>> absolutely. so the hours of service rule that was finalized in december of 2011, and as you note, went into full effect last july, is identified with rigorous analysis to project an impact of saving up to 19 lives per year, or at least 19 lives per year, and avoiding at least 500 injury

crashes, and then significantly more crashes and overall net benefit to the nation. there was also clearly in the analysis a recognition of the economic impact on industry. a recognition and an an analysis that identified about $500 million economic impact, cost to injury -- industry. some portion as a cost or law enforcement partners across the country. so your question is to the point of do we think that this happened yet, what do we think has happened yet. so yes, there has been an economic impact on industry. we recognize that would happen. we identified through an unprecedented level of both analysis and solicited public influence throughout the rulemaking process as much fact and information and data as we could muster from all parties to be sure we were analyzing the components of the industries

that the rule would affect. the majority of the impact is on the long haul over the road, irregular route driver. what we have seen in recent months and i think you've probably heard from some of these individuals is that carriers whose schedules are not necessarily a regular route that they are scheduled service to the customers, that still exceeds the 60 our, 70 week are feeling the impact of the rule as well. i think early on the estimate overall was about 3% impact on productivity for some of the sectors. now with regard to the safety benefits, the way crash and injury data is reported, we don't have the data yet to show, but we certainly do know that it is having an impact. and continue to press forward with the rule that is in place and will press forward as we committed, even the rulemaking to a very robust analysis of fatigue, of measuring fatigue

come of monitoring and measuring the impact of the rule itself going forward. but with new technologies where the ability to do that much better than we could before. electronic locking devices, onboard technologies marketing of drivers, so all that will be part of our analysis going forward. it's very important to reflect on the history of our service rule making. because much like what administrators say both described, we all agreed want to get safety. -- administrator szabo, we want to drive 20 fidelity. there are different points of view as to how you get there. there's a great deal of agreement in the middle. in the case of the hours of service rule, one side of the argument felt we didn't go far enough in regulating the hours in a modest changes were made, and the other side feels as the would have gone too far. both sides took us to court and the court, for the first time in 15 years of litigation over hours of service, the court

actually deemed that the agency, and i think the court own language said we think the agency has acted reasonably if incrementally in retail during the safety. we have a with -- it's very important interview we continue the analysis that we do, let's get through several years of this operation, let's begin the data collection to and the analysis now so we can continue reporting. >> that's the short answer. do you have a time frame when you can confirm that? >> no, but i like to follow up with you with a clear timeline. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator ferro, my understanding that your agency is going to move forward on an issue of increasing the minimum insurance requirements for the trucking industry, is that true? >> we have recommended that -- we're moving forward together data, so yes.

>> in doing that, will you commit to ensure that you comply with the motor carrier act of 1980 assist the secretary shall also include an estimate of the impact of the regulations upon the safety of motor vehicle transportation, the economic impact on the motor care industry, including but not limited to small or minority motor carriers an independent owner operators and the ability of the insurance industry to provide the designated coverage of? >> yes. you have my commitment and the agencies commitment. >> will you make that public in your analysis because yes, we will. as we do, and will hope that comments, if we aren't going far enough, we hope comments will help us get to that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i want to follow-up on the hours of service rules issue. one question, i have a couple of questions. as i understand you talked about the rigorous response to senator

fischer's question, the rigorous analysis and issuing that rule. and the federal motor vehicle carrier to shut fmc a result released the results of map-21 mandated study on the real-world impact of the hours of service. doeno something of recently released, corrective? >> that's correct. >> i assume when talking a rigorous analysis that's what you're referring to in terms of part of the analysis in issuing the hours of service rule. >> it is an example of the rigor that we use. it is, in fact, in relation to to lab studies and the congressional requirement. >> i want to ask you questions about the study. this study pointed out that drivers operating under the old rule had greater lane deviation, as i understand it. what was the difference in centimeters between the two groups of drivers? >> so, let's back up so i can

put in context. the study in question was a study actually mandated by congress. >> right, for good reason because many of us have heard deep concerns about the hours of service rule and how it is impacting the economic, economically jobs, and some congress did a study as result of the. >> and it was very carefully scripted. the language was constructed and constrained is something the kind of broader naturalistic analysis that we are going to be doing going forward. >> i'm sorry, i just want to make sure i get a couple of these answers. so you feel that that study -- let me get to the heart of it then. you felt that study was constrained because the study itself, as i understand it, only include an average of less than 12 days worth of data with 100 subscribers, is that true? >> it's true that it contained close to a half a million miles

to get included for each driver 12 days of driving. >> with 106 drivers of? >> that's correct. >> and you think that's a large enough sample? >> the study requirements were very closely tied by statute in the way -- >> do you think that's a large enough sample to draw a conclusion? >> it's the largest naturalistic driving said it's ever been done. so it's statistically ever irrelevant study. >> did the study showed that drivers operating under the new rule were more likely to operate during daytime hours then nighttime hours? >> it reflected that drivers who are most impacted by the rule changes, specifically the one to 5 a.m. sleep requirements, if the use of the restart, our most impacted. so than i can schedule driver is the most impacted driver. >> my question to you is that under this rule we are going to more drivers driving during

daytime hours, isn't that true? >> that will be part of what we continue to analyze going forward. we have not seen that. it is an incremental impact and in the mix of all the commercial traffic that start early mars across our country, we think the impact is far outweighed by the improve driver safety. >> you would agree there's a higher crash impact during the day? >> it's a much higher concentration of traffic during the day. >> one of the things i'm hearing from my constituents is that because of the new hours of service rule the actual are going to have to put more trucks on the road during the daytime hours, which are the highest crash times. because obviously there's more traffic during the day that you could interact with. and so have you come up with the data as to how many more trucks are going to have to be on the road because of the new hours of service rule during daytime hours that again in some ways i

think could undermine what you're hoping to accomplish with this rolled? >> the analysis is in developing the role did identify a marginal impact, but he didn't outweighed by the improvements of a better resterest of driver. >> do you know how many more trucks are going to be on the road during daytime hours? do we have analysis of those numbers so we can understand, a, the impact on congestion, b, the congestion on potentially i suppose the environment as well, c, the impact on more crashes potential because we've got more drivers and congestion during the daytime hours? do we know the answers? >> those are all core elements of the collection element. those living in place, everyone has been operating on it for 11 months. we are gearing up for doing improve an additional analysis with new data. >> here's the problem that we

face. your gathering this data, and yet what i'm hearing already from companies that have to operate under these rules, both large and small, that have significant impact on our economy is that they are going to have to drive more during the day. we are having to do more trucks on the road. so by the time we have this data instead of having done the analysis in advance, we can have a situation where we are not have an impact will want up on safety, number one, which were all want to make sure people are safe and secure. and secondly we see the negative impacts on the economy, which i'm shocked at how many businesses are coming up to me telling me about the impacts of this will. and it's not just long haul businesses. i was with a short-haul beer distributor this week, and the problem is they require the long haul to get their product to them and then they tried

short-haul distances. i think there are many impacts of this rule. my concern is that we've gone forward with it without a type of analysis of how me more trucks will have on the road as a result of this. >> again, we did significant analysis in the rulemaking process, solicited as much data and information as we could possibly solicit. what has certainly transpired is that the trucking industry is hitting profitability levels that they've never seen before. this is among the strongest period of the trucking industry has ever experienced when you look at their returns. they are healthy. it is not been an easy change for all companies. the vast majority, 85% of the industry, is operating based on the analysis we had done your there are those that have had to make adjustments, and many have made those adjustments. there are some for whom it has been harder, and i recognize that. i started last december saying please, let's sit down, walk

through the log books, look at the experience that you're having. let's get the facts. i was out in minnesota, down in arkansas. we decided meeting in virginia recently. we are very -- i'm committed in the agency is committed to gathering the data to recognize what the impacts are so we can build the right analysis going forward. >> i appreciate that. i know my time is up. in new hampshire where the largest wholesale, the largest food wholesaler in the country, cns come wholesale grocers, and they are seeing a very significant impact because of having to get food there on time and also during seasonal issues. you know, and also whether issues which are significant across the country and in new england. so i would ask also that you take their concerns into consideration as well. thank you. >> absolutely. >> thank you. senator rubio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being there today. administrator szabo, thank you for being here as well.

i wanted to talk to you briefly about all the border florida which i know this approach you are aware. it is currently proposed a public benefit of the project were largely concentrated in the areas like west palm beach, fort lauderdale, miami, orlando, but it would impose some costs and impacts all local governments along the corridor. in particular there is a feeling along the corridor in some of the areas that don't have that concentration that there are virtually no public benefits provided to them, but all the costs that come along with the project. we're hearing a lot of concern about that from our constituents. i wanted to ask a couple of points to see where fra is with regards to this in a midst of conducting an affirmative impact statement, i've heard some constituents and local officials who support this project and effort from constituents including many and the treasure coast, north of west palm beach, expressing concerns about the impact this could have on their

community. the issues they're concerned about safety at the gate crossing and noise pollution. i pass these comments onto the fra as we've gotten them and i hope the agency has reviewed them. can you share with us whether you are taking these concerns into consideration when you're making assessments of conducting oversight over these projects? >> senator, it's really important and i strongly encourage you as well as all citizens to stay engaged in the process to make sure that they get their concerns, their voices heard, and gets on the record in that process it because that process is, in fact, what is used to make sure that these concerns get addressed, you know, as the project moves forward. yes, we are hearing the concerns, we are making sure everything gets forward into the record. rest assured, there will be a robust process with public hearings, and four, you know,

those people that reached out to us we will make sure that they are aware of those public hearings. we will make sure they're fully publicized. so all of these concerns get on the record and would ensure that there are measures to address these concerns as part of that record. >> let me ask you specifically about safety. there's already been, the ai as conducted the west palm beach and miami segment, an issue bashing vis -- no significant that. the fra looked at a 120 locations for proposed crossing upgrades. is the fra proposing that those crossings be upgraded or are those upgrades that are being recommended by all the border florida? >> we intend to hold all of border florida to the high standard to safety. we have guidance that is out there for the grade crossing protection approaches and systems that we expect in any of our and in this case is not a high-speed rail project. it's a regional express project by their standards to that, we

expect that high bar to be met. >> it's safe to say that the fra will be monitoring these crossings to ensure they are upgraded and to ensure that the public safety is protected if you're not just referring to all aboard florida on issues like -- >> we plan to hold them accountable on that. >> on the funding second as you may be aware all the border florida applied for a financing on. my question is about the review of this loan. that's fra strickler look at the financial stability and proposed business plan with deciding to award the loan, or to take local comments and concerns like a safety and apartment was that mentioned into account speak with one comes to belong it comes down to two simple questions. are they eligible, and in this case the answer is yes, and then, can we make a finding of replayability. industry could a mathematical financial review spend but speed is when it comes to the look it's about is eligible and it would make the document defining

of replayability. so it's a financial transaction it but the eis is the process that the public needs to continue to use to make sure their voices are heard and that there concerns get addressed. >> one last question that has to do with some real, different project. >> let's go to orlando. >> exactly. the new commuter rail system for those not familiar with the. started operations last month. there was an incident where the car stalled -- stalled on the track and was struck by a train. the collision along with other close calls opted calls for a to pressure additional safety measures. the highway patrol announced it will be patrolling sunroom intersections to make sure drivers are following the law. as the agency was safety jurisdiction over some real come is fra looking at these and what role does the fra put in recommending safety precautions or improvements? >> are we looking at it? absolute. he comes back to a couple of things. first off, the three fundamental premises under operation

lifesaver, the three d's, education, enforcement and engineering. we need to make sure we're dancing all of this. i take effect what we're proposing in group america. are significant benefits in their relative to crossing safety. thethat continues to be our bigt challenge nationwide. i talk about the dramatic drop in rail accidents, incidents come injuries, fatalities, across the board. one vexing challenge we have is on crossing safety and through grow america to be funding available for local communities to make grade crossing enhancements. we also need to the extent possible to advance what i call sealed corridors, eliminating crossings were possible with strategic placement of overpasses and underpasses so we ensure the efficient flow of pedestrians, trains, vehicles but the safest grade crossing is one that doesn't exist. >> to close up to the all aboard florida for a moment. as we work to the eis process and public hearings and so forth, those will be announced

through the local -- my constituents best know where and when these hearings will take place and have a conducted input speaker still be significant public notice but we will make sure your office is aware. so it's not just going to be their traditional public approach. we will make sure your office is aware of those. >> we will work with the congressional delegation and senator nelson's office will do much we get people to turn out and, in fact, are engaged in this process. so thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks, senator rubio. the record should note senator nelson was here earlier and expressed to me his interest in these areas of inquiry and he had hoped to return but i'm not sure that he will be able to do so. i want to come back, mr. zabel -- mr. szabo, to the build issue because i think that the record here of minimal and medical penalties really is emblematic

more than symbolic of a problem that really stands the entire area of scrutiny here and pertains to other agencies as well. and to come back, would you agree to $5000 ability under the circumstances neglected the severity of the consequences, the curious this of the city violation is a cautiously inadequate as a measure of what happens because senator, i don't know the specifics on those two cases but i do know the process that we go through that we are required to go through as we assess fines and that we do in fact take a look at the severity of the violation. you have to realize that the penalty is relative to the violation, not necessarily the outcome of that violation.

and so there's got to be -- >> when you say not necessarily -- >> a connection. >> when you say not necessary, it can be. and here there was in both incidences there was -- >> as i understand it into one case in 2009 before i was with fra, it's my understanding, if i been briefed properly, that he was relative to radio procedures that occurred after the fidelity. so it had nothing to do with the fidelity itself, but it was a failure on the part of the engineer, the conductor to say the word emergency three times which is required under our radio regulations. you have to seek emergency, emergency, emergency before you start speaking. so the fine was for his failure to say that. but the point i make is way to make sure that we have a legally sustainable position. you know, we use the penalty schedule that's in place. >> once your explanation of the

other incident. you at the agency at that time. >> yeah, i'm not -- which specific -- i don't know -- >> a worker was struck on the westhaven line after -- >> i will say this that clearly -- >> to prevent the train from going on the train track where he was working. the railroad failed to have in place basic technology that was state-of-the-art for railroads around the country. >> our regulation will not rest worldwide worker prevention. in fact, that regulation, final rule, should be out this fall. we are targeting for september that we will require the appropriate protections for all roadway workers. and, in fact, what address that case. but coming back to the build itself a -- >> in other words, you will issue a regular you that mine safety is like a? like? >> yes. that's been in -- >> why wasn't that issued early? >> it's part of a pipeline, center. i can't just, you know, we have a process that we have to go

through. my agency is the first step in that process. and goes into clearance with the office, the office is upstairs, the offices of the secretary, and then he goes over to omb. and so i'll regulatory approaches for us to continue to constantly come up with rules that feed into the pipeline, come to the pipeline. has to be the appropriate period of public comment and review. so it's a never ending process. we are constantly feeding them through. so this is one of the roles that were required under the rail safety improvement act that's been in the hopper, moving through the pipeline. >> how long has that been in the pipeline? >> i'm not sure when it actually started but i do know this, that we actually complete some kind of regulatory document more than once a month. we complete about 15 a year that, you know, we put into and move through the process. so it's a never ending flow.

senator, not only did the rail safety improvement act require of us in unprecedented number of rule makings, regulation studies and reports, but it also at the time promised us 200 additional employees, positions that were not killed or at least not immediately filled. they been partially filled now, but we work every day as effectively and efficiently as we can with the resources that we are given. >> on the rail safety improvement act of 2008, the inspector general of the department of transportation found just last year ago april that nine of the 17 mandated rules have not been issued. i understand that you have been issued since then. when are the other six rules going to be issued? >> i know that, i would have actually take a look at what the six r., but they would be a couple of them that i believe

are waiting on the train standards consume these have to be queued up -- >> can you give us dates for windows rules will be issued? >> for the record i can provide into. i can giving update right now where my pipeline is today. the final amendments on positive train control are due to be out this month. training standards for railroad employees final rule is due to be out this month. our risk reduction program for freight railroads, the notice of proposed rule is due to be out in april. i'm sorry, in august. our systems safety program for commuter railroads, the final rule we are targeting for october. the roadway worker protection that i was talking about, that final rule is scheduled to be done in september. passenger equipment safety standards for high speed train sets, the notice of proposed rule is due to be out in november. our fatigue management plans, the nose of proposed rule is targeted to be out in november.

>> well, i think you may have covered them, some of them, some of the six. because these outstanding roles involve risk reduction plans. >> yes, that would be, final risk reduction will be final in october. >> emerging ashen emergency breathing apparatus to those will all be finalized in november? >> emerges in breathing apparatus will be not. we have a cost ray scheppach any rule that i public it has to go through a rigorous cost-benefit ratio. we have to be able to improve that the benefits of, you know, equal or outweigh the costs and we've got a real challenge on finding a cost effective way to advance emergency breathing apparatus is. >> so we a clear, these are rules that were authorized and required by the law approved in

2008. >> that is correct. >> who we are sixers later and they still haven't been issued. what is the reason for that delay? >> we prioritize our rules and move them as efficiently and effectively as we can for the public to the highest priority for us was positive train control. that was the single is important regulation that we could get out that would have the greatest benefit to the public on safety. the complexity of that rule, they need to go back and make amendments to it, dealing with suits that happen with rules, coming up with, trying to get a cost benefit ratio that would work, you know, there's complexities here. and so we prioritize all of these rules, start feeding them into the pipeline and advance all of them as quickly as we can. but the number of rules that were required of us was an unprecedented level likely unmatched by any other period of time in the agency's history.

>> the ntsb currently has 56 open recommendations to you. for some of them, the fra has given a quote unquote unacceptable response. in fact, on 29 of the recommendations, meaning that the fra failing to move in the right direction to implement those recommendations, i also understand this is the highest number of open unacceptable recommendations for any entity within a united states department of transportation. some of these recommendations concerning rules that, as you've mentioned earlier, could have prevented the metro-north catastrophic incident, for example, inward and outward facing recordings and devices on -- >> that would not have prevented the accident. in fact, now, don't get me

wrong. we believe inward outward facing cameras have safety benefit. that's why munich am back in 2013 we chose to make it a part of a rulemaking program of 2014. certainly it will help an accident investigation. so there ou are safety benefits, but it would not have prevented the accident. in fact, the requirements that we put forward in our emergency order were, in fact, the very steps that were appropriate to immediately eliminate those risks. the signal upgrades, a civil speed, you know, restrictions, enforcement. as i said, every rule that we want to promulgate. every rule we wanted every rule we want of investigatory cost-benefit ratio. we are not allowed to take the benefits twice. so, for example, the benefits of

preventing that are being captured in a positive train control rule. so when i go to advance a rule now on inward outward facing cameras, i'm going to have a challenge relative to my cost-benefit ratio on what it would have prevented. so this is just one of the challenges that as agencies we face. it's part of what we deal with, but we attempted to with effectively. >> well, i am not here to debate you. my point was not that it would have, not that there was any certainty that they would have prevented the accident but that it could have come inward and outward facing cameras could have provided a deterrent to the conductor in nodding off. in other words, is knowing that he was on camera. there are a variety of other rules here that might have

similarly prevented the accident, including research that would mitigate fatigue which is recommendation -- >> and again that's about to be completed to our fatigue mitigation plans will be required under the risk reduction systems safety program. >> rules that would've greatly enhanced inspection practices which by the prevented the derailment in bridgeport, which resulted from the failure to inspect and maintain properly that track, causing vigilance to failed and the derailment to occur. you observe yourself that there were actions that might of been taken by metro-north and actions that could have been required to fra rules that would've prevented these -- >> we go back, senator, after every accident, no matter how borich -- how large or how small, to review what we can do

differently. it's all a part of our drive for continuous safety improvement. our approach, we use our data, and it goes into a computer model to allocate our resources. its staffing allocation model. so we use our inspection data to ensure that we are strategically deploying the limited resources that we have. as you've noted before we don't have the resources to inspect about 1% of the nation's rail track each year so have to follow our data. it's following that they become its that that approach that has been so effective in driving this 95% drop in accidents, injuries, fatalities to record lows. >> let me just say, would you agree with me that these rules have to be issued more quickly? >> i wish that was feasible, senator, but all i can assure

you is that with what resources -- >> what do you need speak with the important thing to note here, it's a matter of growing the entire pipeline. even if you give me more resources, which, of course, i always love, you know, to have more resources. all that allows me to do is enter the rules into the pipeline more quickly, but they're still going to be a bottleneck having get flow-through. that's dashing it's a matter of resources at every step of the process. the point i was coming back to though is that i believe that we can, in fact, continued to improve safety everyday, every day. in 2013 with your actions than 2012. and 20 to we have fewer accidents than in 2011. my goal is to assure in 14 we have fewer than 13. i was like but my database approach to selection because the question to take a look at metro-north and certainly if you talk to, there was no data in

either case that would've triggered the fact that there was an extraordinary amount of risk there. and so while we should not throw a way what has worked so effectively for us the past decade, there's a question we have to lay over on top of it additional steps. and so under grow america, talking about a three-pronged approach. we continue our databased oversight and enforcement program, but we have to get to the second step which is the progressive risk reduction, risk analysis programs that, one, will be required in the system safety programs, final rule will be done -- what did i see the target is for october this year. over and above that grow america gives us the resources we need to make reporting a nationwide program and we think that's

critically important, from what we've seen in the pilot projects where this is been implemented most notably our most mature pilot project, there was a 70%, 70% reduction in accidents and injuries. so we believe this has tremendous potential to get us to the next level of safety. and in that regard, senator, i had told you, i had promised you, that when a deep dive report was done we were going to use it as a learning tool for the entire industry and for my agency. and i called together all commuter railroads of ceos from across the country to new york, metropolitan -- metro-north hosted us. there were 100 in that room. we went through the deep dive report, you know, had a lessons learned discussion on it, and then had an open discussion involving. base with this new knowledge what are you going to do? what each one of you going to do

to be more proactive? and identify and mitigate these risks well in advance. a very robust discussion. based on that iming with all the commuter rail ceos in -- i am meeting with all the commuter rail ceos in about 10 days. >> you will make that meeting? >> i have to make that me. but we're going to have a full-blown several our conversation on confidential close calls, and the president of the union pacific railroad who was at my most successful pilot project at his own expense is lying to the meeting to engage with these ceos and share his experience and what he believes it has so much value in advancing safety. so this is what we're doing with the industry to learn from the. the other piece i talked about that i to learn, my agency has to learn it so i brought in all of my regional administrators from across the country for the meeting in new york.

all of them have commuter properties, nina, within their jurisdiction. i wanted them to be a part of the conversation. but then we all came back here to d.c. and spent the day together taking a look at and talking about those things that we need to do differently. we are doing good work. we know we must always do better work. we are at a record low number of passenger fatalities, but that doesn't bring back the lives of those four people that perished up on metro-north. i know i own that. our goal is to get 20 and stated. and with what we are proposing and the grow america act, i will have the tools to get us there. >> i've given you the floor to provide a full answer the i very much appreciate your doing so. and i want to make clear to you that the critical questions that i've been raising are not directed at you personally or

even solely after agency. they are really directed at a broken system for rulemaking. what you've referred to as a pipeline is more like an obstacle course. written with hurdles that are insurmountable for many of these essential rules that protect health and safety. and it is a broken system not only for your agency and your rules, but for many other roles in the federal government. and so i hope we can use your agency as an example of how the system can be improved. because we can debate whether specific rules, alerter's, automatic train control as to send some positive train control, whether these basic safety measures could have prevented, no one can say that

would've prevented. the point here is they should've been issued long ago. the recommendations made by the ntsb should've been implemented long ago, and that may be an issue of resources or complexity of decision issues or the failings of the administrative system itself and the administrative procedure act perhaps, but one way or the other the system has to be reviewed and changed. >> well, thank you for indulging me, senator, because i do take this very, very personally. it's personal to me. as i said, i come out of the ranks of i've had my share of close calls. but i don't know any railroader who hasn't. i've had five friends killed on duty. i've been to those funerals. i know those families. and so when it comes to safety, this is very personal for me. and yes, i want to achieve

perfection. we are not there yet, but every year i've been here, and, frankly, my last two predecessors every year made continued progress. and, you know, my staff knows that it's all about continuous safety improvement. senator, i can't tell you how much i believe in this team of professionals that i have, these inspectors and my staff. these are incredibly dedicated people. they work so hard in this -- and this mission is personal for them also. and so we are truly on the same page with what it is we want to achieve. >> let me ask you about the deep dive report. are you satisfied with metro-north's response so far? >> at this point they have certainly said all of the right things. from what i've seen, i'm saying the right things, but, you know, it's going to take time to play

out. you know, my deep dive team continues to have a presence out there to monitor their compliance will with what they've promised us. we continue to meet with senior leadership every 30 days. we also continue to meet with the labor folks up there. you know, just to hear what we hear from them at the ground level, but certainly when i talk with joe gillespie and tom pendergrass, and though been meeting with him personally again this week, i think they are in to on thursday i believe, the appropriate level of commitment only seems to be, you know, they understand, as i said we do, the job that we have to do to regain the confidence of the writers up there. and i believe there up to the task. >> so it's fair to say they are saying the right things, but the jury is still out on whether they are doing the right thing?

>> they are saying the right things. we are saying the right things in the initial steps but it's going to take time. there's a lot of work up there, particularly when it comes to changing safety culture, that is a drawn out process. it doesn't happen overnight. and so it's going to take just continued, continued reinforcement. but i couldn't believe that they're heading in the right direction. >> on the 100 day plan that they have announced and promised to fulfill, in fact, by june 11, so we're coming close to it, have you been working with him on that 100 day plan? >> staff has been engaged. by regional administrator is out there on the record basis. as i said, even parts of my deep dive team which brought in from across the country from other regions have been engaged with them. so yes, they are cooperating with us. we are corporate and within. we are monitoring their progre progress. >> and do you have a view as to

whether that plan will be in fact achieve this because as i said, at least at this point they are clearly on track to achieve what they have set out to do, and now it becomes our job to continue to monitor that progress. >> do you have any assessment as to why the metro-north bridge that went down recently hailed to open or failed to close once it had opened as to what the reasons were for that ms. have? >> we will get you a fuller explanation for the record, but as i understand it, that bridges well over 100 years old. it really speaks to the state of the infrastructure, particularly on the northeast corridor. you know, and as one of the things that our proposal under rule america is explicitly put together to address, modernizing the infrastructure to make sure that it is more safe, more reliable and more efficient.

this asset on the northeast corridor, you know, is one of the prize assets but it's one of the best passenger rail markets in the world, in the world. but because of decades and decades of the disinvestment, it's never reached its fullest potential. and so that's the case in that bridge, and the concerning thing is there are so many other bridges and tunnels on the corridor that are of a similar age. >> and again it's not just about the metro-north railroad or even the northeast corridor. senator coons noted for me and, in fact, wanted me to ask you about a bridge on i-495, which late yesterday encountered a similar problem. it's a bridge over the christian river i believe in delaware which now has been shut down.

is closed indefinitely. it carries about 90,000 vehicles a day, and the it will have a he impact in creating congestion from florida to maine. especially in trucking. >> you know, is this a rail bridge or a highway bridge? >> highway bridge. >> that you rail bridges, there are a couple of elements of grow america that really help with railroad bridges. i've talked about, you know, the two pieces, the one for amtrak to be able to bring their railroad to a state of good repair. that's a critical part. the second piece is for other corridors to be upgraded through competitive grants. these are the kind of infrastructure improvements we are talking about. the last one i want to touch on is a grant program for short line railroads. i think this is critical, particularly as a talk about the movement of crude oil.

the class one railroads for the most part can take care of themselves. they have deep pockets, but the shorelines are very capital he constrained in what is a very capital intensive industry. so there are bridges out there, there's a track structure out there that have not been upgraded to modern standards. and so in grow america we are advocating for competitive grants for short line railroads to mak me critical safety upgras to bridges, critical safety upgrades to strike -- tax structure to be able to safely haul heavioads, d critical upgrades the signaling system for short once. so we are looking to address this in our proposal. >> i think one of the problems we can agree, and maybe this is an issue that pertains to all your agencies, is the resources available for enforcement. and as you well know, senator schumer and i advocated,

successfully, for an additional $185 million in the last fiscal year, fiscal year 2014, which was to hire 45 additional critically necessary safety inspectors for your agency. can you tell me what the status of the hiring is? >> yeah, we moved immediately. again, you don't just snap your fingers and the 45 people in place, but we moved immediately on the first 15. 10 of them have, in fact, been hired, but senator, to be clear, it takes about a year. by the time you recruit, hire, go through the training that isn't a second it takes about a year to be, you know, a qualified inspector, to be turned loose on your own. but we have moved right away when there is an opportunity for more resources, would not going to wait. >> do you need more than that? >> senator, it's my job to ensure the safety of this

industry with the resources you choose to give me. and so, you know, certainly -- >> we can only give you what you request. we can give you more, but the best indication of whether you need more is whether you request it. >> it's my job to work with the resources that i have. into strategically deploy, you know, that's why i use the staffing allocation model to make sure that we are as effectively deploying as we can. >> again, i do want to put you on the spot but i would like to ask you for the record to provide me with an estimate, aspect -- as specific as possible, of the additional resources you need for enforcement. and i would like to make the same request of all other agencies. >> thank you, senator. >> not to be critical of which are done in the past, but simply to show what we need to do adequate enforcement, of the

rules and laws on the books, if the on the books and they are not enforced, they are dead letter. in fact, there were some dead letters because they encourage noncompliance. people who know that rules are not going to be in force are not going to buy them. when the penalties aren't sufficient, there's no incentive to obey them. if they are part of the cost of doing business, the companies that you regulate will thumb their nose at your agency, which is to say as public health and safety. so i'm going to ask that for the record, and let me just conclude with these questions. my understanding is that the maximum penalty for the violations of orders and rules such as pertained in the robert lewton incident was $25,000. and that, in the case of

egregious and aggravated cases, the maxim is $105,000, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. for the record i can confirm that for you. those are established via statute, but there's other elements that come into play as we are determining, you know, how much in particular violation, you know, what we will be able to sustain with the fines. so it's not for every violation that's out there that we can instantly go and levies the maximum against them. >> can you give me examples of when the maximum of $25,000 or $105,000 have been imposed? >> we will get you that for the record. that way i can let you know what the history has been, those cases, where that may have been done, and the legal basis that was in place to support that.

>> how quickly can you provide that for the record? >> output staff to work on it, but again -- >> these are cases that have already occurred, departed in close. i'm asking are examples of them. >> i will put staff to work on it today, senator, but there's a clearance process on everything that we provide. >> why was the lewton death on those tracks in west haven not an ed regis and aggravated case statements for the record, we will get you again what we believe was the legal basis for our fine. but sender, again i want to come back to something that i said earlier, that the purpose of fines, it's not necessary to punish. and the hammer is but one tool that we have in our toolbox, and we need to make sure that we have multiple approaches to drive continuous safety improvements. >> well, it may be only one

tool, but it is one of the preeminent tools. and when you fail to use it, you are leaving yourself essentially -- >> well, as i said, senator -- >> and worst -- >> the five years i've been here we have, in fact, set a record for the highest dollar amount of fines levied or any five year period. so with the tools i have, we are doing what we can do. >> let me conclude on this point, is only one of miniscule penalties, five and $10,000 over the period of 10 years that's been document it. >> senator, certainly we be woud be happy to work with you on some technical assistance if you would like to take a look at legislation that addresses our penalty schedules. >> if i were in your shoes, i would be advocating for more authority. >> we will work with you. >> let me ask you, talking about

answers for the record. when you were last here you promised some answers but we still haven't received them. >> they have been completed both by me and my staff. i worked on those personal. staff has prepared them and their in the clearance process. i certainly had hoped they would've been delivered to you in advance of this, that you should have them very shortly. >> they are in the pipeline? >> that's right. >> when are we going to see the? >> i can't image that, other than to say i believe that it's very close. it wouldn't surprise me if it's this week but i don't control that peace. >> well, i'm not going to put you again, i'm not here to embarrass anyone, but i'd like to know who has to clue them. whom should i contact? >> we can, for the record, i will get you -- in fact i believe in the queue in a that

you propose to us, we've got in there the process that is used for clearance. actually was relevant to a lease one or two of the questions that you asked me. so, you know, you will have that information. >> i thank you all for being here today. and i hope that we can continue this conversation. i have additional questions for the record. i don't want to detain all of you here. i understand my colleagues may as well, so we'll keep the record open for a week. and again, my thanks to you for spending the time with us and being so forthright and helpful. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> our live coverage of the seventh anniversary of the d-day invasion of normandy continues in about 35 minutes.

president obama will attend this their money along with french president president hollande new one of the allied landings. that is at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> now a conversation on the challenges facing businesses over cyber theft and cybersecurity. this panel is part of a conference on cybersecurity held by bloomberg government. >> well, thank you, adam. we're going to have another panel come up right now. i'd like to introduce my colleague, tim lavin from bloomberg news. is nextel is all about finding just exactly cyber threats exist out there, pardon me, where they are and what can be done to protect all of us. and i welcome with that, turn it over spent thank you, trish. good morning, everyone. [applause]

>> we have an excellent panel this morning. we have wade baker, managing principal research and intelligence from verizon. with mike allen, founder and managing director of the beacon global strategies. mike leitner -- michael leiter, and bob butler on the center for a new american security, adjunct senior fellow with technology and the national script program. gentlemen, to start i think it's safe to say that the past year has not been a great one for cybersecurity writ large. we a target, ebay, neiman marcus, snapchat, chinese workers -- hackers, iranian hackers. what the council it seems like a surge in malicious online activity of all kinds recently? wade, let's start with you. >> i would actually say it's a commendation of things, some which is a change in the threat environment. in other words, there is an increase in attacks that comes through increasing move online.

we as a huge number of devices and access more things for more places at all times. so that just increases the surface area over time and keeps doing that. what i also think that the mechanisms on which we come to know those things are also increasing. so they are not just happening, happening at a high frequency but we are seeing a higher proportion of them because of accountability and all kinds of disclosure and other things like that. >> i don't think it's a particularly rise. i think it is more cognizance of what's actually happening is early as 20 other u.s. intelligence community has been talk about the china and cyber espionage. i think 2013 was sort of the year of the retailer a tech. they are increasingly going after our payment systems. i think gradually businesses, members of congress and those of us in washington, and the washington policy community are

becoming more and more aware of nation state pilferage of our trade secrets. and it's something that we need to continue to talk about in to we make decisive progress on legislation, standards and other things. we need to protect the country. >> when you look at the most recent threats facing american businesses, where are they coming from, who was behind them and what's the motivation 10 to be? is a financial, espionage, some sort of ideological attachment, some combination thereof? what have you guys seen? >> from my standpoint as a security practitioner at i/o which is a datacenter with six or so clients, my sense is if you're a product coming there's an issue of ip and folks see that as an opportunity to get to level parity pretty quickly. so inside of that space, a lot of maneuvering and tampering as

well as in breach reconnaissance. and the network services business, i see the risk as certainly theft of pii, personal identifiable information from us was compliance failures. you've got a compliant philly, that's a big problem. or reputation risk. so i think it depends on the business value, proposition of the company, i think can you trace it back through threat intelligence in terms of intent and capability. >> it's no different from the non-cyber world. it's everything, it's all of the above. if you're a russian organized crime and you're used to muscle guys so you get a certain business in a, nice to have the muscle. you simply steal credit card numbers and you can quadruple, the games you had before. if you are china, the distinction that we call between espionage and economic gain is a distinction that they don't see

at all. so we can't espionage. they see as making their industries more competitive with the west. it's stealing intellectual property, trade secrets, ago shooting information. if you're iran if some less economic and mortal of national power, disrupt bank of america, but as america in the title, and use distributed denial of service attacks to make their life more difficult. so it is everything we see in the fiscal world with all the same motivations, just being able to do it using asymmetric dual to reach a vastly wider audience of adversarial clients. ..