feinberg. the fri's mission is to oversee the safe, reliable and efficient movement of people and goods throughout our nation's rail network. that rail network is absolutely vital to the nation's economy. so it's important that those who oversee it have the requisite skills and experience. serving s the acting administrator since january prior to her current assignment, she everybody served as chief of staff to transportation secretary anthony fox from 2013 to 2014. ms. feinberg was the policy and communications director facebook. and 2009-2010 she served as special stoont the president and adviser rahm emanuel. before that she served as mr. emanuel's communications director for the house caucus. ms. feinberg clearly has commitment and admiral commitment to public service, some are concerned her background does not include deep expertise or experience regarding railroads or railroad

safety. as noted in an article in politico, at this crucial moment this is the nation's top safety regulator is a former facebook executive and white house adviser whose resume is long on communications and policy posts and noticeably short on railroad experience, end quote. so in addition to asking ms. feinberg to respond to those concerns, i'll be also asking her about the looming deadline for railroads to implement positive train control. those in the rail industry are well aware, it is a rail system designed to prevent collision, overspeed derailments and other accidents by automatically slowing or stopping a train that is not being operated safetily by locomotive engineers. the improvement act mandated the implementation of systems by december 21st of 2015. complex challenges have prevented most railroads from meeting this deadline which is rapidly approaching. yesterday the independent government accountability office issued an updated report that found that freight and passenger railroads continue to face significant challenges in

implementing ptc around the vast majority of railroads would need one to five years to complete implementation. even the small fraction of railroads it will be able to install pct on their own tracks by december 31st of 2015 will face testing, certification. as profiled by many here, pct is not an off the shelf technology. the gao attributed implementation difficulties to the development of first generation components, the limited number of manufacturers of those components and complex integration testing among other challenges. some of the implementation issues have also been government created. the gao pointed out that as a result of permitting review issues, the federal communications delayed for a year. the gao also pointed out that the review of safety plans has been slow and the oversight

efforts have been insufficient. gao ultimately found that railroads pushing to meet the current unrealistic deadline installing components before defects are identified and address cod be counterproductive to successful implementation. these findings should not come as a surprise. the fra itself issued a report in 2012 that identified several technical and problematic issues affecting implementation such as spectrum availability, installation and engineering challenges and technical capacity. it has said for years the vast majority of railroads will not meet the current deadline. railroads have spent billions of dollars working through these challenges, csx testified at a commerce committee hearing in january that the freight railroad industry has spent over $5 million of private finish in pct deployment and they expect to spend at least $9 billion to make ptc fully operational nationwide. the reality is that if only a

few railroads could not meet the deadline, we could perhaps conclude there is an issue with those railroads. but if nearly every railroad in the country will not meet the deadline we need to acknowledge there is an issue with the deadline. congress has a responsibility to fix the issue. that's why legislative action is needed to extend the deadline and provide operating authority for railroads that have not completed pct implementation while still motivating compliance and enhancing safety. the surface transportation reauthorization bill which passed the senate by a vote of 65-34 includes a bipartisan proposal to extend the ptc deadline on a case-by-case basis with enforceable milestones and metrics and sets common sense safety requirements such as cameras and speed limit action plans while pct is being implemented. i believe that failing to extend the pct deadline will result in large scale disruptions to the nation's economy that would make the west coast port disruption or the 2013 to 2015 rail service

problems impact a large portion of the country look small in comparison. that's why i recently sent letters to the surface transportation board, all seven class railroads and all commuter railroads inquiring about the effects of failing to extend the pct deadline. responses to my letters indicate tremendous risk of service disruption, including the cessation of passenger rail traffic and major delays that will impact freight railroads, including the inability to ship critical chemicals such as chlorine for water treatment plants across the country and anhydrous ammonia for fertilizer that our agricultural sector requires. mta in new york responsible for metro north and the long island railroad, two of the three largest commuter railroads in the country that collectively provide nearly 180 million rides annually stated, and i quote, railroads face serious potential disruptions to operation and exposure to unacceptable risk of liability and civil fines, all of which would divert from the

critical task of speeding final implementation of pct, end quote. union pacific, the largest freight railroad in the country clearly stated in its response to my letter that it will embargo all passenger and toxic by inhalation chemical traffic starting on january 1 of 2016. this includes chemicals essential for clean drinking water and healthy crops. in fact, the chairman of the surface transportation board stated in his response to me railroads may not be obligated to ship such tih chemicals after the deadline which could redirect them to other modes that are less efficient and importantly, less safe. we cannot wait until the last minute to act. i believe absent congressional action, we will begin to see the effects of the deadline four to six weeks prior to the december 31st deadline as railroads begin to cycle traffic off their lines. this is a looming economic and safety disaster that has completely avoidable.

so now more than ever, i believe that ms. feinberg as the acting administrator of the fra has a responsibility to work with us in congress to avoid the potential service disruptions. the time for anyone to play politics with the pct deadline has past, and we as policymakers must work together to avoid disrupting the nation's economy. having said all this, i want to thank ms. feinberg for her willingness to serve at the d.o.t. despite some of the criticisms i mentioned earlier, ms. feinberg has received many compliments for her willingness to be transparent and responsive to congress, which will be essential if she is confirmed. with that i want to turn now to the ranking member of the committee, distinguished senator from florida and recognize him for any remarks that he would like to make before we turn to our nominee. senator nelson? >> mr. chairman, you've laid out a lot of the issues, and i would be duplicative to repeat, and therefore what i am going to do

is insert into the record my opening statement. let me say at a critical time, a time in which there are questions of safety, the millions of people that use commuter rail, at a time essential to the economy of this country that we have healthy railroads that they can be competitive. they can operate safely, reliably, and efficiently, and with safety being central to the fra's mission, indeed, we've seen train accidents decline and fates decline. but then we have huge incidents of fatalities that bring it back to the fore.

and so ms. feinberg, for you to be willing to step into the breach and try to offer the leadership that is so desperately needed of the federal railroad administration, which oversees the safety and the development of the nation's freight and inner city passenger rail networks. so it's a critical appointment. it's a critical time. it's a time that the fra cannot let anything be slack and drop. so i'll insert my opening statement in the record. >> thank you, senator nelson. and we'll make sure that's all included for the record. we have with us today one of our very distinguished colleagues and a member, a very active member of this committee, i might add in the home state senator of ms. feinberg to introduce her. and so we want to welcome to the

other panel, when he is normally up here on the dais, our colleague from west virginia, senator manchin. senator manchin, do you want to proceed? >> first of all to my colleagues and mr. chairman, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to introduce a most accomplished young woman. it's really an honor to introduce the federal administrator to the federal railroad administration and a friend of mine, sarah feinberg. use know, she is from west virginia. she grew up in a t most common sense state if you will. she has the same pragmatic approach to problem solving that you see among our congressional delegation every day. and west virginia, it doesn't matter if you're republican or democrat, you just got to get something done. people expect you to do your job. i want to tell you i first was introduced to this this young lady. in 1983, her daddy, i was in the state legislature with me, lee feinberg, and he brought this little girl in, 6 years old. 5 or 6 i think at the time. and we all bring our kids and show our kids off.

you all remember that at the state legislature. here came this little girl, rambunctious, jumping around and running around the chamber and everything that was my first introduction to sarah. i watch herd grow into a young lady and a most accomplished young woman. she has done a fantastic job and we're so proud. she is cut from the same cloth as we have in sylvia burwell, a west virginia native, i think you found to be very pragmatic and responsive to all of us. today she sits before the committee seeking to continue her public services as administrator of the federal railway administration. i believe she has proven herself to be an a effective and engaged leader with the character to accept criticism that they offer insight. she was baptized by fire after being pointed january 9th of this year. leading the agency's response to five major incidents within her first 60 dines job. on february 3rd, six people were killed when a commuter train hit an suv at a crossing in valhalla, new york.

on february 4th, 14 tank cars carrying ethanol derailed just north of dubuque, iowa. three of them caught fire. on february 16th, 27 tank cars derailed outside mt. carbon, west virginia. they released 378,000 gallons of crude oil and ignited a fire that destroyed a nearby house. it could have been a whole community. on february 24th the commuter train in oxnard, chasm hit a tractor-trailer at a grade crossing and jumped the tracks. on march 6, 21 cars derailed outside of galena, illinois near the board were wisconsin. five of them caught fire. i'm a firm believer that elected officials need to be on the ground emergency situation, supporting first responders and assisting those in need. and i was impressed by sarah's response to the mt. carbon derailment in west virginia, which i witnessed firsthand. five weeks into her new job, she executed an efficient and effective federal response that was one of the best i've ever

seen, in my experience as an elect official have been through many tragedies in my state there are a lot of smart policy people inned with. but the best policy in the world doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't translate into the real world. sarah's response to the mt. carbon accident showed me that she understood that and gave me faith in her ability, not just to lead, but now listen to the people that we're here to serve. over the past ten years, the increase in domestic energy production has been an engine of economic growth for our great country, and the energy information administration predicts that growth to continue through 2020. from 2009 to 2014 crude oil production in the united states increased by more than 63%. and in 2009 to 8.86 million barrels a day in 2014. and the majority of this product is moved by rail. in 2008 our railroads moved a meager 295 tank cars carrying crude oil. in 2008, only 9500 tank cars

were carrying crude oil. last year the number grew to 500,000 tank cars. 500,000 from less than 10,000. over 5,000% increase. unprecedented new challenges come along with the new economic opportunities presented by the growth in domestic energy production. and ms. feinberg's experience makes her uniquely qualified to lead the fhra through this unique transition. she helped the department of transportation to develop a holistic to development safety that required cooperation between molds within the department. the tough new tank car safety regulations that were finalized in may depended on close collaboration between the fra and the pipeline of hazardous materials safety administration. sarah's experience in the secretary's office existing relationships throughout the department allowed her to cut through red tape and get the right people in the room to get the job done. that's what it's about. putting people together that want to get something done.

while the new rules do not solve every problem, they represent a major step in the right direction. they satisfied all or part of the ten outstanding national transportation safety boards' recommendations, including all four recommendations that were made in april this year. so since taking the helm at the fra earlier this year, i have been impressed with ms. feinberg's willingness to tackle difficult issues and engage stockholders about realistic solutions, taking politics out of the equation completely. in may she convened the pct task force to try to identify opportunities for the fra to help railroads meet the december 31, 2015 deadline and become a real partner in the process. i think her proactive approach to problem solve willing be an asset to the fra and the entire department of transportation, and to all of us here sitting here responsible for the safety of our citizens in our respective states. so without further ado, i want to introduce to you not only an accomplished young professional committed to public service, and she inherited that in her genes

in her bones. it's with her every day in a bipartisan way to get things done to move this country forward. my friend sarah feinberg. >> thank you, senator manchin. and that just underscored how old you are. but thank you for being here. thank you for that introduction. and we now look forward to hearing from our nominee, ms. feinberg, please proceed. >> chairman, ranking member nelson and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. senator manchin, thank you for your kind introduction. i'm grateful for your friendship, your decades of service to our state, and your strong support. i'll just briefly note that i'm so pleased that my brother matthew is here with me today, and that other members of my family are here with me in spirit. it is an honor to have been nominated by president obama to serve as the administrator for the federal railroad administration. and to have earned the

confidence of secretary fox. it is also a great responsibility and one that i take seriously. just one month after i became acting administrator, a metro north train traveling out of new york city hit a car at a grade crossing. six people were killed doing what millions of americans do every day, traveling home from work, visiting friends, or on their way to see their family. days later in senator manchin's and my home state of west virginia, a mile and a half long train carrying 109 tank cars loaded with crude oil derailed near the town of montgomery. one person was injured. multiple small communities were evacuated and a fire burned for days. and anyone who visited the scene would agree that we got lucky. in may, an amtrak train traveling significantly over the speed limit derailed in philadelphia. the horrific accident took the lives of eight people. these accidents are searing reminders that millions of americans depend on the railroad and fra's diligent oversight to transport them safely to their

jobs each morning, to their homes and a families each night, and to deliver goods and products safely every day. next year fra will turn a half century old. the agency has a proud history and a long list of accomplishments, most notably its significant contributions to improving rail safety. rail deaths and injuries are down dramatically. worker injuries are down. derailments are down. and those decreases are very much a testament to the work of the men and women of the fra. but in some way, safety in the rail industry has also plateaued. improvements are generally not as dramatic as they used to be, and we occasionally even see spikes in the wrong direction. and that calls for action. the american people expect every federal agency to adapt to new conditions and new realities to be willing to change, to be open to criticism. over the last eight months, have i seen fra do just this. they've shown a willingness to adapt, to change.

we've headed in a new direction and we've brought new thinking to old challenges. we tried new solutions aimed at addressing the old challenge of grade crossing incidents. we partnered with police around the country to step up enforcement. and in june, google agreed to integrate our grade crossing data to add crossing alerts to google maps. we have taken a new approach to the way we handle ntsb recommendations. when i arrived at fra in january, there were more than 70 ntsb recommendations awaiting action. we've taken action on more than half of them. reducing the number of outstanding recommendations by nearly 15%, and we await word on another 30 from the ntsb. some of these recommendations have been sitting for more than five years. fra listened to the frustrations that members of this committee expressed about the railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program, and we've acted. this year we've completed two loans and expect to complete two more shortly. the risk program is very much open for business.

while working to try to bring new solutions to these old challenges, the men and women of fra have stayed laser focused on our ongoing safety priorities and have delivered significant results. during the last two years the united states has seen more than a dozen crude oil train derailments. in may, with our sister d.o.t. agency sinza, we completed the high flammable train rule that aims to prevent these kinds of accidents. we prioritized pct implementation, hiring staff and creating a task force that relates to me regularly on progress and the performance of each railroad. we were also proud to work with many here today and in the greater new york city region to provide a nearly $1 billion loan to implement ct on mta's system. both the administration's budget and its grow america act have requested significant funding to assist commuter railroads and

pct. and chairman thune, ranking member nelson, i want to thank you and members of this committee in particular for seeking to leverage nearly $200 million to cover some of the costs and expenses railroads face when taking on a risk loan to implement pct. all of this activity is in addition to our continued focus on making sure the agency's partners deliver high speed inner city passenger rail projects for the american people. none of this success would have been possible without the tireless work of the nearly 900 public servants at the agency who are dedicated to rail safety. and it has been an honor to lead them as acting administrator. chairman thune and rank member nelson, i am pushing fra each day to be vigilant in the pursuit of safety, open to pacts of innovation from any source. the agency is engaged, enthusiastic, and driven because we know the gravity of our responsibilities and the size of our opportunities. if confirmed, i would eagerly

work with all members of this committee and all members of congress to build a stronger and safer rail system, and one that we can all be proud of. thank you, and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, ms. feinberg. as i mentioned, and i'll start with some questions, and we'll go around with five-minute round here. just to alert members of the committee. as i mentioned, the committee has conducted extensive outreach with freight commuter railroads to understand the effects of failing to extend the deadline to implement pct. and it's clear that there will be widespread rail service reduction if congress fails to act. for example, metra in chicago with over 70 million riders annually have stated there is a strong possibility that it will cease service altogether, a concern that is echoed by long island railroad, metro north in new york and connecticut. and so i want to get a couple of numbers on the record. based on your outreach to railroads, approximately how

many have informed the fra that they nay reduce or suspend service? >> senator, i think you the most recent numbers because they've been responding to your most recent letter. but to put hit the way, i have not had a recent conversation with a railroad that has informed me that they do intend to operate on january 1. so i believe you have the most recent numbers, but we are well into the 20s at this point. >> have you -- or has d.o.t. i should say evaluated the extent to which there will be an increase in congestion or potentially lives lost from commuters taking alternative options to -- or alternative modes of transportation i should say? >> we have not done a specific study that would look at the effects on january 1 or on january 2. but i have said that i do have significant concerns about the consequences of railroads choosing not to operate on january 1. i think it would lead to

significant congestion, and that does also lead to safety impacts. >> have you had any discussions with fta to determine whether transit buses have the capacity to carry displaced riders who might otherwise be on commuter railroads? >> well, the most -- the fra and the tra in constant communication about a variety of ptc issues. i don't think we've had this specific bus conversation, though i don't think there is an expectation that buss can -- would be able to take that load. >> how about the smaller railroads, class 2s and class 3s? some of those are frequently overlooked at the mandate also applies to them. and they happen to use in many cases class 1 railroad track. roughly how many of these small railroads would be required to equip their locomotives as a result of the pct requirements? and are you hearing of any difficulties these railroads may be experiencing? >> certainly. we have heard generally from the

short line association and from individual short lines and from other individual entities, i mean, we can get you specific numbers if you need it. but it's significant that most are watching the congress and keeping an eye on what is likely to come out of here. >> our colleague on the committee, who i'm sure you'll hear from in a minute, senator blumenthal has noted that entities like the connecticut d.o.t. should not be subject to penalties for making a good-faith effort to implement pct, even though connecticut will not implement until at least 2018. he has also noted that it's possible that metro north could be showed fines if they showed a good-faith effort. if connecticut d.o.t. and metro north are considered to be making a good-faith effort, are there others that are as well? >> well, there are many railroads that are making a good-faith effort and have -- we believe have been working diligently towards pct

implementation, but the law and the statute, the deadline is very black and white and does not give in our read, does not give flexibility to railroads that are working diligently versus ones that are not. >> if a line is not currently handling toxic materials or passenger traffic, does the pct requirement apply? >> it depends on where in the country we're talking about. but it is aimed at lines that are handling hazardous materials and passenger service. >> and would the fra consider continued movement of nontih and nonpassenger traffic over such lines after december 31st of 2015 to be in violation of the 2008 statute? >> yes. >> does the fra intend to impose fines or penalties related to non-tih and nonpassenger operation on such lines after december 31st of 2015?

>> we will -- we will enforce the law as of the deadline on december 31st. so on january 1, we will enforce the deadline in the law. >> how does the fra define the common carrier obligations that real carriers have under existing law? well, let me ask you this way. do you believe the common carrier requirement is conflict with the current pct deadline? >> well, i would refer to the stb on that, and have i read their recent letter. >> which i think you have seen as well in which they defer to us on safety. but it's a partnership between the two organizations. >> okay. my time is expired. i'll hand it off to senator from florida, senator nelson for questions. >> well, you heard of the old saying we're between the devil and the deep blue sea. so if we don't extend positive train control, which most

everyone at this dais wants to get positive train control installed as fast as possible, but under the law, you have to impose fines, but the railroads say they can't comply, and therefore they will not carry certain traffic. so what do we do? if ptc is not extended? >> well, sir, we've said that we feel that it's our obligation to enforce the ptc deadline. and so on january 1, railroads that have not implemented ptc choose to operate, we will take enforcement actions. >> you formed a task force on this. and it's getting information to be used to monitor the progress and guide enforcement efforts. tell us about that.

>> yes, sir. we've had a number of fra staff members working on ptc for years, but more recently, i have formed with an fra task force that is working on pct across the board. they are in close touches with railroads. they're offering technical assistance. they are monitoring testing. but one of the things they are also doing is collecting data about ptc implementation, how that implementation is going from railroads that we're tracking that progress regularly. >> if the congress extends the deadline for ptc, what would your recommendation be? how long of an extension? >> sir, i don't think it's appropriate for me to recommend a certain amount of time. i would be deferential to the congress on what they believe the right action would be to take in terms of the deadline. but we would, as we have in the

past, offer as much technical assistance and our expertise as we possibly can and try to be help to feel the congress if they contemplate moving the deadline. >> one of the things that we did in the highway bill was we got the number up to $200 million to help the commuter railroads install the positive train control. now it would be nice to have ptc installed sooner. i want to thank the chairman for this. so how would you go about the use of this funding? >> well, we would want to coordinate with this committee and take guidance from you. but as i view it, the $199 million would be used as an offset for crp -- i'm sorry, for the credit risk premium for commuter railroads that are

applying for pct loans, or could be used as grant program for those same commuter railroads. >> grade crossing safety. it's a problem all over the country. can you talk about your efforts to partner with local law enforcement and technology companies on this grade crossing issue? >> yes, senator. thank you for the question. following the metro north grade crossing incident, we -- the fra launched a grade crossing campaign, which would seek to try to bring some new thinking to this old problem. and one of the first things we did was partner with law enforcement to ask for increase in enforcement at grade crossings. so ticketing in an effort to prevent people from beating the train, if you will. we've also reached out to tech companies to ask them to take

our grade crossing data, which is the location of more than 240, 250,000 grade crossings across the country, integrate that data into their maps so that when passengers railroad drivers actually within a mapping application they would be alerted that they were approaching a grade crossing. >> so back to the question before us, do you have a recommendation on what we do on an extension on ptc? >> i don't have a specific recommendation for a length of time. i'm grateful to this committee and to the leadership of this committee for being so focused on this problem. i am worried about the consequences that come on january 1, and i'm grateful for your attention to it. i do not have the specific amount of time that i would recommend. but as i said, we would continue to work with this committee to offer technical assistance. our expertise and any assistance

that we can as you work on this. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator nelson. up next, you get the missouri double-team. senator blunt followed by senator mccaskell. there you go. there you go. the missouri double-team is sometimes pretty tough. we're glad you're here. thanks for the work you have already done on this. i appreciate the discussion this morning has not been about who is at fault or whether the government is at fault. we're not going to make this deadline. i think you mentioned, ms. feinberg, that over 20 railroads have told you they would not operate on january 1st. some of those railroads also obviously commuter traffic, commuter traffic runs over the rails as well. i think burlington northern has said that their contract with the commuter traffic may -- requires them to have their rail system in compliance with federal law.

your view that commuter traffic could not use those rails as well? do you have a view of that? it's what burlington northern thinks. is that what you think? >> no, no. that's correct. the class 1s are right to be thinking about the commuter service that functions on their -- on their track. and to be clear the commuters are thinking about that, as well. >> and do you think it's reasonable these 20 railroads that have told you they -- they might not be able to function? do you think it's -- or won't function. do you think it's reasonable they believe they cannot function if they're not in compliance with the ptc standard? >> to be clear, they have communicated that to senator thune, to chairman thune and also copied us on those xhungs, as well. i think it is reasonable for railroads to take a close look at how and if to operate on a date when they will become -- when they will be operating many violation of the law.

i think that's an appropriate thing to look at. and frankly, that's something we expect them to look at regular lie. >> you think it's reasonable to know they cannot violate of the deadline? >> each railroad will have to make that decision individually but i absolutely think it's reasonable to be contemplating whether or not it's appropriate to operate that day, beginning of that die of course, one of the reasons for this is the toxic biinlags freight earn ises. of course, if that freight along with lots of other freight isn't part of the commerce system, there are major problems in commerce for water treatment, for plastic, for whatever else. those chemicals go into. anybody doing a study of the economic impact of what happens if railroads aren't operating on january 1? >> we have not done a study into the economic impact.

i can't speak for the stb. we have not done that specifically, but -- and our obligation is to think about this in terms of safety versus economic impact but i'm concerned about the consequences in terms of congestion and the safety impacts of increased congestion, as well. >> and -- >> and those products would likely move by truck. they don't move by rail. >> and so, that creates safety concerns in another -- not only the -- >> correct. >> -- traffic, advanced traffic but move that same problem to another place? >> that's right. >> same concern to another place. in terms of the passenger rail, do you know of any discussion they're having about whether they think they should be able to operate onlines that don't meet the standard? >> it is an active conversation happening across the industry so it's not just the freights. commuters are absolutely having

this conversation. we are in close touch with them just like we are with the freights. they're very anxious and -- and keeping a close eye on this body. to see what happens next. >> an you've been thoughtful in not giving any indication of exactly how long an extension would be, but do you think -- is it your view that there needs to be some sort of extension beyond january 1? >> i mean, to echo the ranking member, i think he said between the devil and the deep blue sea. i would say we're bleen a rock and a hard place. the deadline is not going to be met. that is disappointing to me and i think it has safety consequences that i'm concerned about. the railroads not operating also has consequences and i would -- we would want to work very closely with this committee to try to assist in any way we can in offering technical assistance and exper tier as you look at

the deadline. >> thank you, chairman. >> senator mccaskill. >> you are here to -- for us to ask questions for you to be the boss. so i'm going to ask you some tough boss questions. jao has a follow-up issued yesterday on the ptc implementation. providing fra with the authority to grant extexes on a case by case basis would provide some needed flexibility and could also assist fra in managing the limited staff resources and many it gait risks and ensure ptc is implemented in a safe and reliable manner. do you agree with that? >> we are willing -- we believe -- >> that's not my question. i want the know whether you agree with that statement. granting extensions on a case by case basis provides needed

flexibility and assist fra in managing the limited staff resources. >> it would certainly give us flexibility. i am less worried about the staff resources because we have plans in place to staff up quickly with contractors and had the plans in place for quite sometime. i am anxious about the prospect of entering into negotiations with 40 different railroads on a case by case basis and result in a choose your own own deadline back and forth. >> okay. so, you're not comfortable on a -- with a case by case basis? you would rather have a set deadline? >> i think we have to be aware of the kons enss of entering into negotiations with 40 different entities. >> a yeah. i that's what i'm trying to find out, ms. feinberg. which is the best of bad choices and you have to make that decision potentially. >> ultimately, i, unfortunately, fra does not have the authority to make that decision. >> okay. you do have the authority on this subject. we know that the railroads will

not be ptc compliant by the end of the year. correct? >> correct. >> no controversy there. no question? >> most of them will not. a few will make it. correct. >> we have heard they're not going to operate but really what they want to know is what you're going to do. if you know they're not going to be compliant at the end of the year, can you tell this committee what you're going to do on january 1? you gave a memo that gave you all the enforcement options. >> right. >> why is it that you will not say these railroads are trying to decide what to do. if congress for some inexplicable reason will not face the reality this an extension is necessary, they have to make a tough decision and so do you. the sooner you make your decision the more informed their decision will be. when will you make the decision on what you're going to do when they're not compliant if congress fails to act? >> actually, i feel like we've been pretty clear on what we will do on january 1. >> what is that? >> we'll -- if the december 31

deadline remains in place and railroads choose to operate in violations of law we'll take enforcement. we'll issue fines and likely additional requirements on the railroads that will raise the bar on safety if they choose to operate without ptc implemented. >> have you discussed what the fines will be? because you know this is going to happen. i mean, if -- what i'm trying to figure out is we're going to have a huge mess if nobody operates on january 1. i mean, i don't know any other more artful way to put it other than a huge mess. it's going to be dangerous. it's going to very damaging the our economy. it's going to cost jobs. it's going to be exhibit an of why congress is so unpopular. because we can't manage to do something simple than recognize the obvious here. so, we know what the situation's going to be. why can't you be more specific

so the railroads make assessment of cost/benefit of the penalties they might incurer have vus operating? >> let me try to explain it this way. the railroads continue to make progress every day. so we're currently about 3 1/2 months out from the deadline. some railroads make progress every day. they're equipping new locomotives, testing ptc, they are getting additional equipment, they are obtaining spectrum. and so to give a railroad a specific amount to fine them today may well have nothing to do with where they are 3 1/2 months from now. we believe the fines will be significant. each violation has a maximum fine of $25,000 per day. but if you are choosing to operate past the date of january 1 without having implemented ptc by guess is those are multiple violations dependent on locomotives and segments operated on and we've said we

believe the fines will be very significant and on top of that impose additional requirements on the railroad whether that's additional crew members, requiring those additional crew members to communicate, potential speed restrictions so we have been as clear as we can be i believe the railroads do deserve transparency and clarity on what will happen on january 1st. but we have tried to be pretty clear about this. >> i think you think that will slow them down and i don't think that's true. i think you do need to be more specific than significant fines. and, you know, i think also what i would really appreciate is analysis which is more dangerous. them not operating on january 1 fu continuing to operate without y implementing ptc. because i think there's a real question which is going to be more dangerous and it sure would be a shame if that analysis isn't made transparent before that date. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator.

senator blunt. and let me just point out, too, i think the administration put out an extension proposal in their grow act and the other point to make is an important one. everybody's focused on january 1 here, the deadline, of course, but the affects of this start being felt sooner than that, particularly the freight railroads. i mean, we are talking about probably a november time frame so the sense of you are sen ji attached to doing something on this is very apparent and i think we have to recognize we don't have a lot of time to work with and senator of missouri is exactly right. if you lock at what could happen, the potential effect -- this is a huge disaster in the making which as i said before is totally avoidable. so senator fischer is up next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to follow up on the fines that you were talking about and the penalties. you mentioned that they're going to be significant and before that you said that the railroads are making progress every day.

but we all know that they're not going to get there. i mean, they have been very open about that. they have given us quite a bit of information on the problems that we're going to be seeing all across this country and as senator mccaskill said, the tremendous negative impact we're going to see on our country's economy and the safety of our sit senls by a shut down basically from our railroads. when we're looking at the significant fines, what system have you established that will determine what the fines are? does that offer any clarity to the railroads or to us on this committee? do you have a system in place? >> we do have a system in place. we have a long standing system for enforcement against railroads which is in place for many years but then more specifically following the 2008

legislation we finalized a rule making in 2010 that included all of the ways that we would enforce against the ptc so it's a -- we can certainly get it to you. it's several pages and basically details the various enforcement actions that we would take. >> what are a couple of specific actions that would happen? >> so, there are many. they involve failure to equip a locomotive -- >> what's the penalty? >> they start at i think for that one it's $15,000 but depends on if it's a willful violation so much like any other enforcement agency there are basic violations and then there are willful violations. >> okay. that then leads me to the idea that there are companies that are working in a good faith effort and they've invested really billions of dollars in trying to meet these deadlines that they're not able to meet. are you going to be looking at

those companies differently? i think earlier you said you wouldn't. >> i think that may have been a reference between freights and commuters but the -- i believe if i understand your question we certainly do not want to disincentivize progress and we do not want to punish railroads that are making progress and working hard each day to reach the deadline and meet the deadline and important for the enforcements mechanisms to be fair. >> would you be looking with that comment -- i would think you would look at treating companies differently and making accommodations for them individually, not -- and not as a group. >> so let me give an example. some railroads have been unable

to obtain the spectrum that they needed in order to implement ptc. my point is that as we look at enforcement actions, we want to prioritize both the one that is have the largest impact on safety but also the ones that railroads actually had control over versus something that was out of their control. >> okay. i'd like to switch gears here and talk about the ecp braking requirements and that would also cost billions of dollars. but two class 1 railroads, union pacific and union southern tried the systems, abandoned them. they didn't feel that there was a substantial benefit to safety. when you look at the crude by rail and the rule making there, it's my understanding that the fra did not conduct a real world study. is that right? >> well, we used modeling for

the ecp braking for the cost benefit -- the impact of the ecb brakes as we do in most rule maki makings. you're correct they're in place on some railroads and actually being used each day but to actually take one train equipped with ecp and one train not equipped and involve them in an incident even in a testing is not something that we did. >> so no hard science was really used at all in determining those reons? >> well, i do think there's hard science involved and there was math involved, as well. but we did not actually go out and involve trains in a real world incident. >> i understand that math's used in modeling but wouldn't you think that hard science would be more helpful, especially when you had two class 1 railroads that did have information on it? >> well, we'd be more than happy to do testing like that. we have -- we have said to this committee that while funding is

important for testing like that, we are always anxious to collect more data, particularly on things like braking systems. you know, i understand that the railroads are concerned about the cost of implementing this braking system. i would also note that prior to the rule being finalized some of them were advertising that they were using it so i am aware that they are unhappy with the cost and we always want to collect more data about braking systems but i also am -- you know, we're focused on whether it works opposed to logistics and cost. >> i would say that all of us up here and including the railroads who are intimately involved in this are concerned a lot more than just about the cost. we're concerned that if it works, we are concerned about the safety. we want to make sure that investments have a return that will keep our population, our citizens safe.

so to imply that this is all based on cost i think is a comment that did not need to be made. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator fischer. and we have up next, he's ready, senator mansion. okay. we'll get senator peters next. >> thank you. ms. feinberg, thank you for being willing to take on this job. i appreciate your efforts and appreciate the opportunity to meet earlier to talk about some issues. and before i get into the positive train control and i have questions related to that, i would like to first mention a personal incident that i had with a good friend in an accident that you mentioned in some of the follow-up related to that accident. you mentioned in your opening

testimony the amtrak accident outside of philadelphia 188. and i had some personal contact with that in the fact i had some very good friends of mine who lost their daughter in that very tragic accident. and their first contact with amtrak was a very impersonal cold call from a claims adjuster of some sort who said that they would be willing to pay reasonable funeral costs and that was amtrak's response which did not sit well with the family as you can imagine through a very traumatic time. now, amtrak is under statutory requirements of a family assistance plans and i have inserted amendment in the railroad enhancement act and hopefully will pass and my colleagues seem to be concerned that's going to pass that we're going to be dealing with some issues with positive train control and others but in that amendment that is part of that,

i require your agency, the ntsa and others, ntsb to look at the amtrak family assistance republicans and determine whether they're followed. i'd like to hear from you if anyone else at fra have looked into amtrak's response to both the victims of the derailment an their families to determine whether or not they've complied with some of the statutory requirements and your assessment of it. >> that will certainly all be a part of the investigation into the incident. as i know that you know, senator, the ntsb into the lead investigative agency in that accident. thefra plays a role, as well. they have guidelines of family assistance planning and will take a very close look at that, and we will, as you will. >> you have not had an opportunity to do that? >> in my role as a member of the amtrak board, we have had some conversations about the accident

and the response. i have reiterated the importance that i put on making sure that families are communicated to quickly and appropriately but it will ultimately be a part of the investigation, the ntsb leads and i can't get ahead of them. >> especially as a member of the amtrak board, i hope you take a strong interest in this and understand the seriousness of this and i look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead and hopefully make improvements so things do not like that happen again. >> absolutely. >> and now to the positive train control. senator mccaskill mentioned the report that came out yesterday and if we are able to pass the comprehensive highway transportation bill or a separate bill to allow us to move forward and push back some of the time requirements for ptc, you will have to oversee some of the implementation of

their work and their plans in the fur chur. but in the gao report they noted deficiencies in the reports that talked about how they're geng the meet some of those deadlines, some of the milest e milestones, how to reach the milestones. in fact it says they lacked any meaningful detail and could not give an understanding of the progress. so if the reports they're providing you are deficient, what do you plan to do to make these reports more substantive and ones you can actually work on? do you agree with the assess m and how do you plan to fix it? >> well, we -- we have an agreed with the goa's recommendations and agreed they're important to implement. most of them were being integrated prior to the report and we take the recommendations seriously and will take action on them. the gao report&uex registered s concerns about the amount of data that we were collecting

from the railroads and the kind of data we were collecting from the railroads. oi i believe we have ramped up the efforts and not necessarily reflected in the report but think of it as a better sense of railroads and the progress they're making. on their safety plans which they owe to us on their plans for implementing ptc, we have tried to give significance guidance to the railroads on what we're looking for and how we can go back and forth with them to make sure that their plans for impleation are as safe and efficient as possible. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator mansion, thank you, senator peters. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate very much and hope they've been kind to you since i've been gone. anyway, ms. feinberg, everything that, you know, that i've read about the amtrak track, 188 derailment this year, seems like loss awareness, as a pilot, you know, you have to be aware where

you are all times and being able to report that and following you. i went over and was able to go over to look at some of the newest amtrak locomotives to get a better understanding of what was happening in the cockpit. i call the engine a cockpit. okay? i was amazed to find out we're still using technology that's 50, 80, 100 years old. simple, in the cars we have more information in our front seat of our driver's car than we do in an engine. i just kept asking the question over and over. they were telling me how costly it was. i said, just to have situational awareness would be something. knowing where you are at. that's pretty easy, simple technology. did you find that to be -- i mean, i don't know where the pushback, i don't think anybody, i don't care on what side of the

fence people might be, railroad companies themselves and whether it's people -- we all want it to be safe. everybody does. if we're not moving towards a new technology and the country depends on it, why would we not be using some of the easiest, latest, greatest advance technologies for train traffic? >> we could not be more suppo supportive of making sure that railroads are integrating technology to improve safety and save lives. that starts with ptc, obviously. you can take that all the way to the encouragement of tech companies to integrate the grade crossing information to communicate both with engineers but also with driver who is are just approaching a grade crossing so incredible -- >> are they looking at different technology. i don't know. i was asking the questions from -- they were very kind to show me everything and go through the scenario. i did not get the feeling they're moving in the direction. we call it a glass panel. glass cockpit if you will.

i saw pretty antiquated. sound and light system if your certain area and this and that. i was flabbergasted by it. >> well, there's also a beauty to the simplicity of locomotive but or a cab but i think -- probably the most important technology that railroads can integrate at this moment is ptc which is incredibly complicated, well worth the complication i think. >> you are working through the deadlines, working with the industry and making sure that we're doing everything we can to expedite this along? but you understand the time consuming there, right? basically the sbi ka sys of this? >> yes, sir. we have tried to do as much as we can to be helpful as railroads are attempting to implement this technology so we have offered technical assistance. we have built a test bed facility at pueblo, colorado, for testing purposes. we have hired additional staff. we have tried to proactively help on safety plans and we'll

continue to do all of that because it's obviously in our interest to get ptc implemented as safely and efficiently as possible. >> i was aware of, you know, making sure that anything and everything that happens in a state of west virginia and every over governor in the states does so with the utmost concern of the safety of the citizens. i used to get complaints years ago when i was governor and the first responders didn't know what was traveling through the state and god forbid an accident would happen and i sit on mt. carbon. if it happened a mile or two down the track it would have wiped out montgomery. the whole town. hard to tell how many people would have lost their lives what we saw happen just outside the town and those are the things i'm concerned v. you all been able to better coordinate with the first responders and with the state coordinators and first responders? >> we have. i mean, w