrak to try to address. But a State like ours will face a four to five 

times increase in charges for operating expense that we are not 

going to get any additional service or any improvements for. And 

that is going to be something that is going to be hard for our State 

legislature or governor to have to deal with, especially when it is 

a federally owned company, Amtrak, and our State has no say in 

labor contracts, overhead spending decisions, or work practices. 

We cannot ignore investing in rail infrastructure and expect that 

some day we are going to emerge with the best system in the 

world. We also cannot bury ourselves in bureaucracy that slow 

16 

down projects and system development. I want to focus on a couple 

things that I would suggest for reauthorization. 

One of the things is that we need to eliminate the overlapping 

authority for NEPA clearance between our Federal departments, 

Federal agencies, under USDOT. We have experienced numerous 

projects where we have started with one source of Federal funding 

in a project, and then added another source of Federal funding 

from a different agency, had NEPA clearance from one agency, and 

then had to go back, spend a year-and-a-half, two years, getting 

NEPA clearance from a second agency. 

That creates—number one, it creates a big time delay in delivering projects. It adds cost, cost growth in the project cost, and it 

also costs our State taxpayers more money, which didn’t change the 

project or change the results. That is a big problem. 

NEPA is one law. It applies to all those agencies in the same 

way. But they have all interpreted it differently in the way they 

apply it. 

In the case of passenger rail, we need to learn from the rest of 

the world and think about separating infrastructure ownership 

from infrastructure operation, especially if we are going to expect 

to introduce competition and look at innovative practices, going forward. It is a big challenge. How do we introduce public-private 

partnerships when we have a railroad that owns the infrastructure 

or an area that owns the infrastructure and is also responsible for 

operating it? And we have got to find a way to deal with that. 

So the next thing I wanted to focus on, I guess, is—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. That means you are going to wrap up. 

Mr. FAUVER. OK. We need to have dedicated funding for both 

capital and operating expenses going forward, and that is in partnership between State and Federal Government. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. Just do not tell the Secretary I cut you off. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. And thank you very much for being here today. 

Next is Mr. Thomas Simpson, who is president of the Rail Supply 

Institute. Mr. Simpson, please proceed. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be here 

today. I am here on behalf of over 225 members of the Railway 

Supply Institute, the companies that provide goods and services to 

our Nation’s freight and passenger railroads. They employ somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 people. 

The—I would like to talk a little bit about the economic downturn, the effect it has had on my industry. Strong railroad capital 

expenditures continued through the downturn, and that benefitted 

communications, the maintenance of members. The catastrophic 

loss of freight traffic, however, adversely affected the freight car 

and locomotive builders. Only now are they starting to enjoy a tenuous rebound. And, of course, sporadic investment in our city passenger rail has not allowed that sector to grow like it should be 

able to. 

I am going to refer you to my wonderfully written testimony, and 

simply list the issues that are of importance to us, and would like 

to discuss them at length, if you would like me to. 

17 

We think you should continue the section 130 highway rail grade 

crossing safety program, the program that allows lights and gates 

to be installed at highway rail intercrossings, and also continue to 

fund Operation Lifesaver. The Railway Supply Institute was a 

founding founder of the Operation Lifesaver, Incorporated. I sit on 

its board of directors. It is hard not to argue that Federal investment in the section 130 program and Operation Lifesaver has led 

to the dramatic decrease in accidents at highway rail grade crossings, with an increase in traffic expected on both our highways and 

our railroads. With faster passenger trains and more passenger 

trains, now is not the time to stop funding those two very important highway rail safety initiatives. 

I join my friends, Joe McHugh and Bill Millar, to argue for a 

dedicated source of funding for intercity and high-speed passenger 

rail that will allow Amtrak and the States and, yes, suppliers to 

plan and invest in the future without having to wait year in and 

year out for appropriations. 

You should simplify the Buy America regulations. Currently 

there are three different Buy America policies: one for transit, one 

for Amtrak, and one for high-speed rail. At best, this is confusing 

to suppliers, and they ought to be unified and uniform. 

I ask you to retain the current truck size and weight policy that 

the Federal Government has. An increase in truck size and weights 

will devastate the freight car-building industry, the car-leasing industry. And only now, as I pointed out, are they enjoying a tenuous 

rebound. 

We, of course, endorse the short line infrastructure tax credit. 

And all these programs that we endorse are incredibly important 

to the railway supply industry, and incredibly important to creating—preserving and creating jobs in this country. 

I will bring it in on time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate that. You made up for PennDOT going 

over. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. I will take note of that. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Simpson. 

Next, Mr. Scott Paul, who is the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturers. Mr. Paul, please proceed. 

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brown, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. I speak to you as the executive director of a labor management partnership that includes many 

stakeholders that make rail and make products that go into the 

rail infrastructure, including the workers at ArcelorMittal in 

Steelton, in Pennsylvania. And I also come to you as a one-time 

resident of Addison, Pennsylvania, in Somerset County, which, as 

you know, you can miss if you go by too quickly. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Addison? 

Mr. PAUL. Addison, yes. I am here to talk about Buy America 

today. We believe strongly that every effort must be made to ensure that American-made iron, steel, and other manufactured 

goods are used extensively in our rail infrastructure. 

Buy America is not a new concept. For nearly 80 years, the 

United States has had domestic sourcing or Buy America laws on 

the books. To support our national security capabilities, Buy AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\4-7-11~1\65645.TXT JEAN
18 

ica laws were expanded in the 1940s to apply to defense spending. 

And in the early 1980s, Buy America requirements were signed 

into law by Ronald Reagan for highway and transit projects for federally funded grants. 

In a nod to the benefits of domestic sourcing, Federal policymakers have applied Buy America provisions to Amtrak and to the 

high-speed rail, intercity rail passenger programs. A Buy America 

provision was first applied to Amtrak when the Rail Passenger 

Service Act was passed by Congress in 1978. And when Congress 

passed the Amtrak Reorganization Act of 1979, it reiterated its desire to reinvest U.S. tax dollars in jobs, noting in the conference report that ‘‘It is the conference committee’s strong belief that Amtrak equipment purchased with U.S. tax revenue should continue 

to be returned to the U.S. economy by strongly favoring American 

suppliers and U.S. labor.’’ 

That U.S. tax dollars should be reinvested in the economy is a 

view echoed by today’s policymakers. The Federal Railroad Administration recently observed, relative to the high-speed rail program, 

the Buy America requirements that ‘‘encouraging grantees to use 

manufacturers or suppliers who maximize domestic content will 

help it to achieve its goal of 100 percent domestic content in the 

near future.’’ 

To realize the job-creating and economy-expanding potential of 

Buy America preferences in our infrastructure laws, it is important 

that the preferences apply to all manner of Federal aid infrastructure programs in a way that maximizes domestic content. As stated 

in a 2010 Northeastern University study, ‘‘Full domestic sourcing 

would dramatically increase employment.’’ 

In the context of passenger and freight rail, this means that the 

Buy America provisions should be applied across programs in a 

manner that maximizes U.S.-produced content. This will create 

more jobs, expand economic opportunity for U.S. businesses, and 

enable businesses to better manage their supply chains. 

The domestic content requirement currently applies to the highspeed rail program. It should be applied to all Federal aid programs for rail infrastructure. 

For instance, the domestic content Buy America provision should 

extend to the railroad rehabilitation improvement financing program to require a preference for U.S. taxpayer-produced goods in 

return for the $35 billion in tax dollars authorized to the RRIF program for direct loans and loan guarantees to finance the development of rail infrastructure. I would add that the Buy America program does include safeguards to present—to prevent monopolization or high costs, and there is scant evidence that Buy America 

requirements raised costs for projects that are underway. 

We strongly believe that the waiver process for Buy America 

waivers needs to be made much more transparent and airtight. We 

urge the subcommittee to review ways to increase and streamline 

transparency when waivers are requested and issued. Some, but 

not all, government agencies make waiver requests available to the 

public for 15 days before approving the purchase of goods manufactured abroad. We believe that needs to be strictly enforced and applied to all Buy America programs. 

19 

I would also point out that the Buy America requirements have 

enabled a supply chain to be developed for the manufacture of rail 

products, that they are fully consistent with our international trade 

obligations, and that they are longstanding U.S. policy. 

Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Paul. 

Next, Ms. Helen Sramek, who is the president of the Operation 

Lifesaver. 

Ms. SRAMEK. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss a small, but very important and effective program that Congress has supported for almost 40 years. 

Operation Lifesaver exists because of a startling fact: About 

every 3 hours in the United States, a person or vehicle is hit by 

a train. We are the only nationwide public safety organization 

whose sole mission is to save lives and reduce injuries at highway 

rail crossings and on or around railroad tracks. 

On our website, you will see the story of Robin Potter, a mother 

from Fresno, California, who lost her 15-year-old son 2 years ago 

because he foolishly decided to play chicken with a train. That 

game cost him his life. Robin is now an Operation Lifesaver certified presenter. She talks to audiences in her community about 

that horrible day. 

Our website also features the story of a locomotive engineer who 

tells what it is like to be part of a train crew watching helplessly 

as a train is slammed into emergency braking, hoping it will stop 

in time to prevent a collision. 

Operation Lifesaver began as and remains a grassroots-driven 

organization. All 50 States have independent OL programs under 

the umbrella of our national program. The national organization 

gives focus, consistency, and expertise to the work that is being 

done in the States. We develop customized training programs for 

target audiences like new drivers, truck and school bus drivers, law 

enforcement and emergency responders. We develop the safety 

messages and materials that are used by our volunteers, and we 

will soon be launching a state-of-the-art eLearning program for 

professional truck drivers. 

Because we know that 18- to 30-year-olds are an important audience, we are reaching out to them, using social media. Long ago, 

Congress recognized that a modest investment in the efforts of a 

national organization to bring cohesiveness and expertise to public 

outreach efforts would yield results. 

My purpose today is to urge Members of Congress to maintain 

your investment in this national program. The highway trust fund 

dollars that flow to the national organization demonstrate that 

safety is a shared responsibility between the public and private sectors. 

Consider the following: A collision between a train and vehicle is 

likely to be devastating, usually resulting in loss of life or catastrophic injury. These collisions tie up crossings for hours, wreaking havoc in communities, and impeding the flow of commerce. 

Forecasts are projecting more trains in our future. Freight traffic 

is increasing as the economy improves. We expect more commuter 

20 

and light rail systems to come online as passengers turn to rail to 

meet growing transportation demand. 

The rate of pedestrian rail casualties has increased, bringing 

with it the need for OL to enhance its efforts on the trespass issue. 

An impatient risk-taking population either does not know or ignores the fact that walking or playing on train tracks is illegal and 

possibly fatal. 

Today’s Operation Lifesaver recognizes that its traditional methods of public outreach have moved us forward and saved lives. But 

a small national organization like ours is nimble, adapting to today’s world, where technology dominates every form of communication. 

To conclude, in the four decades since its founding in 1972, OLI’s 

grassroots network has become part of the national rail safety solution through partnerships, presentations, organized media events, 

and more recently, the enhanced use of technology. 

I urge Members of Congress to maintain your investment in a 

national Operation Lifesaver program. As the need for safe transportation grows, so does the value of Operation Lifesaver. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Sramek. 

Next, Mr. James Stem, Jr., the national legislative director for 

the United Transportation Union. 

Mr. Stem, please proceed. 

Mr. STEM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Brown. Thank you for the opportunity to present our viewpoint, 

and the concerns of the 70,000-plus men and women that are working today, as we speak, operating the trains that are moving 

freight and passenger trains around the country. 

The bipartisan leadership of this committee in the last two decades have held several dozen hearings and—confirming the direct 

relationship between adequate rail safety oversight and the profitability of our Nation’s railroads. 

Safety is not just good public policy in our rail industry. It is also 

good business practice. The record profitability, the record productivity of our industry are the results of the current regulatory 

scheme affecting the rail operations. Today an average manifest 

freight train will contain more than $150 million worth of equipment and commodity. And the operation of that train over hundreds of highway, rail at-grade crossings also could potentially involve hundreds of millions of dollars in potential liability for that 

railroad company. 

And we, the United Transportation Union, and every aspect of 

this industry, supports Operation Lifesaver. And I would like to 

point out that, by definition, high-speed rail is the solution that 

eliminates grade crossings. 

The United Transportation Union and other rail unions have 

been an integral part of this committee’s actions on rail safety and 

railroad development. And we commit to you that we will continue 

to offer our view of reality for your consideration. 

Our railroad industry does not have a problem today with the 

current oversight process for the movement of hazardous materials. 

That does not exist in our industry. We do have a major problem 

in the application of the current hours of service laws for safetyVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\4-7-11~1\65645.TXT JEAN
21 

critical operating employees. I will discuss the needed corrections 

and application in a moment. 

The most important point that we will make today is that the 

current regulatory process in place within the USDOT is working 

very well for our Nation’s railroads and other departments in the 

industry. In these times of economic strife, our Nation’s freight 

railroads are enjoying record profitability and record productivity. 

We urge this committee to keep in mind that the laws and regulations that are in place today have not hampered the ability of our 

Nation’s railroads to prosper significantly during the current economic downturn. 

The key to this regulatory success is a consensus-based negotiated rulemaking process called the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. Virtually every person that is delivering testimony before 

you today is a part of that process. RSAC has top-level representation from Class I railroads, passenger commuter railroads, short 

line railroads, the NTSB, the rail suppliers and equipment. RSAC 

was first chartered during the Clinton administration, and was 

widely accepted because, for the first time ever in our history, 

every constituency had an opportunity to present their ideas and 

concerns in the presence of other subject matter experts in the industry. 

In our discussion today concerning the safe movement of the hazardous materials, no action would produce a higher level of return 

in safety than giving the operating employees a predictable work 

schedule. The Rail Safety Improvement Act, as signed into law, 

provides 10 hours of undisturbed rest between work assignments. 

The current application of that required rest period is immediately 

following safety-critical service. This application is misplaced, because it does nothing to improve the predictability of the work 

schedule. 

One small improvement that will make a tremendous difference 

in the safety of all train operations is to simply move the required 

10 hours of undisturbed rest from immediately following service to 

immediate preceding service. 

We have included in our testimony today some bullet points that 

we would like to work with this committee to have introduced that 

will provide some hours of service technical corrections. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stem. 

Next, Mr. Stephen Bruno, the vice president of the Brotherhood 

of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. 

Mr. Bruno, please proceed. 

Mr. BRUNO. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

Brown, and members of the committee. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. My name is Stephen Bruno. I am the national vice president and the interim director of regulatory affairs for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. 

In the short time I have available, I would like to address the 

issue of removing regulations in the industry before I move on to 

our specific concerns for the surface transportation reauthorization. 

Many of the regulations that exist were created in response to 

tragedies. The most effective regulations in the complicated railroad regulatory scheme were developed by stakeholders, usually 

22 

done through the Federal Railroad Administration’s railroad safety 

advisory committee process, in response to safety concerns. Adding, 

amending, or removing regulations should use the same process. 

I would like to briefly mention a few proposed regulations, including emergency escape breathing apparatus and positive train 

control, and the existing regulations for the movement of hazardous materials. Such regulations will and so save lives by preventing accidents and fatalities. 

I would like to draw your attention to positive train control, or 

PTC. PTC is a safety overlay that will significantly reduce human 

factor-related accidents, and prevent loss of life. The railroads’ suggestion last month that they will implement other alternative safety practices and devices which will provide an equivalent level of 

safety is a disingenuous statement. These technologies that they 

cited have been available for decades, and they are now only proposing to install them to avoid the PTC mandate. If the mandate 

is removed, the railroad’s incentive to install these alternatives will 

also be removed. It will never happen. 

Regarding the hazmat, in March, last March, we filed comments 

with FRA on special movement permits for leaking tank cars. The 

number of these movements has steadily increased over the past 16 

years, and it has doubled since 2007. This is a significant increase, 

and it must be investigated. 

I would like to turn to another issue that might be included in 

the surface transportation reauthorization which concerns the 

BLET. For 40 years, Amtrak has run our Nation’s passenger rail 

system in an unparalleled way. Amtrak and its skilled employees 

have managed to move passengers in the safest, most efficient 

means possible, despite being appropriated only enough money to 

fail. Congress can best ensure the public good by maintaining Amtrak as our Nation’s passenger rail service provider. 

History warns us that private service would only be provided 

where it is profitable for investors and shareholders. The public 

good would be ignored. Therefore, instead of threatening our citizens with privatizing Amtrak, you should instead be funding it at 

levels that will let it thrive. 

We are in the process of finalizing technical corrections to the 

hours of service portion of the Rail Safety Improvement Act. And 

I would like to urge the subcommittee to seriously consider adopting them. Specifically, these corrections establish the 10-hour call 

for duty, and a reduction of excess limbo time, which will greatly 

reduce fatigue, improve safety, and ultimately improve the quality 

of life for our members. 

In summary, the BLET believes although Congress has a place 

in broadly defining areas of safety that must be addressed as a 

matter of public policy, regulation is the best—excuse me—regulation is best written in a fashion that allows for those with a stake 

in the rules to have a hand in their creation and amendment. Railroad regulation should be crafted, revised, or removed only after 

careful consideration by the subject matter experts from the railroad industry. 

So, thank you for your time, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

23 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Bruno. And next, Mr. 

Leonard Parker, the national legislative director for the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. Mr. Parker, please proceed. 

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Shuster, Ranking Lady Brown, we thank you 

for inviting BRS to participate in this hearing. The Brotherhood of 

Railroad Signalmen is highly supportive of development of highspeed passenger rail, expansion of intercity passenger rail, and expansion of commuter rail service. This is a long time coming, and 

we are pleased that the Congress and the administration have recognized that rail is an underutilized resource that can be utilized 

to provide safe, efficient, effective, and environmentally sound passenger transportation. 

But it is important to recognize that safe and effective passenger 

rail transportation depends on highly skilled and professional railroad workers, many of whom, especially signalmen, are certified to 

perform various forms of railroad work. 

Railroad work involves unique skills and training, and sometimes special certification. That is certainly true of signal work. 

Consequently, railroad workers on the major freight railroads, Amtrak, and the major commuter lines is performed by railroad workers in the traditional crafts recognized by the NMB. 

Professional railroad employees have a proven record of accomplishment of successful work on joint-owned commuter rail systems. Furthermore, professional railroad employees are responsible 

for the operating, dispatching, construction, rehabilitation, and upgrade of freight lines, and signal systems used in commuter passenger service throughout the United States. Especially in the 

northeast, rail workers operate and maintain the major commuter 

rail systems MBTA, Metro North, Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA Metro. 

For the same reason, work on new high-speed rail operations and 

expanding intercity passenger rail operations should be done by 

railroad workers. Certainly persons who do work for the higher 

speed passenger operations, whether train movements, control 

track and signal work, equipment work, or administrative work, 

should be no less skilled and no less qualified than persons who do 

such work involved with the movement of cargo. 

The ability of entities that do work connected to high-speed rail 

operations to hire qualified employees to perform their work will 

depend on those entities being rail carriers. Because rail carriers 

will not accept jobs—rail employees will not accept jobs with entities that are not rail carriers, since railroad workers who leave career employment lose substantial vested railroad retirement benefits, and the rights and protections provided under Federal railroad 

laws. 

There are some who want to enter the railroad industry and perform work on railroad lines, but who seek their own economic advantage by attempting to perform railroad work without being rail 

carriers under the Federal railroad laws, and by using workers who 

do not have the rights and benefits mandated by the Federal railroad laws. The race to the bottom must be resisted. 

While certain small commuter railroads have engaged in the— 

railroad work among multiple contractors who are not rail carriers, 

this unfortunate practice is not followed on any of the major freight 

24 

railroads, major commuter railroads, or Amtrak. All those entities 

recognize that integrated railroad operations and a single-carrier 

operating employing railroad workers to perform traditional railroad work is the safest and most effective and efficient method of 

railroad operations. 

As the Federal Government encourages and helps fund the promotion of high-speed and expansion of intercity passenger rail 

transportation, it should make sure that it is providing real rail 

transportation that employs real rail workers, not knock-offs. We 

are the real McCoy, rail transportation that utilizes real rail workers. To the extent that Amtrak is used to provide new service, they 

must be rail carriers who employ workers covered by the Federal 

railroad laws. 

Talk of privatizing the northeast corridor passenger rail service 

ignores recent history. The current private freight railroads once 

provided passenger service, too. Freight and passenger service were 

not separated. Passenger service was part of the common carrier 

obligation. However, the freight railroads were dramatically losing 

money over the passenger service, and could not continue to provide the service. Amtrak was created because the private sector 

could not provide passenger rail service. The freights were relieved 

of their common carrier obligation for passenger service. 

In return for allowing Amtrak to operate on their lines, intercity 

passenger service is provided by Amtrak, not because the government sought to provide this service, but because the private sector 

was unable to do so. 

The PRIIA all—PRIIA provides the collective bargaining agreements applicable on a railroad whose right of way is being used to 

remain in full force and effect, and that the rights, privileges, and 

benefits of railroad workers be preserved. This is a mandate that 

the employees who perform work related to high-speed rail and 

intercity passenger rail supported by the Federal railroad funds 

must be railroad workers covered by the RLA or FELA. This mandate must be continued. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Parker. And next, Mr. 

Rick Inclima, who is the director of safety for the Brotherhood of 

Maintenance of Way Employes. Mr. Inclima, please proceed. 

Mr. INCLIMA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Brown, and members of the subcommittee. My 

name is Rick Inclima. I am the director of safety for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division. On behalf of our 

35,000 members, thank you for holding this hearing on regulatory 

reform. 

In the short time available this morning, I would like to touch 

on just a few regulatory issues here. You have already heard about 

the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. It was created in 1996 to 

develop a consensus by all interested parties for FRA rulemakings. 

It has been very successful in mitigating regulatory burdens upon 

the industry. Railroads and safety have benefitted from regulations 

developed through the RSAC. Regulatory review in the railroad industry is a constant and ongoing consensus-based effort between 

labor, management, and government, and we encourage this subcommittee to continue its support for the RSAC process. 

25 

Regarding DOT/OSHA jurisdiction, it is vitally important to 

maintain the current shared jurisdiction between OSHA and DOT 

over hazmat safety. The issue of shared jurisdiction has long been 

established between FRA and OSHA. In its March 1978 policy 

statement, FRA determined that it should not attempt to regulate 

areas already covered by regulations issued by OSHA. The 1978 

policy statement established the current complementary jurisdiction between FRA and OSHA, and continues to guide the shared 

jurisdictional authority which has served the safety needs of the industry and the public for well over 30 years. 

It would be an ironic mockery of regulatory reform to eliminate 

the role of OSHA in protecting worker safety and forcing DOT to 

expend considerable taxpayer dollars to hire and train personnel, 

develop requisite experience, and promulgate rules to fill the resultant regulatory void. 

Regarding DOT training grants, the National Labor College, here 

in Silver Spring, Maryland, has provided over 28,000 rail workers 

with comprehensive, quality hazardous material training since 

1991. This program continues to be funded by non-DOT grants and 

private grant sources, and is considered a model of worker training. 

In 2008, the DOT awarded a train-the-trainer grant to the college to train hazmat instructors. Under this competitive grant proposal and award, 221 DOT regional trainers completed hazmat instructor’s training. In turn, these regional trainers have already delivered quality hazardous material training to over 2,600 additional 

rail workers back at their home locations, including mixed group 

of frontline rail workers and rail management, local firefighters, 

EMTs, and emergency personnel. The DOT grant program is funded by hazmat registration fees, not through Federal tax dollars. It 

does not add to the Federal deficit. 

We implore the subcommittee to continue its support for this 

highly successful and nationally recognized worker training program. 

Concerning hazardous material regulations, comprehensive 

hazmat regulations are necessary to protect the public. The railroads, under oath, have stated to regulators that some cargoes are 

too dangerous for them to carry safely, given their cost benefit 

analysis. However, the railroads themselves have never advocated 

that less regulation is the solution to these problems. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, our written testimony also addresses 

other areas of regulatory oversight. Labor has also recently submitted substantial comments directly to DOT regarding issues of 

regulatory review and regulatory reform. With your permission, 

Mr. Chairman, we would like to submit additional information to 

the record. 

The DOT, through the FRA and the RSAC, has made every effort 

not to unduly burden railroads through excessive regulations. If the 

FRA is erred in this regard, it has been on the side of under-regulating. The Rail Safety Improvement Act was a congressional declaration of that fact. Railroad regulations are sufficiently flexible, 

are subject to frequent and comprehensive review through the 

RSAC, and contain liberal waiver provisions that render complains 

about over-regulation largely moot. 

26 

Mr. Chairman, thank you and the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Inclima. And if you 

have additional information for the record, we will be happy to take 

that and put it into the record. 

Mr. INCLIMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Next, Mr. Gary Self, who is the vice 

president and general manager of Nelson Brothers, Incorporated, 

and he is representing the Institute of Makers of Explosives. 

So, Mr. Self, please proceed. 

Mr. SELF. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

share our efforts to comply with the requirements imposed on our 

industry by PHMSA by the special permits program. 

It is a cautionary tale that underscores the grave concern the 

commercial explosives industry has with the agency’s use of its special permit authority to mandate unproven and untested technologies on motor vehicles transporting these materials. PHMSA 

has power to modify special permits for new conditions without the 

cost benefit analysis that would be required of rulemaking. 

In August of 2009, PHMSA issued notices to holders of special 

permits that authorized bulk explosives vehicles that it was modifying the conditions of the permits, including one change requiring 

a battery disconnect switch activated from a remote location. 

Between August and December 2009, the battery disconnect 

standard was rewritten 3 times. In January 2010, Nelson Brothers 

began the process of trying to comply. We wanted to pursue an installation schedule to meet a January 1, 2011, compliance deadline 

that would be the least disruptive to our operations. We were able 

to identify only one foreign sourced supplier of a battery disconnect 

system that promised to meet the performance standard stated in 

the special permit. 

Company and OEM engineers and disconnect manufacturers and 

technicians were involved in the initial installation of this high-end 

after-market system. After successful testing, all affected company 

vehicles were retrofitted with a disconnect system at a cost of approximately $5,000 per vehicle. 

Initial problems began in January of 2011 with the excessive corrosion around the poles of the constant duty solenoid. Replacement 

of solenoids and protection of both poles appeared to address these 

problems. A program was put into place to protect all solenoid 

poles at subsequent truck inspections. 

On January 27, 2011, moisture build-up in a 3-pin control cable 

of the battery disconnect caused the system to fail, resulting in a 

non-controlled shut-down of the truck traveling on a public highway. A review of the incident indicated that extra dielectric grease 

was needed in the three-pin connector to protect it from moisture. 

Again, a plan was put into place to add the dielectric grease during 

the next vehicle inspections. 

Five days later, a second vehicle with this system experienced 

failure and uncontrolled shut-down. The failure was traced to a 

butt connector that corroded and came loose. The vehicle was traveling, again, on a public highway. In both cases, the drivers were 

able to keep the vehicles under control, helped by good weather 

27 

and a straight, uncongested roadway. But the risk posed to the 

public and to company personnel caused us to immediately disconnect the retrofitted system from all vehicles. 

Nelson Brothers engaged in a good faith effort to comply with 

PHMSA’s battery disconnect standard in advance of the January 1, 

2011, deadline. PHMSA engineers have been unable to show how 

they would configure a disconnect system to comply with their own 

standard. We submit that the type of sophisticated shut-down systems envisioned by PHMSA and the modified special permits are 

not advanced enough to be safely and reliably used on today’s 

trucks. Furthermore, agency efforts to impose a remote or self-actuated or multiple battery disconnect requirement without major research places the public at grave harm. 

We have learned over the years to pay attention to close calls or 

near misses. These warning signs should not be ignored by PHMSA 

or Congress. Congress never intended that special permits be a 

long-term placeholder for permanent regulation. Rather than continue the rewriting of the effective special permits to impose 

unproven technology, PHMSA should be focused on incorporating 

into the regulations current industry standards that have demonstrated over decades the safe operation of bulk explosives. 

We welcome your help to stop PHMSA’s demands to retrofit vehicles carrying explosives with untested technology. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Self. Thanks for coming 

here today. 

Next, Mr. John Conley is the president of the National Tank 

Truck Carriers. Mr. Conley. 

Mr. CONLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman Shuster, Ranking 

Member Brown, and members of the committee. My name is John 

Conley. I am president of National Tank Truck Carriers. My association represents trucking companies that deliver materials in 

bulk, such as petroleum products, chemicals, food products, and cement. Our membership also includes companies that provide equipment and services to the tank truck industry. 

I first would like to commend the safety professionals at the 

Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and their 

predecessor agency, with whom I have worked for over 35 years. 

As Chairman Shuster has observed, the United States is served by 

a very safe hazardous materials transportation network. This system that is copied by countries around the world is a credit to and 

verification of the close cooperative relationship between the agency and the industry in our shared goal of hazardous materials incidents reduction or elimination. 

We sometimes disagree on how to meet that shared objective, 

and I am here today to discuss two issues that cause my members 

real concern. 

The first issue involves the transportation of flammable materials in the loading line of cargo tanks, the so-called wet lines 

issue. Certainly this is not a new topic to veteran members of this 

committee. 

The second issue concerns a rulemaking from PHMSA which I 

believe would compromise hazardous materials transportation regulatory compliance enforcement, and safety. That rulemaking, 

28 

HM–241, would result in severely restricted public access to the 

regulatory process, and to currently applicable regulatory requirements in the hazmat regulations. 

NTTC appreciates the work that both the Chairman, and especially Ranking Member Brown, of this subcommittee devoted to the 

wet lines issue in the 111th Congress. This issue has now taken 

on a life of its own, as PHMSA recently published another proposed 

rulemaking to ban wet lines. Unfortunately, in an attempt to adapt 

economic cost benefit facts to fit a failed theory, PHMSA bases 

much of its HM–213D on an unproven manual purging device 

available only from one commercial provider. To our knowledge, no 

carrier has purchased or tested this manually operated device, 

which is supported only by the claims of its manufacturer. Our 

analysis of this recent wet lines ban reveals that its cost far exceeds its potential benefits. 

We also remain concerned that any retrofit requirement could be 

detrimental to the safety of the workers in the tank truck facilities 

and, therefore, ask this committee to mandate a study of the wet 

lines issue while enjoining PHMSA from finalizing the rule proposed on January 27th. Such a study should consider the actual 

scope of the perceived problem, the advantages and disadvantages 

of possible operational solutions to the perceived problem, including 

the potential increased risk of exposure to shop workers, and 

whether or not the issue should be addressed at the petroleum 

loading rack, or in the thousands of pieces of equipment operated 

throughout the country. 

The second issue I would like to briefly address is a PHMSA 

rulemaking that would turn over the cargo tank rule-writing function it now so competently exercises in title 49 parts 178 and 180 

to third-party service providers. The cost-free and immediate availability of the current regulations and, more importantly, ready access to the open regulatory process would be severely impacted for 

no safety reason. 

The existing process would be replaced by a closed process where 

private entities develop copyrighted materials to be adopted by the 

agency, and purchased by the regulated public and enforcement 

communities. This would cost up to $600 for a carrier, law enforcement person, or anyone else to have access to publications and regulations that are currently in the regulations and free to the public. 

I would be happy to answer any questions when the time comes. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Conley. Thanks for 

coming today. 

Next, Ms. Mary Pileggi, who is North American logistics manager for DuPont, and she is here on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. And I must ask you. Are you any relation to the majority leader of the Pennsylvania State Senate, Don Pileggi? 

Ms. PILEGGI. No, I am not. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. It would have been a bonus for you, if you 

were. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PILEGGI. OK. I change my answer. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Please proceed. 

29 

Ms. PILEGGI. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 

Brown, and members of the committee. My name is Mary Pileggi, 

and I am here to testify on behalf of the American Chemistry 

Council. I am the North America logistics manager for DuPont. I 

am responsible for freight transportation in the United States and 

Canada. 

DuPont purchases approximately $550 million in freight transportation. So you can understand why the topic of today’s hearing 

is of great importance to us, as well as other members of ACC. 

Chemical producers and their customers rely on carriers to deliver chemicals where they are needed, from water treatment 

plants to farms to factories. Because some of the materials that we 

ship are hazardous materials, we work with our transportation 

partners to find ways to build upon an already impressive safety 

record. Through ACC’s Responsible Care initiative, member companies and our partners are committed to continuous transportation 

safety improvement. We have invested billions of dollars in training, technology, and tank car safety. 

The Federal Government has and must continue to play a central 

role, when it comes to ensuring the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Congress wisely established a uniform national 

regulatory system under the Hazardous Materials Transportation 

Act. The goal is not to prevent the movement of these materials, 

but to ensure they are delivered safely, securely, and reliably. This 

program has worked well in making hazmat transportation safe for 

workers, our communities, and emergency responders. 

Congress will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the act. 

ACC would like to go on record in strong support of this regulatory 

program which ensures that all aspects of hazmat transportation 

are consistent across the Nation. 

ACC is concerned about one aspect of DOT’s administration of 

the program. Special permits allow safety-based variation from 

DOT’s regulation. Special permits can only be granted when DOT 

finds at least an equivalent level of safety. With special permits, 

industry gains flexibility with no loss of safety to the public, and 

DOT learns whether new procedures and technologies can be incorporated into its rules. 

Unfortunately, DOT has recently imposed onerous paperwork 

barriers that have slowed the approval of special permits, and increased cost to industry. We urge Congress to direct DOT to rescind those complex and burdensome interpretations. 

ACC also supports a sensible approach to implementing the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act, which will deploy new technologies, like 

positive train control. PTC and other risk mitigation measures can 

advance safety and enhance productivity throughout our national 

rail system. DOT, and possibly Congress, will reconsider important 

aspects of the PTC rule. We support exploring less burdensome approaches. But as that effort moves forward, whether through regulation or legislation, any changes to the PTC rule must remain consistent with the common carrier obligation. It also must allow producers to ship products where customers need them, now and into 

the future. 

In addition, it is critically important to ensure that the cost of 

implementing PTC is allocated fairly. The country needs to mainVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:38 Sep 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\RR\4-7-11~1\65645.TXT JEAN
30 

tain a safe and reliable system of hazardous material transportation that is governed by uniform national rules. The challenge is 

to ensure that all stakeholders work together so this system continuously improves. 

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the 

subcommittee, we look forward to working with Congress and the 

DOT to achieve this goal. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Pileggi. 

And, before we go to our final witness, would Mr. Fauver please 

come back to the table? The Ranking Member has a question for 

you. 

I just want to remind the Ranking Member he works for 

PennDOT, not FDOT, so take it easy on him. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. That is a good thing. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And we are going to have some questions for those 

that are still in the room, if there are questions for some, after we 

get done with Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Kevin O’Connor, who is the assistant to the general president for the International Association of 

Fire Fighters. 

Mr. O’Connor? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Thank you very much, Chairman Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the committee. My name is Kevin O’Connor, and it is my 

privilege to lead the governmental and public policy division of the 

International Association of Fire Fighters. But more importantly 

for this conversation, I have experience as both a career and a volunteer firefighter, and specific experience in hazardous materials 

response. 

During my career in Baltimore County, Maryland, I had the 

unique opportunity to respond to one of the worst train disasters 

in American history, the tragic Amtrak accident on January 4, 

1987, in Chase, Maryland. I was assigned a hazardous materials 

company in the southeast portion of Baltimore County, and responded to several hundred hazmat incidences over my career. 

My testimony today will focus on a very narrow, albeit important, aspect of this conversation on railroad, pipeline, and hazardous material safety, and that is protecting both our communities, making sure our citizens are safe, and doing that through 

ensuring that firefighters in communities large and small, career 

and volunteer, have adequate training to respond to these very, 

very complex incidences and responses. 

Let me first thank you both, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Brown, for your service in the Congressional Fire Services Caucus. We are in town meeting today. And, in fact, this afternoon 

there are educational components on this very topic. 

In spite of our best efforts and our friends’ in industry, we all 

recognize that accidents will occur. In fact, there are over 350,000 

responses to hazardous materials incidents across the country on 

an annual basis. And I am sad to report that in its second needs 

assessment of the U.S. fire service, the U.S. Fire Administration reports that 38 percent of all fire fighters do not have any training 

with respect to hazardous materials response. More troubling, 29 

percent of all fire departments admit that they do not provide any 

31 

training to their first responders in this very, very important and 

life safety issue. 

Beyond initial training, OSHA also requires that people trained 

in hazardous materials response are re-certified and have annual 

re-certification training to keep up their skills and competency. I 

am very happy to report that, through this committee, and through 

the Department of Transportation’s hazardous materials emergency preparedness grant program, the International Association of 

Fire Fighters has been able to address this very serious problem. 

We have a very unique and effective train-the-trainer program, 

which is funded through DOT. Essentially, it is a peer-to-peer program, where firefighters actually go out into the communities and 

train other firefighters in the train-the-trainer type model. The program has received rave reviews from GAO and anyone else who 

has looked into this program. It is a very effective program to ensure that revenue is appropriately expended. We get the most bang 

for our buck through this program. 

Over the years, the IAFF has been able to train directly 3,000 

providers who have, in turn, trained over 70,000 first responders 

to the operations level, so that their communities have this modicum of protection. The program is provided free of charge to any 

jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction seeks this training for any of its responders, it simply asks the IAFF, we go out and provide the training. What we ask is that, in any reauthorization, this program be 

funded to its current level. It is a successful program. It works in 

large cities and small communities. 

We have two other related requests with respect to this program. 

First, OSHA 1910.120 specifies various levels of training for hazardous materials, from awareness level all the way through incident command. We feel that it is appropriate to be very specific 

that any training to first responders rise to the level of operations. 

That is, when a firefighter gets on the scene or an emergency responder, they know what to do, and they can adequately respond. 

The third ask that we have is this program right now is limited 

to train the trainer. While that is very effective on an aggregate 

basis to provide operations training, we would like to see the program expanded so that we can do direct training for the technician 

level, which is the higher level of response for communities. 

Thank you very much, and I stand ready to answer any questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. O’Connor. Thanks for 

coming today. 

Also, I would like to ask that Mr. Hamberger please come back 

to the table. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. [Off mic.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, you know, you are Jay Rockefeller’s favorite 

lobbyist. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And Mr. Steve Klejst, who is with the NTSB, who 

is going to sit in for Mr. Hart? Thank you. 

And remember, he is PennDOT, not FDOT, so—and I recognize 

the Ranking Member for a question. 

32 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. And part of the bill is to just wipe out 

Florida DOT, at least. 

I have a, first of all, a unanimous consent to include a statement 

by the Air Line Pilots Association on this hearing, for the record. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

33 


Insert offset folio 4 here 65645.004
34 


Insert offset folio 5 here 65645.005
35 


Insert offset folio 6 here 65645.006
36 


Insert offset folio 7 here 65645.007
37 


Insert offset folio 8 here 65645.008
38 


Insert offset folio 9 here 65645.009
39 

Ms. BROWN. My question to you, sir. We talked about the RRIF 

loan. And you indicated that some DOT agencies, if you apply for 

a loan, you have already gotten some permits, and they won’t accept that one. And we heard this testimony when we went to California and different places, that that was one of the problems that 

we are having. We have over $300 billion, and I don’t think we 

have lent out but about $100 billion. To me that would be one way, 

with the shortness of funds, to get some of our communities working. 

What are some of your recommendations, additional? 

Mr. FAUVER. Well, I think my specific comment was in regard to 

NEPA, and NEPA coordination and NEPA clearance. 

Ms. BROWN. Right, right. 

Mr. FAUVER. We have got—— 

Ms. BROWN. How can we better—— 

Mr. FAUVER. There is a rule within USDOT that encourages the 

separate administrations to coordinate those activities. 

But, in my opinion, NEPA is one law. It applies across the board. 

If one Federal agency is going to oversee and provide clearance for 

NEPA, then—and it is the same project, then the other Federal 

agencies should automatically be able to approve that, or be able 

to accept that approval or that clearance, and be able to move on. 

The difficulty, I think, compared to 20 years ago, is that we are 

seeing more and more mixes of Federal funds from different agencies involved in projects. We are seeing Federal Transit Administration’s funds, Federal Highway Administration funds, and Federal Aviation Administration funds, and Federal Railroad Administration funds all being mixed together to come up with an intermodal project. And if we start with one source of funds and get environmental clearance and then we have to go back and get the 

other agencies to independently approve, we have experienced 2- 

year delays in some cases on being able to advance projects. 

So, I think that, in reauthorization, if it was just—if it was made 

very clear that if one agency approves the project then—and you 

get—from one agency, then it covers the whole project across the 

entire funding spectrum. 

Ms. BROWN. I would like some additional information on that—— 

Mr. FAUVER. Sure. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Particular area, because we have heard 

testimony around the country on that. 

My question is on positive train control. I have heard from the 

railroads, both publicly and privately, that the implementing of the 

positive train control is very expensive. We want safety, but based 

on the cost, there are other measures. 

And I know that we are negotiating, but you all are not very 

comfortable with these other measures. Or can you all discuss that 

a little bit for us, that—you know, I am not trying to change anything that is going on in the courts, I just want to know where we 

are. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. We are, as you so rightly point out, Congresswoman Brown, in discussions with the Federal Railroad Administration, not the NTSB. And I appreciated very much the testimony 

of Mary Pileggi, who I am sure has now discovered a relationship 

to the majority leader of the senate in Pennsylvania. 

40 

Ms. BROWN. That is Pennsylvania. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes, and on behalf of the ACC, indicating that 

perhaps it is time to take a look at are there other approaches that 

can address the overall risk of an accidental release of TIH, not 

just the preventable—PTC preventable risk, but the overall risk 

profile. 

Only 4 percent of the over-the-road accidents in the freight rail 

industry are PTC-preventable. Now, they are horrific when they 

happen. But we do not really run trains into one another too often. 

And so, what is a major cause of over-the-road accidents would be 

mechanical failures or track and structure failures. And so, being 

able to focus more on the overall risk profile, rather than just the 

PTC-preventable profile, we think, would improve safety, at least 

as much as installing PTC, and might do so in a more effective, efficient way. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir? 

Mr. KLEJST. Yes. The positive train control system does have 

many benefits—— 

Ms. BROWN. The microphone, sir, is it on? 

Mr. KLEJST. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. 

Mr. KLEJST. The light is on. The positive train control system 

does have significant benefits to railroad safety. It provides a safety 

overlay for some of the accidents that we have heard through the 

vice chairman’s testimony today in derailments and collisions. 

It also provides safety overlays with respect to roadway worker 

incursions, temporary and permanent speed restrictions. Whenever 

there is a situation where a person is involved in the operation of 

a train, there always exists the potential of a human error. And 

this PTC system will provide an additional safety overlay to eliminate or minimize the impact of these types of accidents. 

Ms. BROWN. I think—and this is my last comment—one of the— 

some of the testimony said that it was what—human error, and it 

would be better if we made some adjustments in that, as opposed 

to some of these other measures that we are recommending. 

Mr. KLEJST. Well, the human error element, while the railroads 

are working diligently to have—for training programs, rules and 

procedures, there is always present the possibility of an error made 

on the decisionmaking process of the locomotive engineer. And the 

positive train control system, when implemented on a particular 

territory, will provide that overlay and would, again, prevent these 

types of accidents when there is an error in the rate in which a locomotive engineer slows the speed of the train down, involved in 

a speed restriction, or misjudges distance when approaching a red 

signal or a stop signal that could result in a head-on collision, a 

side collision, or a rear-end collision. 

Ms. BROWN. The accident that we had here, what—the problem 

was maintenance not doing the work on the brakes and other 

things. And it is supposed to be a grants program to help the transit system. 

I had asked the question earlier what was the status of those 

grants and those monies to help those local systems. And I know 

it is not your agency, but could there be other things, in addition 

41 

to the positive train control, that we need to do, as far as making 

sure that we have the inspections on the systems? 

Mr. KLEJST. The current regulatory environment has, through 

the Federal Railroad Administration, regulations for the condition 

of track, signal systems, and rolling stock, and other types of equipment—locomotives, for example. And the—when there is an accident that is related to any of these cause categories, the safety 

board investigates and makes recommendations, if appropriate, in 

each of these areas. So that is one of the areas that we do examine 

when we conduct investigations. 

We do rely on rail carriers to follow through with the proper inspection and maintenance procedures and, when necessary, go beyond those, which—each carrier does have the opportunity to do so, 

should they desire to. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Yes, sir—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Might I just—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Certainly. 

Mr. HAMBERGER [continuing]. Emphasize for the record—I was 

thinking I was still back in the PTC here, and I want to emphasize, 

as I did a month ago, that when we are talking about these alternative risk reduction approaches, we are not talking about any passenger lines. We are talking about only for those lines which are 

required under the statute to be implemented with PTC because of 

the TIH shipments. And we are not looking at any other approaches where passengers are involved. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. And could I excuse Mr. 

Klejst, excuse you from the table? I think we are done questioning 

you. And also Mr. Fauver, you can go back to Pennsylvania. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. And again, thank both of you for being here today. 

But I would also—no, Mr. Hamberger, you are still requested to be 

here at the table. 

Mr. Simpson, could you come back to the table? Ms. Pileggi, if 

you come back up to the table? Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Paul, Mr. 

Timmons, and Mr. Stem. 

And I believe, Mr. Larsen, I recognize you for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question. 

It might be a set of questions for Ms. Pileggi. I don’t know anybody 

in Washington State named Pileggi, so we will start there. 

Your testimony with regards to special permits—I recall from 

last year we had some hearings on this issue of special permits. I 

believe, as I remember, the problem that this committee faced was 

that PHMSA had authority to issue special permits, but they were 

not issuing them according to the process they were supposed to 

use. And I believe we had this discussion about safety effectiveness 

reviews, or something along those lines. 

And so, the end result of this was PHMSA did, in fact, change 

their process because of—in part, because of concerns expressed by 

this committee that the special permit process seemed to be a little 

loose. And that—and so your testimony on page three, and your 

oral testimony sort of runs counter to what we thought we were 

looking into last year—it could have been 2 years ago; I forget the 

42 

exact date—and so I think we all agree special permits, as you 

know, are a win-win process. There is flexibility. But I guess we 

determine there is a little too much flexibility and not enough oversight from PHMSA on the special permit process. 

Could you talk—could you help me understand if I am—if we 

have a conflict in how we see this? 

Ms. PILEGGI. OK. I was not part of that particular discussion, or 

involved in that. I can speak from my experience from my company’s working with special permits. 

Processing time for the permits is a very lengthy period of time, 

where a renewal of a permit in the past may have taken hours or 

days. And given what you have just talked about oversight, maybe 

that is too short. But it shouldn’t take anywhere from 6 months to 

a year, either, which is some of the situations that we have at 

hand. And I have heard some of my colleagues at other companies 

discuss it, as well. 

When you talk about a fitness factor and how that is to be measured, I know ACC specifically asks that there be some type of a 

rulemaking where you could talk about fitness factors, and understand what the criteria are. That is something that we are specifically pointing to. One of the others was the factors for inclusion. 

So, asking for the listing of all the locations that the permit is 

going to apply, well, when you have a transportation container that 

is being used, it is very difficult, unless you list every place in the 

country that it possibly could pertain to, in the application. So it 

makes it very difficult to go through the process in a timely manner, given some of these examples that I know that we have dealt 

with. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Well, I appreciate that. That is a little more 

detail for me than in your testimony, and that is good to hear. I 

just did not want to—I did not want this hearing to end without 

sort of exploring this—what we found last year, because I think 

what your testimony sort of outlined for us is—well, the way I read 

it and the way I heard it was, ‘‘Whatever you did last year, we 

want you to do the 180.’’ 

Well, we tried the 180. And we had a hearing to find out we did 

not want to be there. And your testimony seemed to say, ‘‘Well, no, 

we do want to be there.’’ But I guess after a little—after hearing 

from you a little bit more, you have some concerns, but you are also 

saying there are some things that need to be done in the special 

permit process to ensure that special permits are issued to folks 

who should have them, but also that they are going to be complying with some rules that otherwise they were perhaps not complying with, which is why we had the hearings in the first place 

last year. 

Ms. PILEGGI. That is correct. And I would suggest, since I am 

quoting from my experience, my company’s experience—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure, yes. 

Ms. PILEGGI [continuing]. ACC can follow up on that with you, 

to answer it fully. 

Mr. LARSEN. Love to hear that. Thank you very much. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN. Will the gentleman yield? 

43 

Mr. LARSEN. I have 42 seconds. I will yield them all to the Ranking Member. 

Ms. BROWN. You know, I just wanted to remind you the hearings 

that we had, there were major problems in the permitting process. 

That is why we instituted additional regulations. So we are willing 

to work with you, but it was blanket permits, people that had them 

for years, there was no follow-up. It was a mess. So we corrected 

it, and I hope we did not overcorrect it. We are willing to revisit 

the issue, but we cannot go back to where we were. And the fact 

is the auditor general and the GAO gave horrible reviews of the 

permitting process. 

Ms. PILEGGI. And, Ranking Member Brown, I do not think we 

are saying that we are asking you to go completely back. There is 

a middle ground—— 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Ms. PILEGGI [continuing]. That needs to be met for this to work. 

Ms. BROWN. We are willing to work with you. 

Ms. PILEGGI. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. And now I recognize for 5 

minutes for questioning Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, members, if 

we could answer real quick, because I have got six questions here. 

Mr. Hamberger, last Congress the freight railroads had a proposal for a tax credit for PTC implementation. Do you guys still 

support that? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. And, Mr. Simpson, some witnesses have 

expressed concerns over the slow development of PTC technology. 

Can you talk about what your members are doing to ensure that 

this technology is readily available by the deadline of December 31, 

2015? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Oh, my lord, I am a government relations guy, not 

a communications signaling engineer. But they are cautiously excited about it. Understand the financial situation facing the railroads on the cost of implementation, but I think they think they 

can do it by the date certain. I would be happy to provide additional information from someone who—a communications signal 

engineer, as opposed to me. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, Mr. Chairman, we would like to have that 

information submitted for the record. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Certainly. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Stem, the hours of service changes in 2008 

law were designed to provide workers with more rest to reduce fatigue on the job. Do you think that this has been achieved? And, 

if not, why not? And what further changes should we consider? 

Mr. STEM. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Mr. Hamberger took my 

seat, as normal. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEM. Hours of service changes that were made in the RSIA 

in 2008 were a step in the right direction. And if those hours of 

service corrections had been implemented as this committee passed 

them, they would have been a lot more appropriate than they are 

today. 

44 

Currently, the safety-critical employees that are operating the 

trains today have a totally unpredictable work schedule. The prior 

notification that would produce a predictable work schedule was 

moved to the end of service. So today, an employee has no clue 

within 40 hours when the employee will be expected to return to 

work. And the only hours of service improvement was a mandated 

10 hours of undisturbed rest when he gets off duty. 

And our suggestions are that logic fatigue science indicates it is 

only a simply change to move that required 10 hours of undisturbed rest to immediately preceding service, so that that safetycritical employee will have a predictable work schedule. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. Thank you. And Mr. Simpson, in your testimony, in support of Buy America requirements, you recommended 

improving transparency and accountability of domestic content requirements, as well as introducing incentives to increase domestic 

content. Could you please elaborate? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I would be happy to. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. On what specific incentives—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. First of all, there are—as I said, there are three 

different Buy America regulations: one for intercity passenger rail, 

one for transit, and now one for high-speed rail. And that seems 

relatively ludicrous to us, that if Amtrak is buying a car it is one 

regulation, but if Metro is buying a car it is a different one. And 

then, if a high-speed rail, it is a different one. 

So, we ought to try to attain 100 percent, because we are strong 

supporters of Buy America. And, as I understand it, that is not currently attainable. But some companies can get close. The closer a 

company gets to getting to that 100 percent, it seems to us, that 

company ought to get some kind of reward, whether it is a tax benefit or a check—when the buying decision is made, a check that 

this guy can—this company can get the—close to 100 percent, so 

he is a better candidate than a company that is only approaching 

50 or 60 percent. 

And finally, the waiver process. Every once in a while I get a 

phone call from the Federal Railroad Administration saying, ‘‘There 

is a Buy America waiver request. What do you think about it?’’ 

Well, that is hardly a very transparent method of granting waivers. 

And I think that the waiver process ought to be more transparent 

and done more quickly than that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. And my last question is for Mr. 

O’Connor. And that is you talked a lot about the—having the need 

for training. Could you give us some specific examples of not having the training? What is the monetary loss, and the economic impact? Because I think we all agree that the training should be 

there. But if you—given the other side of the aisle, I think it would 

be helpful to tell them what those economic impacts are. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Well, at this point I am not really prepared to 

give you specific anecdotal evidence of one specific incident and 

what the cost was. 

I can speak in terms of the overall fire service, and I did have 

the privilege of chairing the Congressional Fire Services Institute 

for a number of years, which is a compilation of all the organizations, career and volunteer. 

45 

And some of the issues that this committee has considered in the 

past have been rerouting issues, making sure that every community is, you know, appropriately trained and equipped to handle— 

whether it is rail, over-the-road—those type of instances. 

We could certainly have our staff research and provide you 

places where there has been a hazardous materials incident, 

whether by rail, whether over-the-road, and in jurisdictions where 

they have not had adequate training, what that has necessitated, 

in terms of an overall State response, a private response, et cetera. 

But right here today I cannot, off the top of my head, just say, ‘‘On 

such and such a date this occurred and this was the economic impact.’’ 

But I think it was articulated very well that when these things 

occur it certainly interrupts commerce. And the more quickly that 

you can mitigate these incidences and move on, the better it is for 

the community and for commerce, as a whole. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If you could—and if it could be accepted for the 

record—if you could submit some of those examples, and also give 

us a sense, when the training does not occur, how many more men 

and women it requires, and so on. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. And I want to again thank 

everybody for coming here today, and testifying. I appreciate the 

back-and-forth from the table and back into the crowd. 

But again, thank you all very much for coming here today. It will 

all be in the record. And I look forward to working with you as we 

move forward. Thank you very much, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

46 


Insert offset folio 10 here 65645.010
47 


Insert offset folio 11 here 65645.011
48 


Insert offset folio 12 here 65645.012
49 


Insert offset folio 13 here 65645.013
50 


Insert offset folio 14 here 65645.014
51 


Insert offset folio 15 here 65645.015
52 


Insert offset folio 16 here 65645.016
53 


Insert offset folio 17 here 65645.017
54 


Insert offset folio 18 here 65645.018
55 


Insert offset folio 19 here 65645.019
56 


Insert offset folio 20 here 65645.020
57 


Insert offset folio 21 here 65645.021
58 


Insert offset folio 22 here 65645.022
59 


Insert offset folio 23 here 65645.023
60 


Insert offset folio 24 here 65645.024
61 


Insert offset folio 25 here 65645.025
62 


Insert offset folio 26 here 65645.026
63 


Insert offset folio 27 here 65645.027
64 


Insert offset folio 28 here 65645.028
65 


Insert offset folio 29 here 65645.029
66 


Insert offset folio 30 here 65645.030
67 


Insert offset folio 31 here 65645.031
68 


Insert offset folio 32 here 65645.032
69 


Insert offset folio 33 here 65645.033
70 


Insert offset folio 34 here 65645.034
71 


Insert offset folio 35 here 65645.035
72 


Insert offset folio 36 here 65645.036
73 


Insert offset folio 37 here 65645.037
74 


Insert offset folio 38 here 65645.038
75 


Insert offset folio 39 here 65645.039
76 


Insert offset folio 40 here 65645.040
77 


Insert offset folio 41 here 65645.041
78 


Insert offset folio 42 here 65645.042
79 


Insert offset folio 43 here 65645.043
80 


Insert offset folio 44 here 65645.044
81 


Insert offset folio 45 here 65645.045
82 


Insert offset folio 46 here 65645.046
83 


Insert offset folio 47 here 65645.047
84 


Insert offset folio 48 here 65645.048
85 


Insert offset folio 49 here 65645.049
86 


Insert offset folio 50 here 65645.050
87 


Insert offset folio 51 here 65645.051
88 


Insert offset folio 52 here 65645.052
89 


Insert offset folio 53 here 65645.053
90 


Insert offset folio 54 here 65645.054
91 


Insert offset folio 55 here 65645.055
92 


Insert offset folio 56 here 65645.056
93 


Insert offset folio 57 here 65645.057
94 


Insert offset folio 58 here 65645.058
95 


Insert offset folio 59 here 65645.059
96 


Insert offset folio 60 here 65645.060
97 


Insert offset folio 61 here 65645.061
98 


Insert offset folio 62 here 65645.062
99 


Insert offset folio 63 here 65645.063
100 


Insert offset folio 64 here 65645.064
101 


Insert offset folio 65 here 65645.065
102 


Insert offset folio 66 here 65645.066
103 


Insert offset folio 67 here 65645.067
104 


Insert offset folio 68 here 65645.068
105 


Insert offset folio 69 here 65645.069
106 


Insert offset folio 70 here 65645.070
107 


Insert offset folio 71 here 65645.071
108 


Insert offset folio 72 here 65645.072
109 


Insert offset folio 73 here 65645.073
110 


Insert offset folio 74 here 65645.074
111 


Insert offset folio 75 here 65645.075
112 


Insert offset folio 76 here 65645.076
113 


Insert offset folio 77 here 65645.077
114 


Insert offset folio 78 here 65645.078
115 


Insert offset folio 79 here 65645.079
116 


Insert offset folio 80 here 65645.080
117 


Insert offset folio 81 here 65645.081
118 


Insert offset folio 82 here 65645.082
119 


Insert offset folio 83 here 65645.083
120 


Insert offset folio 84 here 65645.084
121 


Insert offset folio 85 here 65645.085
122 


Insert offset folio 86 here 65645.086
123 


Insert offset folio 87 here 65645.087
124 


Insert offset folio 88 here 65645.088
125 


Insert offset folio 89 here 65645.089
126 


Insert offset folio 90 here 65645.090
127 


Insert offset folio 91 here 65645.091
128 


Insert offset folio 92 here 65645.092
129 


Insert offset folio 93 here 65645.093
130 


Insert offset folio 94 here 65645.094
131 


Insert offset folio 95 here 65645.095
132 


Insert offset folio 96 here 65645.096
133 


Insert offset folio 97 here 65645.097
134 


Insert offset folio 98 here 65645.098
135 


Insert offset folio 99 here 65645.099
136 


Insert offset folio 100 here 65645.100
137 


Insert offset folio 101 here 65645.101
138 


Insert offset folio 102 here 65645.102
139 


Insert offset folio 103 here 65645.103
140 


Insert offset folio 104 here 65645.104
141 


Insert offset folio 105 here 65645.105
142 


Insert offset folio 106 here 65645.106
143 


Insert offset folio 107 here 65645.107
144 


Insert offset folio 108 here 65645.108
145 


Insert offset folio 109 here 65645.109
146 


Insert offset folio 110 here 65645.110
147 


Insert offset folio 111 here 65645.111
148 


Insert offset folio 112 here 65645.112
149 


Insert offset folio 113 here 65645.113
150 


Insert offset folio 114 here 65645.114
151 


Insert offset folio 115 here 65645.115
152 


Insert offset folio 116 here 65645.116
153 


Insert offset folio 117 here 65645.117
154 


Insert offset folio 118 here 65645.118
155 


Insert offset folio 119 here 65645.119
156 


Insert offset folio 120 here 65645.120
157 


Insert offset folio 121 here 65645.121
158 


Insert offset folio 122 here 65645.122
159 


Insert offset folio 123 here 65645.123
160 


Insert offset folio 124 here 65645.124
161 


Insert offset folio 125 here 65645.125
162 


Insert offset folio 126 here 65645.126
163 


Insert offset folio 127 here 65645.127
164 


Insert offset folio 128 here 65645.128
165 


Insert offset folio 129 here 65645.129
166 


Insert offset folio 130 here 65645.130
167 


Insert offset folio 131 here 65645.131
168 


Insert offset folio 132 here 65645.132
169 


Insert offset folio 133 here 65645.133
170 


Insert offset folio 134 here 65645.134
171 


Insert offset folio 135 here 65645.135
172 


Insert offset folio 136 here 65645.136
173 


Insert offset folio 137 here 65645.137
174 


Insert offset folio 138 here 65645.138
175 


Insert offset folio 139 here 65645.139
176 


Insert offset folio 140 here 65645.140
177 


Insert offset folio 141 here 65645.141
178 


Insert offset folio 142 here 65645.142
179 


Insert offset folio 143 here 65645.143
180 


Insert offset folio 144 here 65645.144
181 


Insert offset folio 145 here 65645.145
182 


Insert offset folio 146 here 65645.146
183 


Insert offset folio 147 here 65645.147
184 


Insert offset folio 148 here 65645.148
185 


Insert offset folio 149 here 65645.149
186 


Insert offset folio 150 here 65645.150
187 


Insert offset folio 151 here 65645.151
188 


Insert offset folio 152 here 65645.152
189 


Insert offset folio 153 here 65645.153
190 


Insert offset folio 154 here 65645.154
191 


Insert offset folio 155 here 65645.155
192 


Insert offset folio 156 here 65645.156
193 


Insert offset folio 157 here 65645.157
194 


Insert offset folio 158 here 65645.158
195 


Insert offset folio 159 here 65645.159
196 


Insert offset folio 160 here 65645.160
197 


Insert offset folio 161 here 65645.161
198 


Insert offset folio 162 here 65645.162
199 


Insert offset folio 163 here 65645.163
200 


Insert offset folio 164 here 65645.164
201 


Insert offset folio 165 here 65645.165
202 


Insert offset folio 166 here 65645.166
203 


Insert offset folio 167 here 65645.167
204 


Insert offset folio 168 here 65645.168
205 


Insert offset folio 169 here 65645.169
206 


Insert offset folio 170 here 65645.170
207 


Insert offset folio 171 here 65645.171
208 


Insert offset folio 172 here 65645.172
209 


Insert offset folio 173 here 65645.173
210 


Insert offset folio 174 here 65645.174
211 


Insert offset folio 175 here 65645.175
212 


Insert offset folio 176 here 65645.176
213 


Insert offset folio 177 here 65645.177
214 


Insert offset folio 178 here 65645.178
215 


Insert offset folio 179 here 65645.179
216 


Insert offset folio 180 here 65645.180
217 


Insert offset folio 181 here 65645.181
218 


Insert offset folio 182 here 65645.182
219 


Insert offset folio 183 here 65645.183
220 


Insert offset folio 184 here 65645.184
221 


Insert offset folio 185 here 65645.185
222 


Insert offset folio 186 here 65645.186
223 


Insert offset folio 187 here 65645.187
224 


Insert offset folio 188 here 65645.188
225 


Insert offset folio 189 here 65645.189
226 


Insert offset folio 190 here 65645.190
227 


Insert offset folio 191 here 65645.191
228 


Insert offset folio 192 here 65645.192
229 


Insert offset folio 193 here 65645.193
230 


Insert offset folio 194 here 65645.194
231 


Insert offset folio 195 here 65645.195
232 


Insert offset folio 196 here 65645.196
233 


Insert offset folio 197 here 65645.197
234 


Insert offset folio 198 here 65645.198
235 


Insert offset folio 199 here 65645.199
236 


Insert offset folio 200 here 65645.200
237 


Insert offset folio 201 here 65645.201
238 


Insert offset folio 202 here 65645.202
239 


Insert offset folio 203 here 65645.203
240 


Insert offset folio 204 here 65645.204
241 


Insert offset folio 205 here 65645.205
242 


Insert offset folio 206 here 65645.206
243 


Insert offset folio 207 here 65645.207
244 


Insert offset folio 208 here 65645.208
245 


Insert offset folio 209 here 65645.209
246 


Insert offset folio 210 here 65645.210
247 


Insert offset folio 211 here 65645.211
248 


Insert offset folio 212 here 65645.212
249 


Insert offset folio 213 here 65645.213
250 


Insert offset folio 214 here 65645.214
251 


Insert offset folio 215 here 65645.215
252 


Insert offset folio 216 here 65645.216
253 


Insert offset folio 217 here 65645.217
254 


Insert offset folio 218 here 65645.218
255 


Insert offset folio 219 here 65645.219
256 


Insert offset folio 220 here 65645.220
257 


Insert offset folio 221 here 65645.221
258 


Insert offset folio 222 here 65645.222
259 


Insert offset folio 223 here 65645.223
260 


Insert offset folio 224 here 65645.224
261 


Insert offset folio 225 here 65645.225
262 


Insert offset folio 226 here 65645.226
263 


Insert offset folio 227 here 65645.227
264 


Insert offset folio 228 here 65645.228
265 


Insert offset folio 229 here 65645.229
266 


Insert offset folio 230 here 65645.230
267 


Insert offset folio 231 here 65645.231
268 


Insert offset folio 232 here 65645.232
269 


Insert offset folio 233 here 65645.233
270 


Insert offset folio 234 here 65645.234
271 


Insert offset folio 235 here 65645.235
272 


Insert offset folio 236 here 65645.236
273 


Insert offset folio 237 here 65645.237
274 


Insert offset folio 238 here 65645.238
275 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 239 here 65645.239