[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61251-61273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23921]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket No. FTA-2013-0030]
RIN 2132-AB20; 2132-AB07
The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program; Transit Asset Management
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing this
consolidated advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to request
public comments on a wide range of topics pertaining to the new Public
Transportation Safety Program (National Safety Program) and the
requirements of the new transit asset management provisions (National
TAM System) authorized by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act. Together, the requirements of the National Safety Program
and the National TAM System are intended to improve the safety of the
Nation's public transportation systems, ensure that those systems are
in a state of good repair, and provide increased transparency into
agencies' budgetary decision-making process.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 2, 2014. Any comments filed
after this deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Please submit your comments by only one of the following
methods, identifying your submission by Docket Number (FTA-2013-0030)
or RIN number (2123-AB20, 2132-AB07).
[[Page 61252]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Submit electronic comments and
other data to http://www.regulations.gov.
U.S. Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building, Ground Floor, at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, at (202) 493-2251.
Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit
Administration) and Docket Number (FTA-2013-0030) for this notice or
RIN (2132-AB20, 2132-AB07), at the beginning of your comments. If sent
by mail, submit two copies of your comments. Due to security procedures
in effect since October 2001, mail received through the U.S. Postal
Service may be subject to delays. Parties submitting comments should
consider using an express mail firm to ensure their prompt filing of
any submissions not filed electronically or by hand. If you wish to
receive confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include
a self-addressed stamped postcard. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. You may review U.S. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR
19477-8 or http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Safety. For program matters, Richard Gerhart, Office of Safety,
(202) 366-8970 or [email protected]. For legal matters, contact
Candace Key, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4011 or
[email protected].
Transit Asset Management. For program matters, John Giorgis, Office
of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-5430 or [email protected]. For legal
matters, Scott Biehl, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4011 or
[email protected].
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. The National Public Transportation Safety Program
B. The Safety Management System Approach
C. Transit Asset Management
II. The Relationship Between Safety, the Safety Management System
Approach, Transit Asset Management and State of Good Repair
III. Background
A. The Need for a Comprehensive National Safety Program
B. The Need for a National Transit Asset Management System
IV. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan
A. Performance Criteria
B. State of Good Repair
C. Minimum Safety Performance Standards for Vehicles
V. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
A. Plan Requirements
B. The State's Role
VI. The Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program
VII. The National Transit Asset Management System
A. Overview and Considerations for Small Operators
B. Defining State of Good Repair
(1) Asset Age
(2) Asset Condition
(3) Asset Performance
(4) Comprehensive Assessment of Assets
C. Transit Asset Management Plans
(1) Plan Requirements
(2) Investment Prioritization
D. Performance Measures
(1) Defining Performance Measures
(2) Performance Targets
E. Technical Assistance and Tools
VIII. Certification of Transit Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset
Management Plans
IX. Coordination of Targets and Plans With Metropolitan, Statewide
and Non-Metropolitan Planning
X. Next Steps and Public Participation
I. Introduction
On July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141. MAP-21
made a number of fundamental changes to the statutes that authorize the
Federal transit programs at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Under discussion in
this ANPRM are several provisions within the Public Transportation
Safety Program (National Safety Program) authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5329
and the transit asset management requirements (National TAM System)
authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5326.
Many of the requirements of the National Safety Program and the
National TAM System apply equally to all modes of public
transportation.\1\ However, FTA intends to focus its initial oversight
and enforcement efforts on rail transit systems' implementation of and
compliance with these requirements. FTA believes that the increased
potential for catastrophic accidents, loss of life, and property damage
associated with rail transit warrants the most immediate attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety
Oversight Program, GAO-06-997T (Washington, DC: July 19, 2006),
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123829.pdf, and Rail
Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State
Safety Oversight Program, GAO-06-821 (Washington, DC: July 26,
2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/250860.pdf. GAO
also testified to these issues before the Subcommittee on Highways,
Transit, and Pipelines, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives in July 2006 (http://gao.gov/products/GAO-06-997T) and in December 2009 before the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on
Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate (http://gao.gov/products/GAO-10-293T; http://gao.gov/products/GAO-10-314T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that another Federal agency already regulates the
safety of a particular mode of public transportation, FTA does not
intend to promulgate duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicting
regulations. For example, FTA does not intend to promulgate safety
regulations that will apply to either commuter rail systems that are
regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration or to ferry systems
that are regulated by the United States Coast Guard. However, unlike
the requirements for the National Safety Program, the requirements of
the National Transit Asset Management System apply to all modes of
public transportation, including commuter rail and ferry systems,
regardless of whether those modes are required to comply with asset
management regulations by other Federal agencies. However, FTA does not
intend to promulgate duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicting National
TAM System regulations.
Through this ANPRM, FTA is seeking comments from the entire transit
industry on the topics addressed in this ANPRM. Specifically, FTA is
seeking public comment on its initial interpretations, proposals it is
considering, and questions regarding the following: (1) The
requirements of the National Safety Program relating to the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification
Training Program; (2) the requirements of the National TAM System,
including four proposed options under consideration for defining and
measuring state of good repair; and (3) the relationship between
safety, transit asset management and state of good.
FTA is also seeking comment on its intent to propose adoption of
the Safety Management System (SMS) approach to guide the development
and implementation of the National Safety
[[Page 61253]]
Program. SMS offers a proactive method for managing safety which
enables agencies to identify and resolve safety concerns and challenges
before they result in incidents. SMS combines established system safety
engineering principles with advanced organizational management
techniques, and supports continuous improvement in safety performance
through a positive safety culture founded on four key priorities:
safety policy, safety risk management, safety assurance, and safety
promotion.
In addition, several requirements for both safety and transit asset
management directly impact the Metropolitan, and the Statewide and Non-
metropolitan planning processes. See 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304.
Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and States must consider, and
integrate recipients' TAM Plans and targets, as well as Transit Agency
Safety Plans and targets, into the planning process. Because all of
these provisions have broad impacts on FTA recipients and other
stakeholders, this ANRPM also poses questions on the relationship of
the safety and transit asset management requirements to the planning
process.
The public comments in response to this ANPRM will help inform
future notices of proposed rulemakings (NPRM) for the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan, the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program,
and the National Transit Asset Management System.
A. The National Public Transportation Safety Program
Section 20021 of MAP-21 authorizes the new Public Transportation
Safety Program codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329. The codification of section
5329 marks the culmination of efforts that began in December 2009 when
the Administration transmitted a legislative proposal to Congress which
requested the authority to establish and enforce minimum Federal safety
standards for rail transit systems. In a historic move, not only did
MAP-21 adopt many of the Administrations' proposals regarding the
safety of rail transit, but it also provided FTA with the authority to
regulate safety for all modes of public transportation.
The National Safety Program is comprised of the following four
components--(1) the National Public Transportation Safety Plan
(National Safety Plan), 49 U.S.C. 5329(b); (2) the Public
Transportation Agency Plan (Transit Agency Safety Plan), 49 U.S.C.
5329(d); (3) the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training
Program (Safety Certification Training Program), 49 U.S.C.
5329(b)(1)(D) and 5329(c); and (4) the State Safety Oversight (SSO)
Program. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e). Each of the four components will contribute
to the establishment of a comprehensive framework that will ensure safe
public transportation for all. FTA intends to publish separate NPRMs on
each of these four components.
In most instances, the requirements of the National Safety Program
will apply to each recipient of FTA funding, regardless of mode of
transit provided. However, FTA's regulatory jurisdiction is limited by
two provisions. First, FTA is prohibited from promulgating safety
performance standards for rolling stock that is already regulated by
another Federal agency. 49 U.S.C. 5329(2)(C)(i). Second, the
requirements of the State Safety Oversight Program will not apply to
rail transit systems that are subject to regulation by the Federal
Railroad Administration. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(1) and (e)(2).
Notwithstanding these two explicit statutory prohibitions, as
previously mentioned, to the extent that any other Federal agency
already regulates the safety of a particular mode of transportation,
FTA does not intend to promulgate any duplicative, inconsistent, or
conflicting regulations.
This ANPRM addresses and seeks public comment only on the first
three components, which directly apply to FTA's regulated community. In
the near future, FTA will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on the
SSO Program. That rule will propose requirements for States that must
oversee rail transit systems within the regulated community.
The National Public Transportation Safety Plan
FTA will ``create and implement'' a National Safety Plan to
``improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive
FTA funding.'' 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(1). At minimum, the National Safety
Plan will include: (1) Safety performance criteria for all modes of
public transportation; (2) the definition of state of good repair
developed through the implementation of the National TAM System; (3) a
public transportation safety certification training program; and (4)
minimum safety performance standards for transit vehicles used in
revenue service that are not regulated by other U.S. DOT modes or any
other Federal agency. The minimum safety performance standards, must,
to the extent practicable, take into consideration recommendations and
best practices of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and
the transit industry. 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C).
The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
Within one year after FTA issues a final rule to carry out section
5329(d), each State or recipient of section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula
Grants Program (section 5307) funds or section 5311 Rural Area Formula
Program (section 5311) funds, must develop, implement, and certify a
Public Transit Agency Safety Plan. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1). Generally,
large transit providers that are direct recipients of section 5307
funds must develop their own plans, have the plans approved by their
board of directors, and certify those plans to FTA. However, small
transit providers that are recipients under section 5307 or section
5311 may have their plans drafted or certified by their State. 49
U.S.C. 5329(d)(3). FTA seeks comment on how to define small transit
providers and the States' role in the drafting and certification
process in section V, below.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), each Transit Agency Safety Plan
must include, at minimum:
A requirement that the board of directors, or equivalent
entity, approve the plan and any updates;
Methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks
throughout all elements of the recipient's public transportation
system;
Strategies to minimize the exposure of the public,
personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions;
A process and timeline for conducting an annual review and
update of the plan;
Performance targets based on the safety performance
criteria and SGR standards set out in the National Safety Plan;
Assignment of an adequately trained safety officer who
reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent
officer of the recipient; and
A comprehensive staff training program for operations
personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety.
Regulations to implement the requirements of the Transit Agency
Safety Plan will take into account the size and operating environments
of applicable recipients. Until FTA issues a final rule to carry out
section 5329(d), existing safety and security plans required of rail
transit agencies under 49 CFR part 659 will remain in effect. 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(2). Once FTA issues a final rule, all recipients, including
those that provide rail transit service, will
[[Page 61254]]
only be required to have one Transit Agency Safety Plan.
The Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program
FTA is required to establish a Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program for the certification and training of
Federal and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct
safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems, and
employees of public transportation agencies directly responsible for
safety oversight. 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1). Until a final rule is
promulgated to establish and implement the Safety Certification
Training Program, FTA is required to issue Interim Provisions for the
certification and training of those persons that will be subject to the
final rule. 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2).
FTA envisions that the Public Transportation Safety Certification
Training Program (Safety Certification Training Program) authorized at
49 U.S.C. 5329(c), will establish minimum expertise requirements for
Federal, State, transit agency and other designated personnel who are
directly responsible for safety oversight. This program responds to
findings identified in a 2006 report, ``Rail Transit: Additional
Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State Safety Oversight
Program,'' issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which
indicated a lack of expertise among safety oversight personnel.
This ANPRM seeks public comments on the Safety Certification
Training Program. FTA will publish proposed Interim Provisions for the
certification and training of employees responsible for safety
oversight in a subsequent Federal Register notice. The public will have
an opportunity to comment on the proposed Interim Provisions at that
time. We ask that the public direct any comments on the Interim
Provisions to that docket when it is available.
FTA will implement the requirements of the National Safety Program
in consultation with the public, States, the transit industry, and the
U.S. DOT's Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS). FTA will
use the comments received through this ANPRM to help develop the
requirements of the National Safety Plan, Transit Agency Safety Plan,
and Safety Certification Training Program. Depending upon the
applicable statutory direction and relevant circumstances, FTA will
implement the National Safety Program through a combination of
regulations, statements of policy, guidance materials, technical
assistance and training.
B. The Safety Management System Approach
Transit is one of the safest ways to travel. According to the
National Safety Council,\2\ the lifetime odds of dying as an occupant
of a rail car are approximately 1 in 178,000, and the lifetime odds of
dying as an occupant of a bus are also about 1 in 178,000. By contrast,
the lifetime odds of dying as an occupant of a passenger car are just 1
in 415, the lifetime odds of dying as a pedestrian are 1 in 749, and
the lifetime odds of dying as a bicyclist are nearly 1 in 5,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Safety Council (2013) Injury Facts[supreg], 2013
Edition. Itasca, IL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, serious incidents do occur, and the potential for
catastrophic events remains. As discussed in section IIIA, below, in
recent years, there have been several major transit accidents that
resulted in fatalities, injuries, and significant property damage.
Since 2004, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
reported on nine transit accidents that, collectively, resulted in 15
fatalities, 297 injuries, and over $30 million in property damages.\3\
The NTSB has investigated a number of these accidents and has issued
reports identifying the probable causes and contributing factors,
including deficiencies in the training and supervision of employees;
deficiencies in the maintenance of equipment and infrastructure; and
deficiencies in safety management and oversight, such as weaknesses in
transit agencies' safety rules and procedures, lack of a safety culture
within the transit agency, and lack of adequate oversight by the state
and Federal agencies. The deficiencies identified by the NTSB will
continue to plague the transit industry as infrastructure ages, skilled
employees retire, and transit agencies continue to endure financial
stresses. FTA's goal is to address these deficiencies and improve
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section IIIA ``The Need for a Comprehensive National Safety
Program,'' discusses several of these accidents and provides links
to the NTSB's reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to advance a comprehensive approach to safety decision-
making, FTA is considering a Safety Management System (SMS) approach to
developing and implementing the National Safety Program. Following a
recommendation from FTA's Federal Advisory Committee--TRACS,\4\ on May
13, 2013, the FTA Administrator issued a Dear Colleague Letter \5\ and
FAQs \6\ to the transit industry setting forth FTA's intention to adopt
the SMS approach to guide the advancement of FTA's safety rulemakings
and other initiatives to improve the safety of public transportation.
This ANPRM seeks comment on this proposed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Implementing Safety Management System Principles in Rail
Transit Agencies, available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TRACS_Ltr_Rpt_SMS_fnl.pdf.
\5\ The Dear Colleague Letter is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/newsroom/12910_15391.html.
\6\ The SMS FAQ's are available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/tso_15177.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety management is based on the fact that safety is not an
absolute condition--there will always be hazards and risks in public
transportation. However, the traditional approach of primarily reacting
to accidents by prescribing measures to prevent recurrence alone will
not contribute to sustaining and improving public transportation
safety. The need for a new approach to addressing public transportation
safety has become especially urgent in light of high[hyphen]profile
rail transit accidents discussed in section IIIA, below.
Modern safety management practices that systematically and
proactively identify the factors that contribute to unsafe events and
prevent or minimize the likelihood of their occurrence have proven
effective in addressing similar concerns in other transportation
industries. Such practices call for setting safety goals and
objectives, defining clear levels of accountability and responsibility
for safety, establishing proactive approaches to managing risks and
hazards in the day[hyphen]to[hyphen]day activities, risk[hyphen]based
resource allocation, monitoring and evaluating performance towards
goals, and continuous learning and improvement.
SMS offers a means to prevent public transportation accidents by
integrating safety into all aspects of a transit system's activities,
from planning to design, to construction, to operations, to
maintenance. SMS builds on the public transportation industry's three
decades of experience with system safety by bringing management
processes, integrated data analysis, and organizational culture more
squarely into the industry's overall risk management framework. SMS is
a management approach that provides processes that ensure each public
transportation agency, no matter its size or service environment, has
the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, and policies
and procedures in place to direct and control resources to optimally
manage safety. When systematically applied, the SMS approach provides a
set of
[[Page 61255]]
decision-making tools that allow transit agencies to prioritize safety
and sound transit asset management when making informed operating and
capital investment decisions. These decision-making processes and
investment prioritization decisions are discussed in more detail in
Section II.
Following this ANPRM, FTA may issue an NPRM to implement SMS. In
addition to FTA's general authority to issue rules to carry out section
5329, the statutorily-required components of the National Safety
Program provide FTA with the legal authority and foundation necessary
to implement the SMS approach within the transit industry. 49 U.S.C.
5329(f)(7).
There are four essential pillars of an SMS approach--(1) Safety
policy, (2) safety risk-management, (3) safety assurance, and (4)
safety promotion. The safety policy is the foundation of the
organization's SMS. It clearly states the organization's safety
objectives and sets forth the policies, procedures, and organizational
structures necessary to accomplish the safety objectives. The safety
policy clearly delineates management and employee responsibilities for
safety throughout the organization. It also ensures that management is
actively engaged in the oversight of the organization's safety
performance by requiring regular review of the safety policy by a
designated accountable executive (general manager, president, or other
person with similar authority). Within the context of the Transit
Agency Safety Plan, an organization's safety objectives will be
articulated, at a minimum, through the setting of performance targets
based on the safety performance criteria established in the National
Safety Plan, and state of good repair standards based on the definition
of that term established under the National TAM System. See 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(E).
Pursuant to 5329(d)(1)(B) and (C), the Transit Agency Safety Plan
must also include ``methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks
throughout all elements of the public transportation system,'' and
``strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, personnel, and
property to hazards and unsafe conditions,'' respectively. Each of
these requirements is consistent with the second pillar of SMS--safety
risk management, which requires the development of processes and
procedures to help the organization better understand its operational
systems and identify hazards associated with those systems. Once
hazards are identified, other procedures must be developed to analyze
and assess the risk resulting from these hazards, as well as to
institute controls to mitigate or eliminate the risks.
Sections 5329(d)(1)(B) and (C) also encompass the requirements of
the third pillar of SMS--safety assurance. Safety assurance requires an
organization to monitor the effectiveness of safety risk controls
established under safety risk management. Safety assurance is also
designed to ensure that the organization meets or exceeds its safety
objectives through the collection, analysis, and assessment of data
about the organization's performance.
The fourth pillar of SMS--safety promotion--involves training,
awareness, and communication that support safety. The training aspect
is consistent with the Transit Agency Safety Plan requirement for a
comprehensive staff training program for operations personnel and
personnel directly responsible for safety. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(G).
FTA is considering incorporating these four pillars into its safety
related activities. Under the SMS approach, FTA's safety oversight
reviews would focus on the overall safety performance of an entire
organization and effective implementation of the methods for
identifying and evaluating safety risks and to mitigate exposure to
those risks, instead of relying solely on strict compliance with
regulatory requirements or technical standards. Moreover, the
principles of SMS will guide the establishment of national safety
priorities set out in the National Safety Plan. Through data analysis
FTA will identify national trends that suggest gaps in safety
performance, common hazards and leading practices for risk control. FTA
will then set national performance criteria and standards based on
those safety hazards that pose the most significant risks.
Many of the system safety, risk management, and safety
communications procedures and practices currently being used by both
rail transit systems and bus transit systems are essential building
blocks of a successful SMS. For example, some agencies already have
vision and mission statements that include safety. In addition, some
agencies already use quantitative measures to measure and evaluate
safety performance. Types of data that some agencies currently collect
to measure safety performance include accident investigation reports,
customer complaints, and vehicle defect reports. Some agencies are
already using data management systems such as Microsoft Excel or
customized software to manage and analyze the data that is collected.
For those agencies that do not use an SMS, the adoption of the SMS
approach would be an organizational shift that can be integrated into
the existing operational environment. FTA does not intend to prescribe
exactly what processes a transit agency must have in place to implement
SMS. FTA envisions that it would be up to each transit agency to
develop processes to effectively implement SMS.
C. Transit Asset Management
Pursuant to the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5326, FTA must establish
a National TAM System that includes the following five elements: (1)
FTA is to define the term, state of good repair, including objective
standards for measuring asset conditions; (2) FTA must establish
performance measures based on these state of good repair (SGR)
standards, and each FTA grant recipient must annually set targets based
on these measures; (3) each FTA recipient and subrecipient must develop
an asset management plan that includes an asset inventory and
investment prioritization; (4) asset inventories, condition
assessments, and performance targets must be reported to FTA; and (5)
FTA must provide technical assistance to recipients, including an
analytical process or decision support tool that allows recipients to
estimate capital investment needs over time and assists recipients with
asset investment prioritization.
Each transit agency's investment priorities will become essential
components of the long-range transportation plan and the transportation
improvement program (TIP) in large metropolitan areas and essential
components of the statewide transportation plan and the statewide
transportation improvement program (STIP) in other areas. 49 U.S.C.
5303 and 5304. In all cases, the process of planning for the investment
of Federal transportation dollars must consider the needs for transit
state of good repair and safety alongside the comparable needs of the
rest of the transportation network.
II. The Relationship Between Safety, the Safety Management System
Approach, Transit Asset Management and State of Good Repair
Each transit agency has a process by which they budget, allocate
funds, and plan for the future. In most cases, this decision-making
process is led by a general manager or CEO who formulates the capital
and operating budgets. In the SMS approach, this individual is called
the accountable executive. This accountable executive is responsible
for making decisions and balancing competing needs.
[[Page 61256]]
Ultimately, the decisions made by the accountable executive
regarding the proposed capital and operating budgets are presented for
approval to the transit agency's board of directors (board) or
equivalent entity. Executives and boards must make strategic decisions
regarding operational and service demands, capital investments, and the
safety needs of the system. Accountable executives and boards often
wrestle with these decisions because there is never enough money to do
everything. Ensuring the appropriate consideration of safety and
transit asset management as part of budgetary decisions related to
capital and operating expenses has always been a balancing act. The
implementation of the Transit Agency Safety Plan using the SMS approach
would equip accountable executives and their boards with the
information required to understand the hazards and associated risks
within their own unique transit system. This knowledge encourages
informed, deliberate, and transparent investments in controls and other
measures to mitigate recognized risks. Instead of just having a capital
plan and an operational plan, accountable executives and boards would
now consider the needs identified in the Transit Agency Safety Plan and
the TAM Plan, with other service needs, such as expansion,
concurrently.
A key challenge in connecting transit asset management to safety
planning is that even when assets are not in a state of good repair,
they can be operated safely. Likewise, assets in a state of good repair
can present a safety risk. That is not to say, however, that achieving
a state of good repair is sufficient for safe transit operations.
Similarly, safety is not the only reason for implementing TAM Plans.
Still, FTA believes that there is a nexus between achieving a state of
good repair and the safety of a transit system. The following
discussion is intended to illustrate the linkage of transit asset
management and state of good repair under the SMS approach.
FTA believes that, in the context of transit asset management,
safety assessment begins with the statutorily required condition
assessment. See 49 U.S.C. 5326(a)(2)(A). The condition assessment would
identify those assets that fall below the SGR standards to be
established by the National TAM System and the definition of state of
good repair. If an asset is not in a state of good repair, it would be
subsequently subject to a review under the SMS processes. The safety
process would look at the condition of the asset and identify existing
hazards and the associated level of risk. Many times there will be no
significant risk at all because the asset was either well maintained or
simply does not pose a significant safety threat. The asset may still
be a high-priority replacement for other reasons, but the safety
process is not going to raise a red flag. Accordingly, any residual
risk would be accepted and the agency would focus on those assets that
do pose significant identified safety threats.
Sometimes, however, an asset will pose a risk that the accountable
executive determines is unacceptable. This still may not mean that the
asset should be immediately taken out of service, but it would require
a control to be set in place to mitigate the risk to an acceptable
level. This control would not always require the transit agency to
either purchase an entirely brand new asset or spend any capital at
all. Instead, it could mean that the transit agency, for example, would
need to either purchase new shunting, or establish new procedures for
track workers where there is concern about signaling, or institute a
speed zone where track condition has become an issue, or implement a
requirement to go to manual train control. The transit agency should
ensure that proper safety assurance practices are in place and are
utilized to monitor each control and determine whether or not it is
sufficiently mitigating the risk.
Some controls will cost money to implement. They may involve
training, overtime, and special equipment investments. Controls also
can have operational consequences. A speed restriction in a big system
may cause increased crowding or slower travel times that slow down
service enough to impact the operating schedule. System impacts of this
magnitude may already be considered in the agency budget process. The
safety risk management and TAM processes highlight them.
Many transit agencies are faced with tough decisions about how to
direct their investments. With a transparent process to manage safety,
these tough decisions will be more deliberate and less likely to be
inadequate or deferred. Ultimately, outputs from the TAM process and
SMS will help shape the transit agency's strategic planning and budget
process by contributing to informed decision-making.
FTA has placed a visual depiction of the aforementioned
relationships and processes in the docket to this ANPRM.
III. Background
A. The Need for a Comprehensive National Safety Program
FTA's predecessor agency, the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration (UMTA), originated under the Urban Mass Transportation
Act of (UMT Act) of 1964--a Great Society initiative under the Kennedy
and Johnson Administrations, designed to assist State and local
governments in financing publicly and privately operated urban mass
transportation systems ``to be operated by public or private mass
transportation companies as determined by local needs.'' (Pub. L. 88-
365; quoting Section 2(b)(3) of the UMT Act, 49 U.S.C. app.
1602(b)(3)). UMTA's mission, at that time, was strictly limited to
providing Federal financial assistance to develop and maintain
municipal transit systems.
From the inception of the program for Federal financial assistance
to state and local agencies FTA and its predecessor agency, UMTA, were
prohibited from regulating any aspect of the day-to-day operations of
grant recipients. Prior to MAP-21, this prohibition was codified at 49
U.S.C. 5334(b)(l), which stated in pertinent part:
. . . [E)xcept for purposes of national defense or in the event
of a national or regional emergency, the Secretary may not regulate
the operation, routes, or schedules of a public transportation
system for which a grant is made under this chapter, nor may the
Secretary regulate the rates, fares, tolls, rentals, or other
charges prescribed by any provider of public transportation.
(Emphasis added)
The Congress deliberately chose not to give UMTA any ability to
establish national standards for safety in urban mass transportation.
See, e.g., Amalgamated Transit Union v. Skinner, 894 F.2d 1362, 1364
(D.C. Cir. 1990). Moreover, both UMTA's and FTA's authority to regulate
safety during the past 45 years was limited to investigation of safety
hazards (added in 1974), testing buses for durability (added in 1987),
and requiring recipients to have a drug and alcohol program (added in
1991).
Specifically, in Section 107 of the National Mass Transportation
Assistance Act of 1974, Congress instructed the agency to ``investigate
unsafe conditions in any facility, equipment, or manner of operation
financed under this Act which the Secretary believes creates a serious
hazard of death or injury.'' The statute further directed UMTA to
determine the nature and extent of the hazardous conditions; determine
the means that might best correct or eliminate those
[[Page 61257]]
hazardous conditions; and compel the grant recipient to submit a plan
for correcting or eliminating those conditions to UMTA's satisfaction.
Also, the statute allowed the Secretary to ``withhold further financial
assistance'' to the grant recipient until that plan was ``approved or
implemented.'' Nonetheless, the grant recipient was free to adopt,
reject, or modify UMTA's recommendations.
Prior to MAP-21, FTA's investigative authority was codified at 49
U.S.C. 5329, and pursuant to Section 3028 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub.
L. 109-59 (2005); SAFETEA-LU), was broadened to allow FTA to ``conduct
investigations into safety hazards and security risks associated with a
condition in equipment, a facility, or an operation financed under this
chapter to establish the nature and extent of the condition and how to
eliminate, mitigate, or correct it.'' Over the years, on several
occasions, FTA has invoked this statute to audit individual transit
agencies in instances where FTA believed there may have been
unacceptable hazards or risks. Still, FTA has never interpreted Section
5329 as giving the agency authority to conduct a nationwide
investigation into transit facilities or equipment or regulate those
facilities or equipment through uniform standards for the entire
transit industry.
Through Section 317 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, the Congress directed UMTA to
establish a program for testing new models of buses for
maintainability, reliability, safety, performance, structural
durability, fuel economy, and noise. The safety component of the bus
testing program consists of a test for handling and stability. However,
the purpose of the bus testing is simply to report the raw data for
evaluation by transit agencies that seek to purchase new buses with
Federal funding. Until the passage of MAP-21, FTA was not authorized to
establish pass-fail criteria for safety or any of the other qualities
for which the buses are tested.
Moreover, prior to MAP-21, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5330 and
consistent with principles of federalism, it is the States--not FTA--
that are responsible to require, review, approve, and monitor each rail
transit agency's safety plan; investigate hazardous conditions and
accidents at rail transit systems; and require action to correct or
eliminate those conditions. FTA's role and responsibility is solely one
of monitoring the many State agencies that exercise hands-on oversight
of rail transit operations, and providing technical assistance to those
State agencies.
This very limited Federal authority for safety did not prove
satisfactory in the view of the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB or ``Board''). In August 1991, following a number of accidents in
the industry--including very serious accidents on rail transit systems
in Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York City--the Board published a
study titled, ``Oversight of Rail Rapid Transit Safety'' (NTSB/SS-91/
02) \7\ in which it urged all States to develop or revise safety
programs to ensure comprehensive and effective oversight over rail
transit systems in their jurisdictions. The NTSB believed that States
should have primary authority for oversight of rail transit safety, but
it urged UMTA to evaluate the effectiveness of States' oversight of
rail transit, develop guidelines, and require States and transit
operators to use their UMTA grant funds to improve the safety of rail
transit systems. Also, the NTSB encouraged UMTA to withhold Federal
financial assistance, as necessary, pending corrective action by the
States and transit agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Oversight of Rail Rapid Transit Safety (NTSB/SS-91/02) is
available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/1991/R91_33_36.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NTSB recommendations, the Congress created a
State Safety Oversight (SSO) program for rail fixed guideway transit
safety in Section 3029 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), enacted in December 1991. Public Law 102-240.
ISTEA renamed UMTA as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and
directed FTA to compel States with rail transit systems within their
borders not otherwise subject to regulation by the Federal Railroad
Administration (e.g., commuter rail systems, or light rail systems
connecting to the ``general railroad system'' of the United States, as
described in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209) to establish and carry out
safety program plans for each of those rail transit systems. The
statute also required safety program plans to include, at minimum, core
requirements for safety, lines of authority, levels of responsibility,
and methods of documentation for those subjects. Further, Section 3029
of ISTEA granted FTA explicit authority to withhold funding from any
State that did not comply with the statutory mandates, and directed FTA
to promulgate rules for that purpose. This new authority for FTA made
no provision for oversight of bus operations--possibly because the 1991
NTSB report was focused on rail transit.
The regulations implemented at 49 CFR part 659 to carry out the
authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 5330 have been criticized for their
lack of rigor and inconsistent application among States. Moreover, the
State SSO programs developed to comply with the regulations in part 659
have been appropriately criticized for lack of authority, resources,
and expertise. Most notably, in July 2006, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) identified some fundamental weaknesses in
SSO agencies (SSOAs) in a report, ``Rail Transit: Additional Federal
Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State Safety Oversight Program.'' \8\
The GAO report found that the staffing levels and expertise varied
greatly across SSOAs, and many of the SSOAs lacked enough qualified
staff and adequate levels of training to meet their responsibilities.
Lack of funding was also found to be a serious impediment. The GAO
noted that the SSO regulations provided no enforcement power to the
SSOAs, and very little enforcement power to FTA. Additionally, the GAO
report faulted FTA for having failed to set goals and performance
measures for State Safety Oversight, and having failed to audit SSOAs
as often as originally planned. GAO urged FTA to set both short and
long-term goals for State Safety Oversight, with measures of progress
toward each of those goals; to audit each of the SSOAs at least once
every three years; and to develop an appropriate training curriculum
for SSOAs that would include courses on how to conduct oversight of
rail transit systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Rail Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance
FTA's State Safety Oversight Program is available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five major incidents following GAO's report highlighted increasing
challenges for rail transit safety. On November 30, 2006, a Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Blue Line train struck and
killed two employees inspecting rail transit track in Alexandria,
Virginia.\9\ On January 7, 2007, a WMATA Green Line train derailed near
the Mt. Vernon station in Washington, DC, injuring 23 people and
causing $3.8 million in damage.\10\ On May 28, 2008, two Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) light rail trains collided with one
another on the Green Line in Newton,
[[Page 61258]]
Massachusetts--a suburb of Boston--killing the operator of the second
train, injuring another eight persons, and causing $8 million in
damage.\11\ On May 8, 2009, the MBTA suffered another accident on its
Green Line light rail system in which one train rear-ended another in
the tunnel near the Government Center station in downtown Boston; 68
people were injured, with more than $9 million in damage.\12\ On June
22, 2009, two WMATA trains collided with one another near the Fort
Totten station on the Red Line, killing the operator of the second
train and eight passengers, injuring another 52 passengers, and causing
$12 million in damage. \13\ On July 18, 2009, two San Francisco
Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) light rail trains collided with
one another at the West Portal station in downtown San Francisco,
injuring the operators of both trains and 46 other persons and causing
$4.5 million in damage.\14\ And, in August and September, 2009, two
WMATA maintenance employees lost their lives while working on the rail
transit system; one was struck by a train on the Blue Line, the other
by a maintenance vehicle on the Orange Line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The NTSB's Railroad Accident Brief for the WMATA Blue Line
accident is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2008/RAB0802.pdf.
\10\ The NTSB's accident report for the Mt Vernon Square
accident is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/RAR0703.pdf.
\11\ The NTSB's final report for the collision between two MBTA
Green Line trains in Newton, Massachusetts is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2009/RAR0902.pdf.
\12\ The NTSB's accident brief for the MBTA Green Line accident
in Boston is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/RAB1106.pdf.
\13\ The NTSB's final report for the Fort Totten accident is
available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/RAR1002.pdf.
\14\ The NTSB's accident brief for the San Francisco MUNI
accident is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/RAB1104.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its investigations, the NTSB found a variety of probable causes
for these accidents including: equipment malfunctions; equipment in
poor or marginal condition including equipment that can pose particular
risks to safety, such as signal systems; lack of vehicle
crashworthiness; and employee error--such as inattentiveness, or
failure to follow a rail transit system's operating procedure. The NTSB
found the lack of a strong safety culture to be a contributing factor
in the WMATA accidents. Also, the NTSB found a lack of adequate
oversight both by SSOAs and FTA.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The NTSB's final report for the Fort Totten accident is
available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/RAR1002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB has also found similar issues in the bus transit industry.
After conducting several accident investigations involving transit
buses (Normandy, Missouri; Cosmopolis, Washington; New York, New York;
and Nashville, Tennessee) and holding a public hearing on transit bus
safety in March 1998, it found that substantial safety deficiencies and
little Federal or State government safety oversight impacted the safety
performance of the transit bus industry. As a result, the NTSB issued a
Special Investigation Report in 1998 \16\ which highlighted several
deficiencies with Federal oversight of bus transit safety. The report
noted that FTA was unable to ``to identify situations that may lead to
unsafe conditions on buses for the traveling public or to resolve any
unsafe conditions because of a lack of effective safety oversight and
enforcement.'' In addition, NTSB questioned the utility of the safety
data that was being collected on transit bus safety. Finally, the NTSB
was concerned that, at the time, a comprehensive bus safety program was
not available to transit agencies outside of APTA's membership program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Special Investigation Report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/1998/SIR9803.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its findings, the NTSB issued the following safety
recommendations to the United State Department of Transportation:
Develop and implement an oversight program to assess and
ensure the safety of transit bus operations that receive Federal
funding;
Collect accurate, timely, and sufficient data so that
thorough assessments can be made relating to transit bus safety;
Evaluate the collected data, as part of the oversight
program, to identify the underlying causes of transit bus accidents
that could lead to the identification of safety deficiencies at transit
agencies; and
In cooperation with the American Public Transit
Association, the Community Transportation Association of America, and
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
develop a model comprehensive safety program(s) and provide it to all
transit agencies.
In response to these recommendations, between 2000 and 2002, FTA
sponsored outreach and research to develop a model program for Transit
Bus Safety and Security. During this time, FTA worked with APTA, CTAA,
and AASHTO to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was
formally adopted by all parties in 2003.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Memorandum of Understanding is available at http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/uploads/resource/3949_filename.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the more recent transit bus accidents reported in the news
have occurred with motor coach vehicles. Most notably:
On August 4, 2013 a North County Transit District bus
struck three bicyclists in Camp Pendleton, CA, fatally injuring one and
wounding two others. The bus had attempted to pass the cyclists by
veering into the opposite lane of traffic and when the bus returned to
its normal traffic lane it struck the cyclists.
In May 2013 a Sound Transit bus in Kirkland, WA collided
with another vehicle at an interstate exit ramp intersection causing 2
fatalities, 1 injury, and approximately $40,000 in property damage.
A Jacksonville Transportation Authority operator lost
control of her vehicle in October 2011 while pulling away from a bus
stop and struck and killed a patron who had just exited the vehicle.
The operator stated that she applied the brakes, yet the bus kept
moving and she could not turn the wheel. An investigation into the
accident concluded that the operator, who had four previous accidents
with JTA before the incident, did not straighten the bus's wheels
before accelerating causing the bus to run over the curb, hit two
signs, a fence, the victim, and an oak tree.
In September 2010 a Southwest Ohio Regional Transit
Authority bus operator pulled the bus to a curb and left her seat to
check on an issue in the rear of the vehicle. The bus rolled
approximately 150 feet down an incline and struck a pedestrian and a
parked ambulance, resulting in 3 injuries and 1 fatality.
In April 2010 the operator of a TriMet bus in Portland, OR
made a left turn and struck five pedestrians in the crosswalk who had
the lighted ``walk'' signal and the right-of-way. Two pedestrians died
at the scene, one was seriously injured after he was pinned under the
transit vehicle, and two more sustained injuries that required hospital
treatment.
On September 26, 2008 a WMATA Metrobus ran a red light and
struck a taxi cab in Washington, DC, resulting in a fatality and five
injuries. The accident investigation uncovered several prior arrests
for the Metro operator including drug and gun charges. Another
Washington Metro fatal accident occurred in October 2009 when a
passenger disembarked from one Metrobus and when she crossed the street
in front of the bus she was struck and killed by a second bus traveling
in the second westbound lane of Mount Olivet Road in NE Washington. FTA
could neither locate NTSB
[[Page 61259]]
recommendations nor GAO reports to cite that document the accidents.
Currently, FTA has developed a well-received bus safety program,
which includes a heavily trafficked resource Web site, onsite reviews
and state DOT orientation seminars. However, the program remains
completely voluntary and, therefore, FTA is unable to ensure that all
bus transit agencies are positively affected. As highlighted in NTSB's
2013 Most Wanted List,\18\ there are significant more improvements that
need to be made to ensure the safety of bus operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Most Wanted List is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl2_2012.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2009, the Administration formally submitted a
legislative proposal to the Congress calling for a more comprehensive
approach to public transportation safety.\19\ In testimony before both
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Secretary of
Transportation Ray LaHood and Federal Transit Administrator Peter
Rogoff presented the details of this legislative proposal, which was
introduced in both houses in February 2010 as the Public Transportation
Safety Program Act of 2010. H.R. 4643, S. 3015, 111th Cong. (2010).
Citing the warning signs of increasing collisions, derailments, and
casualties, the Secretary and the Administrator emphasized that rail
transit always carries the potential for catastrophic accidents and
damage--notwithstanding its record of being a very safe means of
travel--and that the State Safety Oversight program, as it then
existed, suffered from a number of fundamental weaknesses:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The letters to Congress and the proposed bill to establish
a Public Transportation Safety Program are available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_11117.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the existing SSO framework, each rail transit system
was free to determine its own safety practices and was not compelled to
address action items found in audits or accident investigations. An
SSOA would simply review those rail transit agency practices and report
on the progress of corrective actions;
Each SSOA had only so much regulatory, oversight, and
enforcement authority as had been given by the State government. In
many instances, the SSOA lacked authority to enforce any standards or
compel compliance by the rail transit system it oversaw;
Many States viewed the SSO program as an unfunded mandate.
Thus, many States devoted insufficient resources to the program, which
compromised the abilities of SSOAs to recruit, train and develop staff
with adequate technical, audit and oversight skills; and
In many instances, an SSOA was dependent upon financial
resources from the same entities it was obliged to oversee--the rail
transit systems--thus creating a conflict of interest.
The Administration's bill would have required FTA to develop
uniform, national standards for rail transit safety; given FTA
authority to inspect rail transit systems for compliance with those
standards; established a certification program for State Safety
Oversight; authorized grants of 100 percent Federal funding for SSO
programs, once certified; and required the SSO programs to be
financially independent from the rail transit systems they oversaw.
Further, the Administration's bill would have given States the option
to decline participation in the SSO program, without penalty, in which
instance, FTA would have been required to perform the oversight
function. Also, the Administration's bill would have given FTA
authority to issue civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The proposed bill is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_11117.html. See also, Examining the Federal Role in
Overseeing the Safety of Public Transportation Systems: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. On Hous., Transp. & Cmty. Dev. of the S. Comm.
On Banking, Hous. & Urban Affairs, 111th Cong. 89-97 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, in December 2009, the Secretary chartered an advisory
committee for safety in rail transit systems, titled the Transit Rail
Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS). In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972), TRACS was
established to evaluate economic, technological, and institutional
developments in the rail transit industry, and to make recommendations
to the Secretary and FTA for Federal programs and policies in subjects
of transit safety.
The TRACS is comprised of approximately 25 persons from transit
agencies, academia, labor, and other transit professionals who provide
a range of perspectives on how to enhance public transportation safety.
Soon after its formation, TRACS provided FTA with input from
knowledgeable stakeholders as the agency awaited the delegation of
safety authority from Congress.
In July 2010, after both the House and Senate versions of the
Administration's bill were referred to committees, the Senate Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs reported the Public
Transportation Safety Act of 2010 (S. 3638, 111th Cong. (2010)), which
laid the foundation for the general safety and State Safety Oversight
provisions eventually enacted under MAP-21. The Senate Banking bill
embodied most of the fundamental goals of the Administration's
legislation but differed from the Administration's bill in that it did
not allow a State to decline participation in the SSO program; the
grants of Federal funds for an SSO program would require a 20 percent
local match; and States could be allowed as much as three years after
the effective date of a final rule to develop an SSO program adequate
for certification--after which, in the event of an inadequate SSO
program, FTA would be authorized to withhold all Federal grant funds
for all public transportation operators in that State, not just the
rail transit systems. See generally, the Senate Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs Committee Report accompanying the Senate bill. S. Rept.
111-232; 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2010). The 111th Congress adjourned
before the Senate could act on the Senate Banking bill, and the House
did not consider any similar bill.
In the 112th Congress, the text of the Public Transportation Safety
Act of 2010 became section 20021 of the larger bill for reauthorization
of surface transportation--the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21) (S. 1813, 112th Cong. (2012--that passed the
Senate on March 14, 2012. The Senate and House conferenced with the
Senate-passed MAP-21 and the House reauthorization bill (H.R. 4348),
making some amendments to the safety provisions of section 20021. On
July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; MAP-21), which
authorized a new comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329 (section 5329). Moreover, the statutory
provision that had previously prohibited FTA from regulating the
operations of its recipients has been amended. Now there is an
exception to the general prohibition on regulating operations for
``purposes of establishing and enforcing a program to improve the
safety of public transportation'' under Section 5329. 49 U.S.C.
5336(b).
B. The Need for a National Transit Asset Management System
Transit provides more than 10 billion passenger trips each year,
which represents more trips each month than all of the Nation's
airlines combined will make in a year. When transit assets are not in a
state of good repair (SGR), the consequences often include increased
safety risks, decreased
[[Page 61260]]
reliability, higher maintenance costs, and an overall lower quality of
service to customers. Through the requirements of section 5326 and the
new needs-based State of Good Repair Formula Program authorized at 49
U.S.C. 5337, renewed emphasis will be placed on restoring and replacing
the Nation's aging public transportation infrastructure.
FTA has focused attention on the growing problem of the Nation's
transit SGR backlog, particularly at large transit systems, in a series
of reports, including: the 2008 Report, ``State of Good Repair:
Beginning the Dialogue''; the ``2009 Rail Modernization Study Report to
Congress''; the ``2010 National State of Good Repair Assessment''; and,
the ``2010 Department of Transportation Conditions & Performance
Report.'' \21\ In the most recent of these reports, FTA estimated that
the Nation's transit systems collectively have an SGR backlog that
exceeds $78 billion. This backlog continues to grow in spite of
existing efforts to address the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Each of these reports is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/sgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2009 Rail Modernization Study Report to Congress, FTA
identified four principles of sound transit asset management: (1)
Taking a strategic, rather than a tactical, approach that moves beyond
traditional worst first prioritization; (2) balancing the competing
needs of operations, maintenance, reinvestment, and system expansion;
(3) integrating the perspectives of the whole organization, including
operations, safety, planning, engineering, budget, and information
technology; and (4) making informed and prioritized choices based on
sound data and clear organization objectives regarding the use of
scarce resources. These principles will naturally also form a
foundation for FTA and the transit industry to use in addressing the
SGR backlog and implementing requirements for transit asset management
planning.
MAP-21 fundamentally shifted the focus of Federal formula
investments in transit to emphasize the need to maintain, rehabilitate,
and replace existing transit assets. The ability of FTA recipients,
along with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations, both to set
meaningful transit SGR performance targets and to achieve those
targets, is critically dependent on the ability of all parties to work
together to prioritize the funding of SGR projects from all funding
sources. The new SGR Formula Grant Program for rail transit systems and
for bus transit systems operating on dedicated lanes with access for
high-occupancy vehicles will also be an essential component of this
process. However, these grants alone will not be enough to address the
backlog. Due to overall limited availability of all sources of funding,
transit agencies will need to be strategic in the use of all available
funds from all sources--Federal, State, local, and system-generated--to
make the best investments each year. The various components of this new
National TAM System will work to emphasize state of good repair as a
top priority at FTA and within the public transportation industry.
Together, these elements will assist FTA and the transit industry in
making the case for SGR investments and securing additional funding
from all levels of government, but also for prioritizing SGR
investments with existing funding sources.
In December 2012, FTA started the conversation on transit asset
management with stakeholders through an Online Dialogue. This Online
Dialogue attracted 739 registered users, almost 150 total comments, and
nearly 1,500 votes on the ideas and comments submitted. Additionally,
FTA has heard from industry stakeholders at numerous industry
conferences and through a regular series of SGR Roundtables, which
began in 2009.
This ANPRM continues that conversation and requests written
comments on issues involving transit asset management and state of good
repair. FTA wants to take a common-sense approach in carrying out the
many requirements related to transit asset management and, to the
extent possible, minimize the costs and burdens on all public
transportation operators, particularly small operators with a limited
number of assets. Below, this ANPRM raises a number of possibilities
for the approach FTA might take in implementing the requirements of
section 5326.
Not included in this ANPRM are detailed questions related to
collecting asset inventory and condition assessment information in the
National Transit Database (NTD). FTA previously began its efforts to
implement this requirement based on earlier direction from Congress in
2010. FTA will be requesting comments from affected recipients and
other stakeholders on proposed changes to its NTD Report Manual to
include asset inventory and condition assessment information in a
subsequent notice in the Federal Register.
IV. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(1), FTA must ``create and implement a
national public transportation plan to improve the safety of all public
transportation systems'' that receive FTA financial assistance. The
National Safety Plan must include: (1) Safety performance criteria; (2)
the definition of state of good repair; (3) a safety certification
training program; and (4) vehicle performance standards. The National
Safety Plan will be applicable to each FTA recipient.
FTA envisions that the National Safety Plan will serve as a tool to
establish and communicate national safety priorities based on analysis
of available safety information. FTA will set national priorities based
on those issues that are identified and which pose the highest level of
safety risk. When such risks are observed, FTA will use the National
Safety Plan to both set national criteria for specified safety
performance and communicate mitigation strategies to the public
transportation community. Accordingly, the performance criteria and
standards, SGR measures, and training requirements will be adjusted in
response to new information and the identification of emerging
industry-wide or sector-wide gaps in safety. Each transit agency will
address these requirements through their own required Transit Agency
Safety Plan.
A. Performance Criteria
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(A), FTA is required to set
``safety performance criteria for all modes of public transportation.''
FTA envisions that the safety performance criteria will consist of
desired outcomes, established controls to mitigate risks, and
indicators for identifying and tracking safety-related issues. Each of
these components relies heavily on the collection and analysis of
safety information. The ability to use safety information to measure
safety-related outcomes is a critical and necessary step forward in
managing and mitigating risks. Through sound data collection, analysis,
and mandatory reporting, the safety performance criteria established by
rulemaking will help transit providers in the early detection and
control of safety vulnerabilities, and will help FTA to better assess
the effectiveness of its own program and initiatives. Eventually, FTA
envisions that transit agencies will be able to use safety information
to progress from a reactive safety risk management response, to a
proactive or predictive
[[Page 61261]]
response. That transition will allow transit agencies to direct
resources towards effective safety risk management and safety
assurance.
Although transit agencies will have primary responsibility for
collecting and analyzing their own safety information, FTA is
considering proposing data collection processes and analyses that will
allow FTA to collect and roll up results to the national level. To this
end, FTA intends to lead and support the transit industry and the
States in developing or clarifying definitions of key terms,
determining the industry's most pressing safety issues, developing
standardized data collection and analysis methods, and establishing
baselines to benchmark selected safety concerns. Transit systems would
then set targets based on these measures. These targets will be part of
the Transit Agency Safety Plan and incorporated into the metropolitan
and statewide planning processes.
FTA understands that submitting certain sensitive safety data to
FTA may cause some concern within the industry regarding the public
availability of that information. However, FTA will need to collect
some safety information regarding hazards and mitigation measures that
are used across the industry. By reviewing this information, FTA will
be able to add value to the industry by targeting research towards
common hazards and by identifying and sharing leading best practices
across the industry.
FTA seeks comments on the following questions:
1. What types of safety performance criteria do transit agencies
already use?
2. What types of performance criteria should FTA consider?
3. Although FTA is not proposing specific performance criteria at
this time, TRACS has suggested the following categories for which
performance criteria should be set: (1) Casualties; (2) Operations; (3)
Systems and Equipment; and 4) Organizational Culture and Human
Performance. TRACS chose these categories because it believed that each
was clearly associated with safety, and could be effectively integrated
into decision making at the three levels of public transportation
safety responsibility (Federal, State, and operating agency). Moreover,
TRACS felt that initially, it may be necessary to limit safety
performance measures to those for which adequate national-scale data
exists, which tend to concern casualties and crashes. However, the plan
should also define categories for leading indicators of safety risk,
which the industry is encouraged to measure, and which FTA will work
towards measuring at the national level as part of its overall SMS
approach to transit safety. To what extent do these performance
criteria categories sufficiently address the relevant safety
information pertaining to public transportation agencies? Are there
other safety performance categories that should be included?
4. What experience can transit agencies share on establishing
desired outcomes, controls, and indicators to identify and track
casualties, as well as safety issues related to operations, systems and
equipment, and organizational culture and performance?
5. Are there specific performance criteria that FTA should consider
establishing and tracking within each of those four categories listed
in question 2, above?
6. Because transit agencies typically have very low collision
rates, should FTA consider establishing measures of near-collisions (or
``close calls'') to help identify circumstances that pose an increased
risk of collisions? If so, how?
7. How should FTA streamline or improve existing reporting of
safety information to the NTD?
B. State of Good Repair
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(B), the National Safety Plan must
include the definition of state of good repair. This definition must
also be reflected in each Transit Agency Safety Plan through the
setting of performance targets based on the definition and SGR
standards set out in the National Safety Plan. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E).
FTA envisions, the definition of state of good repair, and the
condition of assets relative to that definition, will impact when a
safety risk analysis is undertaken.
The definition of state of good repair will be established through
the rulemaking to establish the National TAM System. The definition
must include ``objective standards for measuring the condition of
capital assets of recipients, including equipment, rolling stock,
infrastructure, and facilities.'' 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1). In section VII
of this ANPRM, FTA describes four methods for defining and measuring
state of good repair based on the following: (1) Asset age, (2) asset
condition, (3) asset performance, and (4) a comprehensive assessment of
assets.
In addition to the discussion on the National TAM System below, FTA
seeks comment on the following questions specifically related to how to
integrate the definition of SGR into the National Public Transportation
Safety Plan:
8. How should the requirement for a definition of state of good
repair and SGR performance measures be integrated into the new National
Safety Plan?
9. How should safety considerations be addressed in the SGR
performance measures and targets?
10. Should the safety SGR performance targets be the same as the
SGR performance targets that will be required under the National TAM
System?
C. Minimum Safety Performance Standards for Vehicles
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C), FTA is required to issue
``minimum safety performance standards for public transportation
vehicles used in revenue operations'' other than rolling stock
otherwise regulated by the DOT or another Federal agency. Those
standards, ``to the extent practicable,'' must ``take into
consideration: (1) relevant recommendations of the National
Transportation Safety Board; and (2) recommendations of, and best
practices standards developed by, the public transportation industry.''
FTA is aware of existing voluntary consensus based standards for
transit vehicles put forward by organizations such as the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA).\22\ However, FTA understands
that many of the standards are prescriptive standards or design
standards rather than performance standards. Prescriptive standards and
design standards define exactly how to do something--like a recipe.
Prescriptive standards and design standards allow little or no
flexibility. An example of a prescriptive standard would be: Grade
crossing signals shall have 100 amp-hour battery back-up. Performance
standards define an end result, but allow total flexibility on how that
result is achieved. An example of a performance standard would be:
Grade crossing signals shall have back-up power for a minimum of 12
hours of operation. MAP-21 explicitly calls for the development of
minimum safety performance standards for vehicles. In fact, Congress
stated in the report accompanying the Public Transportation Act of
2010, that they
[[Page 61262]]
did not intend for FTA to replicate the FRA regulatory model, with
highly specific and prescriptive regulations related to public
transportation safety.\23\ Thus, many of the existing standards that
apply to vehicles within FRA's jurisdiction would not meet the MAP-21
requirement that FTA create minimum safety performance standards for
vehicles. However, FTA still seeks the public's comments on several
questions regarding vehicle standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ APTA's rail transit standards may be found at http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Pages/Rail-Standards.aspx. APTA's
bus transit standards may be found at http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-BTS-BC-RP-001-05.pdf. An example of an APTA
performance based standard is the Recommended Practice for Transit
Bus In-Service Brake system Performance Testing available at http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-BTS-BC-RP-001-05.pdf.
\23\ S. Rep. No. 111-132, at 4 (2010). Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(sr232).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presently, however, FTA's priority with respect to vehicles is
issuing a proposed rule \24\ to establish a bus testing pass/fail
standard as required by 49 U.S.C. 5318(e)(2). After FTA publishes a
final bus testing rule, buses may only be purchased with FTA funds if
the vehicles were tested and received a passing score that will be
established by rule. In addition, once FTA establishes minimum vehicle
performance standards for buses, FTA-funded buses must also meet those
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ RIN 2132-AB11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA will work with the transit industry to identify appropriate
performance-based vehicle standards for both rail and bus vehicles, and
develop an appropriate implementation schedule based on objective data.
In addition, FTA will take into consideration NTSB recommendations and
leading industry practices.
FTA seeks comments on the following questions:
11. In addition to APTA's voluntary consensus standards, what other
sources of safety performance standards for transit vehicles are
available that FTA should consider?
12. What criteria should be used to identify, prioritize and
develop performance-based vehicle standards?
13. To what degree should existing voluntary consensus standards be
considered or used in developing and implementing a performance-based
vehicle standards regime?
14. Specific to rail vehicle standards, what areas or categories of
standards would yield the greatest safety improvement if required as a
minimum safety performance standard for the public transportation
industry? What areas or categories of standards would yield the most
cost effective safety improvements?
15. Specific to bus vehicle standards, what areas or categories of
standards would yield the greatest safety improvement if required as
minimum safety performance standards for the public transportation
industry? What areas or categories of vehicle standards would yield the
most cost effective safety improvements?
16. What NTSB recommendations or industry leading practices should
FTA consider most urgently? To date, the NTSB has only issued
recommendations to FTA for rail transit vehicles, including the
following:
R-02-19: Require that new or rehabilitated vehicles funded by
Federal Transit Administration grants be equipped with event recorders
meeting Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Standard 1482.1 for rail transit vehicle event recorders. IEEE 1482.1-
1999 Standard for Rail Transit Vehicle Event Recorders or equivalent.
R-06-05: Develop transit railcar design standards to provide
adequate means for safe and rapid emergency responder entry and
passenger evacuation.
--RT-S-VIM-20-10 Standard for Emergency Lighting System Design for Rail
Transit Vehicles or equivalent,
--RT-S-VIM-021-10 Standard for Emergency Signage for Rail Transit
Vehicles or equivalent, and
--RT-S-VIM-022-10 Standard for Low-Location Emergency Path Marking for
Rail Transit Vehicles or equivalent.
R-06-06: Develop minimum crashworthiness standards to prevent the
telescoping of transit railcars in collisions and establish a timetable
for removing equipment that cannot be modified to meet the new
standards.
--ASME RT-2 2008 Safety Standard for Structural Requirements for Heavy
Rail Vehicles or equivalent, and
--ASME RT-1 2009 Safety Standard for Structural Requirements for Light
Rail Vehicles or equivalent.
V. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
Section 5329(d)(1) of title 49, U.S.C., requires each recipient of
section 53907 Urbanized Area Formula funds or section 5311 Rural Area
Formula funds to certify that it has established a comprehensive
Transit Agency Safety Plan. States may also draft and certify plans for
rural areas or for small public transportation providers in urban
areas. FTA envisions the Transit Agency Safety Plan as the mechanism
through which recipients demonstrate their compliance with the National
Safety Plan, by, among other things, setting targets based on the
safety performance criteria and standards set out in the National
Safety Plan.
The Transit Agency Safety Plan is also where FTA envisions each
transit agency to illustrate its practice of SMS. Ultimately, FTA
envisions that the Transit Agency Safety Plan will reflect each transit
agency's ongoing processes related to answering the following four
fundamental SMS questions:
What will likely be the cause of the transit agency's next
accident? Is the transit agency doing risk monitoring to discover and
address those potential causes?
How does the transit agency know the likely cause of the
next accident? Does the transit agency have internal auditing, required
and voluntary reporting, data collection and analyses, and tracking to
indicate that personnel are accurately informed about the biggest
risks?
What is the transit agency doing about to mitigate the
risk? Does it have a viable strategy or action plan, along with
appropriate budgetary and staff resources, in place to control or
mitigate the risks?
Is the strategy or action working? Does the agency have
measures in place that will tell agency staff if the strategy or action
plan is working to control or mitigate the identified risks?
FTA seeks comments on the SMS approach in general, and on the
following questions:
17. Are there barriers or challenges to adopting SMS principles by
recipients for any particular mode of transit? If so, which mode, and
what are the barriers or challenges?
18. What type of information and technical assistance would the
public transportation industry nee from FTA in order to facilitate the
adoption and implementation of SMS practices?
19. If SMS or elements of SMS are currently being practiced within
your agency, how is it being carried out? What are the most effective
means to implement SMS and how should it be scaled to accommodate both
large and small public transportation systems? FTA also seeks examples
and ideas from smaller agencies using SMS.
20. Are there alternative safety management approaches that FTA
should consider?
A. Plan Requirements
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), each Transit Agency Safety Plan must
include, at minimum, the following:
A requirement that the board of directors, or equivalent
entity, approve the Transit Agency Safety Plan and any updates to the
plan;
Methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks
throughout all elements of the recipient's public transportation system
[[Page 61263]]
Strategies to minimize the exposure of the public,
personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions;
A process and timeline for conducting an annual review and
update of the plan;
Performance targets based on the safety performance
criteria and state of good repair standards set out in the National
Safety Plan;
Assignment of an adequately trained safety officer who
reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent
officer of the recipient; and
A comprehensive staff training program for the operations
personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety.
For the last three decades the public transportation industry has
implemented plans and programs based on the system safety principles
outlined in the Military Standard 882 \25\ series. This approach
focuses on the application of engineering and management principles,
criteria, and techniques to achieve an acceptable level of safety
throughout all phases of a system lifecycle. Currently, under 49 CFR
part 659, rail fixed guideway public transportation providers are
required to develop and carry out System Safety Program Plans (SSPP)
and System Security Plans (SSP). There is no comparable requirement for
bus transit providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Military Standard 882 is available at http://www.system-safety.org/Documents/MIL-STD-882E.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the components of the SSPPs and SSPs are responsive to the
new requirements in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). For example, SSPPs and SSPs must
address ``methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks'' by
including sections devoted to hazard analysis and management, threat
and vulnerability assessment, safety data acquisition and analysis,
internal audits and reviews, accident and incident investigation and
reporting, and emergency planning and preparedness. Despite the
similarities in the components of these plans, implementation of the
existing requirements for the SSPPs and SSPs has been inadequate and
inefficient.\26\ Major accidents often have underlying organizational
antecedents with multiple causes involving people operating across many
levels or functions in an organization. It follows that predicting and
preventing major accidents requires addressing the root causes based in
organizational practices, management systems, and culture. As such,
implementing the Transit Agency Safety Plan through the SMS approach
will allow the transit industry to build on its experience with system
safety by bringing management processes and organizational culture more
squarely into the system safety engineering and hazard management
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ GAO, Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety
Oversight Program, GAO-06-997T (Washington, DC: July 19, 2006),
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123829.pdf and Rail
Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State
Safety Oversight Program, GAO-06-821 (Washington, DC: July 26,
2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/250860.pdf, and
``Oversight of Rail Rapid Transit Safety'' available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/1991/R91_33_36.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until FTA promulgates regulations for both the Transit Agency
Safety Plans under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and a new regulation for the SSO
Program under 49 U.S.C. 5329(e), the existing 49 CFR part 659 SSPPs and
SSPs will remain in effect and serve as interim rail Transit Agency
Safety Plans. Until a final rule is issued, there will be no comparable
requirement for bus transit providers. However, FTA encourages both
rail and bus transit providers to begin implementing the statutory
requirements of the Transit Agency Safety Plan into their daily
operations now, even as they await issuance of final rules since any
final rules will be consistent with the statutory requirements.
FTA plans to conduct pilot programs and provide technical
assistance to aid in this transitional process. Through pilot projects,
FTA and the industry will test, update and continuously improve
proposed public transportation safety concepts. Evaluations of pilot
projects will help inform FTA's development and provision of technical
assistance.
With respect to the implementation of the Transit Agency Safety
Plan, FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
21. Risk-based analysis can be applied in analyzing human factors
such as employee fitness for duty (e.g. being physically and mentally
qualified, not suffering from acute or cumulative fatigue, not being
impaired by use of alcohol and controlled substances, etc). Agencies
should also consider how to address situations where medical
intervention may be appropriate (such as screening for sleep disorders
and providing treatment for persons with sleep disorder diagnoses), as
well as situations where progressive remedial interventions, up to and
including termination, might be needed for certain safety-sensitive
positions. Do agencies currently apply a risk based-approach in
managing safety risks related to human factors? If so, how? What are
the challenges associated with adopting a risk-based approach to these
management functions?
22. Many rail transit agencies also operate bus systems. FTA seeks
comment from those rail transit agencies that already include bus or
other public transportation mode operations in one agency plan. Has
inclusion improved safety of the non-rail modes? What are the benefits
and costs to including all transit mode operations into one Transit
Agency Safety Plan?
23. What attributes, functions, and authorities should FTA require
of an ``equivalent entity'' when there is no board of directors? If a
transit agency is not governed by a board of directors, what additional
authorities would an ``equivalent entity'' need to properly review and
approve a Transit Agency Safety Plan?
24. How should performance milestones, targeted safety risks, and
costs be considered in developing and evaluating risk mitigation
strategies? FTA seeks examples of how public transportation agencies
have engaged in such activities.
25. Public transportation agencies must establish a process and
timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the transit
agency safety plan. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D). These plans will be self-
certified, allowing the public transportation provider's board of
directors (or equivalent entity) to determine whether the public
transportation provider's agency safety plan is adequate. FTA intends
to maintain the authority to review transit agency safety plans during
triennial reviews or in the event that FTA identifies circumstances
posing a significant risk. FTA seeks comment regarding the appropriate
role, if any, for States and FTA in the Transit Agency Safety Plan
annual review process.
26. For those public transportation providers that are currently
required to have safety plans pursuant to 49 CFR part 659, how is the
effectiveness of the safety plan measured?
27. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), public transportation
agencies will develop a comprehensive safety training program for
operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety.
What essential core competencies are needed to adequately train public
transportation agency operations personnel and personnel responsible
for safety of the agency? Should a transit agency's personnel training
requirements be scaled based on the size of the agency? In what ways
can FTA minimize the costs of implementation (e.g. allowing for shared
development of curricula)?
[[Page 61264]]
28. What training do transit agency operations personnel and
personnel directly responsible for safety currently receive? What is
the curriculum? How long does it take to complete? When and where is it
completed? Who provides the training? How is the effectiveness of these
training programs evaluated?
29. Each public transportation provider must identify a chief
safety officer who is responsible for operational safety and who
reports directly to the general manager or equivalent officer. FTA
seeks comment on what other responsibilities might be combined with
this role, particularly in smaller operations where the same individual
may function as the provider's general manager, operations manager and
safety officer? FTA also seeks comment on how the combination of such
roles causes any conflict between safety and any other interest in the
transit system's operation?
30. What strategies could reduce the burden of producing and
updating the Transit Agency Safety Plan, as well as transmitting key
safety information to FTA and the States?
31. While the statute sets minimum plan requirements, FTA seeks
comment on whether to establish less stringent regulatory requirements
for small public transit providers, and what specific areas may be most
conducive to different requirements based on the transit agency's size.
For example, should regulations permit smaller transit providers to
employ less expensive methods for identifying and evaluating safety
risks than larger entities? Should FTA's regulations establish
different safety performance criteria for smaller transit providers?
Should the training requirements be different for smaller transit
providers? If so, how?
32. FTA is required to notify the DOT Crisis Management Center
(CMC) of significant newsworthy events affecting public transportation
(such as transit collisions that include casualties, rail transit
derailments, emergency evacuations, major crimes, significant revenue
service disruptions and other related transit events). Currently, rail
transit agencies are required to provide such notifications (within two
hours of the incident) to their State Safety Oversight Agency, per 49
CFR 659.33. However, bus transit agencies provide incident
notifications to FTA on a voluntary basis, typically as requested from
FTA regional offices. FTA seeks to implement a requirement that all
modes of transit agencies provide FTA with near real-time event
notifications (within the two-hour timeframe). For rail transit
agencies this could be accomplished by copying FTA on their required
notifications to their SSOAs. For bus and other non-rail modes of
public transportation, this may require using a new template or form
for notifying FTA. What methods might transit agencies best use to
comply with such a requirement? Are there more effective or efficient
methods or processes to report these incidents in real time? Should FTA
consider alternative requirements for small transit providers?
B. The State's Role
Unlike 49 U.S.C. 5329(e), which establishes a clear role for States
in overseeing the safety of rail fixed transit systems through the SSO
program, the statute does not articulate a similar role for States with
regard to the oversight of non-rail public transportation providers.
States may, however, draft or certify transit agency safety plans for
small section 5307 recipients and section 5311 recipients, including
tribal transit recipients.
FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
33. How should FTA define small 5307 provider? Should the
definition be based on the size of the agency (e.g., number of
vehicles, annual passenger counts, annual revenue miles, annual budget,
etc.)? Please provide the basis for your suggestion.
34. How might States draft a single state-wide Transit Agency
Safety Plan that reflects implementation of SMS at the individual
transit agency level? How would compliance with a single State plan
work? Given the need for the plan to reflect individual agency
processes, what technical assistance might FTA provided to States or
agencies drafting and certifying plans? Can the number of transit
providers seeking either option be predicted or quantified?
35. Do some States lack sufficient technical expertise or resources
to draft or certify individual Transit Agency Safety Plans for small
section 5307 and section 5311 public transit providers? If so, please
explain?
36. How many plans would each State be expected to prepare?
37. If the State's role was limited to the certification of
individual Transit Agency Safety Plans, what administrative burden
would be imposed upon the State?
38. Would it reduce the overall administrative burden if each State
prepared a standard Transit Agency Safety Plan template or model plan
that could be used by each small urban and rural transit provider
within its jurisdiction?
39. Is it practicable to create a multi-state or nation-wide model
plan that could be shared between States?
40. If a State were to implement a standardized plan for small
transit providers within its jurisdiction, would any safety factors be
risked by adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, or must each plan be
customized for each transit provider?
41. Should States that write and certify Transit Agency Safety
Plans provide oversight of those agencies?
42. Should FTA require State DOT's to maintain a list of certified
subrecipients that have established safety plans or that are covered by
the statewide plan? If so, how should this list of certified
subrecipients be maintained and updated?
43. How should FTA apply the safety plan provisions to recipients
of the section 5307 Tribal Transit Formula Program and Tribal Transit
Discretionary Program?
44. What resources will States need to carry out the drafting or
certification functions?
45. Should States have a role in providing oversight of non-rail
transit systems within their jurisdiction and, if so, what would be an
estimate of the time required to perform such a role?
46. How are States that are currently performing this function
carrying out their oversight responsibility for non-rail modes? Could
this role be streamlined by combining the bus oversight duties into
each State's existing rail oversight program?
47. If States did have a role in providing oversight of bus-only
systems, how would States without rail fixed guideway systems (and
therefore no established SSO Program) provide that oversight?
VI. The Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), FTA is required to establish a
Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (Safety
Certification Training Program) applicable to Federal and State
employees, contractors who conduct oversight, and those employees at
transit systems who are responsible for safety oversight.
Currently, FTA funds and supports a wide variety of safety training
for the transit industry. FTA-sponsored training is developed in
collaboration with transit industry professionals, industry experts,
and professional training institutes. Courses are conducted nationally,
primarily by the National Transit Institute, Transportation Safety
Institute, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Johns Hopkins
[[Page 61265]]
University, and the Transportation Cooperative Research Program.
Although the current training regime presents recommendations and
current thinking about effective safety, security, and emergency
preparedness strategies, it is strictly voluntary.
FTA is developing proposed Interim Provisions for safety
certification and training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2). Soon, FTA
will publish the proposed Interim Provisions in the Federal Register
for public notice and comment and will provide the final Interim
Provisions as quickly as possible thereafter. The specific goal of the
Interim Provisions is to enhance the technical qualifications of
Federal and State personnel, and their designated contractors
responsible for public transportation safety oversight, as well as
public transit agency personnel who are directly responsible for safety
oversight in advance of a final rule for the Safety Certification
Training Program. These Interim Provisions will remain in effect until
FTA issues a final rule for the Safety Certification Training Program.
Please direct your comments about the Interim Provisions to that
docket, and any comments regarding the final Safety Certification
Training Program to the docket for this ANPRM.
FTA intends for the Safety Certification Training Program to build
upon the Interim Provisions. As a first-step toward a final regulation,
FTA is organizing its training approach around a series of competencies
and basic skills that Federal, State, and transit employees and
contractors charged with overseeing transit safety need in order to
perform their oversight duties. Developing the Safety Certification
Training Program on a foundation that focuses on competencies and
training outcomes, rather than static requirements, allows for greater
flexibility and positions FTA to be more responsive when addressing
emerging safety trends.
The competencies are based on SMS principles and the technical
capabilities required for examining and overseeing implementation of
safety program elements in the transit industry. The competencies and
technical training are also designed to address gaps in safety
oversight of public transportation systems identified in NTSB accident
investigations, FTA's SSO audits and program, triennial reviews and
annual reports submitted by SSO agencies, and NTD assessments and
special studies. A list of proposed competency areas and accompanying
learning objectives are in the docket for this ANPRM.
Applicability
As required by law, the Interim Provisions will apply to State
employees, contractors who conduct oversight, and recipients of
sections 5307 and 5311 funds for purposes of training transit agency
personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight. FTA
intends for the requirements of the final Safety Certification Training
Program to be more explicit than the Interim Provisions. For instance,
under the proposed Interim Provisions, recipients will identify those
personnel with direct safety oversight responsibilities, but the final
rule for the Safety Certification Training Program may lead to
regulations that identify specific positions that have direct
responsibility for safety oversight. Thus, the individuals holding
those positions may be covered by the final regulation.
Eligible Activities
Recipients of section 5307 or section 5311 funds may use up to 0.5
percent of apportioned formula funds to pay for up to 80 percent of the
costs of an applicable transit agency employee's participation in the
Safety Certification Training Program. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(6)(C)(iv).
The Training Certification Process
The safety oversight functions and responsibilities of each
position will be different and will require discrete skill-sets. For
instance, at the Federal level, FTA's oversight responsibilities
include ensuring that SSOA personnel are properly trained and
adequately resourced to perform their safety oversight responsibilities
within their respective jurisdictions. At the State level, SSOA
personnel are responsible for direct safety oversight of those rail
transit systems under their jurisdiction. And, at the local level,
public transportation agency personnel directly responsible for safety
oversight have the responsibility for developing and implementing
safety oversight within their respective agencies.
FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
48. What other safety-related competency areas or training outcomes
should be identified?
49. Are all of the specific competencies already identified
necessary?
50. Should personnel be required to obtain certification prior to
starting a position, or should they be given a specific time frame to
obtain safety certification after starting a position? What are the
pros and cons of each option?
51. How often should personnel be required to receive refresher
training?
52. Which transit agency positions are directly responsible for
safety oversight of bus and/or rail? When answering this question,
please refer to the table of competencies posted in the docket for this
ANPRM.
53. Which transit agency operational positions are directly
responsible for safety oversight? What are their job duties? What type
of training do these employees currently receive?
54. Do members of transit agency board of director's or other
equivalent entity currently receive any type of safety or risk
management training? If so, what does the training cover?
55. How are personnel with transit safety oversight responsibility
currently trained? How long does the training take? How is the
effectiveness of the training evaluated? What type of training do
oversight personnel need that is not already easily available within
the transit industry?
VII. The National Transit Asset Management System
A. Overview and Considerations for Small Operators
The various elements of the National Transit Asset Management (TAM)
System will apply very broadly to the many public transit agencies that
receive funds from FTA. Most importantly, all recipients and
subrecipients of FTA grants must develop a TAM Plan. 49 U.S.C.
5326(b)(2). Each recipient is further required to set SGR performance
targets. 49 U.S.C. 5326(c)(2). Finally, recipients of the section 5307
or 5311 formula programs must also report asset condition data to the
NTD. 49 U.S.C. 5335 and 5326(c)(3).
In FTA's Online Dialogue, conducted in early 2013, some commenters
suggested that the best approach for implementing the requirement for a
TAM Plan might be through a single statewide plan for subrecipients of
certain statewide grants. While FTA recognizes the desire to minimize
the administrative burden on small subrecipients, the statute requires
that all FTA ``recipients and subrecipients develop a transit asset
management plan.'' Thus, while the statute specifically contemplates a
single statewide safety plan for small operators, FTA interprets the
language of the statute to specifically exclude a statewide TAM Plan.
Further, many commenters to the Online Dialogue suggested that
small transit systems (and small rural transit systems in particular),
should have
[[Page 61266]]
simpler and fewer requirements for smaller transit systems. FTA seeks
to further develop these suggestions and seeks additional comments on
how to be sensitive to the needs of small transit operators through
this ANPRM. In particular, FTA notes that most small transit systems
have already developed a detailed asset inventory for revenue vehicles
in order to meet their NTD reporting requirements. This may allow FTA
to set simpler TAM Plan requirements for small systems that would
require assembling asset inventory information for assets other than
revenue vehicles, and then also creating an investment prioritization.
The requirement that each recipient and subrecipient of FTA funds
develop a TAM Plan represents a significant shift in the nature of
FTA's financial assistance to the transit industry. All beneficiaries
of FTA financial assistance will be required to take a strategic
approach to thinking about the life-cycle needs of the assets
underlying their service, and to deliberately consider how to strike an
appropriate balance between the competing needs of operations,
maintenance, reinvestment, and system expansion. Larger organizations
will be required to systematically engage the differing perspectives of
operations, safety, planning, engineering, budget, and information
technology in order to include an organization-wide approach in the
resulting plan. Smaller organizations may be permitted to take a
simpler approach in developing an investment prioritization based on
asset inventory information that is already largely on-hand.
Performance Targets
MAP-21 requires that all recipients set SGR performance targets,
based on the definition of state of good repair established by FTA
which must include objectives standards for measuring the condition of
capital assets, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure and
facilities. Subrecipients will not be required to set SGR performance
targets directly; the recipient will set a performance target on their
behalf. FTA intends to define state of good repair, and to set the SGR
performance measure in a way that will allow for and provide a simple
approach for small recipients and for grant recipients setting SGR
targets on behalf of small subrecipients.
Transit Asset Management Plans
MAP-21 requires that all FTA recipients and subrecipients have a
TAM Plan. The law specifies that plans, at a minimum, must have capital
asset inventories and condition assessments and investment
prioritization. As noted above, FTA's recipients and subrecipients in
our two primary formula programs, section 5307 and 5311, already
maintain an asset inventory for revenue vehicles and report that
information to the NTD. Expanding these inventories to include the one
or two facilities for which small recipients and subrecipients have
capital responsibility should not be particularly burdensome. Although
FTA has not yet developed the specific requirements for the TAM Plan,
FTA intends for the TAM Plan required of small operators to be
relatively simple and based on the life-cycle of the revenue vehicles
and facilities in the operator's asset inventory.
National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting
Currently NTD reporting requirements apply to section 5307 and
section 5311. Recipients and beneficiaries \27\ of the section 5307
program must report directly to the NTD. Recipients of section 5311
grants report directly to the NTD on behalf of their subrecipients. In
all cases, recipients and subrecipients currently report a detailed
asset inventory for revenue vehicles to the NTD. FTA will propose
specific requirements for reporting an inventory of assets other than
revenue vehicles to the NTD in a future notice in the Federal Register.
The initial notice will likely only apply to reports from urbanized
areas. A subsequent notice will likely cover additional reporting to
the NTD Rural Module. Additionally, since revenue vehicles are the
primary assets for small grant recipients in urbanized areas, the
additional reporting burden on the basis of the one or two facilities
for which the small recipient might have capital responsibility will be
quite small. FTA will publish in the Federal Register a separate notice
on this topic with more information and an opportunity to comment on
the burden of these reporting requirements on small systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ A beneficiary is a transit operator that benefits from a
section 5307-funded project, but is not a direct recipient of the
grant. For example, a rail system may benefit from a facility
constructed using a section 5307 grant to a municipality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA recognizes that meeting the new requirements for transit asset
management will not be easy and may require additional resources and
expertise. In many cases funds from FTA's core formula grant programs
may be used to cover costs related to implementing the TAM
requirements. For example, expenses that may be eligible for FTA
funding include the software associated with an asset inventory system,
tools for estimating capital investment needs over time, and for a
decision support tools for investment prioritization. Similarly, costs
related to assembling and maintaining an asset inventory and condition
inspections are generally eligible preventive maintenance costs that
can be funded by capital assistance. Finally, costs related to creating
the TAM Plan itself are an eligible expense under the section 5307
program, the section 5311 program, and the section 5337 program.
Recipients should consult with their FTA Regional Office with specific
questions regarding grant eligibility.
FTA seeks comments on the following questions:
56. How should the requirements for the TAM Plan be tailored to
different sized operators? Small operators will inherently have fewer
assets and less-complex asset inventories, but what other steps can FTA
take to minimize the burden on them?
57. How should FTA define small operator for purposes of the TAM
Plan requirements? Please be as specific as possible. Should this
definition use the same criteria for determining a small operator for
purposes of a Transit Agency Safety Plan that is developed or certified
by a State?
58. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan be handled for
subrecipients of the section 5307 program--including both subrecipients
of State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and of individual large
transit systems, for subrecipients of the section 5311 program, and for
subrecipients of the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with
Disabilities Program (section 5310)?
59. Should FTA require State DOT's and urbanized area designated
recipients to maintain a list of certified subrecipients that have
established? If so, how should this list of certified subrecipients be
maintained and updated?
60. How should FTA apply the various TAM provisions to recipients
of the section 5311 Tribal Transit Formula Program and Tribal Transit
Discretionary Program?
61. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan apply to grant
recipients who use an asset that is owned by a third party? Responses
should consider that these assets may or may not have been purchased
with Federal funds. Also, the grant recipient may indirectly contribute
to the capital maintenance of the asset through a rental or lease
payment, or in some cases the grant
[[Page 61267]]
recipient may not make a payment to the owner or operator of the asset.
62. Should FTA allow States to develop a Statewide TAM Plan?
B. Defining State of Good Repair
Under 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1), FTA is required to establish ``a
definition of the term state of good repair (SGR) that includes
objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets of
recipients, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and
facilities.'' This definition will have a number of important
consequences, including defining eligibility for projects under the
State of Good Repair Grants Program (49 U.S.C. 5337(b)(2)) and defining
what projects are excluded from eligibility under the Core Capacity
Improvement Grants Program. 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(2). This definition will
also be used for grant applicants to the Pilot Program for Expedited
Project Delivery to certify that their existing system ``is in a state
of good repair.'' Section 20008(b) of MAP-21. Further, the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan must include the definition of state
of good repair. 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(B). As discussed in Section II,
FTA envisions that the definition of state of good repair will play a
role in a transit agency determining whether it needs to perform a
safety risk assessment for those assets that fall below the SGR
threshold.
Finally, the definition of state of good repair, which itself must
include ``objective standards for measuring the condition'' of transit
assets, will also form the basis for the SGR performance measures to be
established by FTA. FTA grant recipients will set transit SGR
performance targets, and report to FTA on their progress towards
achieving that target. These targets will then be integrated into the
Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Processes by Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) and State. See 49 U.S.C. 5326(c), 49 U.S.C. 5303
and 49 U.S.C. 5304. In particular, the SGR targets will be integrated
into the performance-based planning processes and require consideration
of transit SGR needs side-by-side with highway system goals in planning
for the investment of Federal transportation funds.
In defining the term state of good repair, it is difficult to
separate the definition from how it will ultimately be measured. For
example, FTA used a definition of state of good repair in its 2010
Conditions and Performance Report \28\ using a numerical (1-5)
condition rating scale and the Transit Economic Requirements Model
(TERM).\29\ In that report, an asset is considered to be in a state of
good repair when the condition of that asset is estimated by the model
to be above a condition rating value of 2.5, which is the mid-point of
the marginal range on the rating scale. These ratings are primarily
derived from measurements of asset age. The model consists of pre-
defined ``decay curve'' relationships between asset age and asset
condition for each of the several hundred defined asset classes. The
model takes an asset inventory with asset ages as an input, and then
provides estimated conditions for each of the assets as the output.
Thus, the measurement of SGR in this case, being below a rating value
of 2.5 on a 1-5 scale, is intrinsically tied to the age-based approach
for defining state of good repair. FTA does not believe that this
numerical measure satisfies the statutory requirement that the
definition include ``objective standards for measuring the condition of
assets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The 2010 Conditions and Performance Report to Congress is
available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/2010_CP_Report_FINAL.pdf.
\29\ The TERM model consists of a database of transit assets and
deterioration schedules that express asset conditions principally as
a function of an asset's age. Vehicle condition is based on an
estimate of vehicle maintenance history and major rehabilitation
expenditures in addition to vehicle age; the conditions of wayside
control systems and track are based on an estimate of use (revenue
miles per mile of track) in addition to age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altogether, in many respects, the definition of state of good
repair is the cornerstone on which all other aspects of the National
TAM System will be built. This section describes four potential
approaches that could be used to define and measure state of good
repair, including objective standards for measuring the condition of
assets. These approaches are, as follows:
Asset age;
Asset condition;
Asset performance; or,
A comprehensive (combined) approach.
None of these approaches represent a perfect means of defining and
measuring state of good repair. In particular, these approaches all
make various trade-offs between precision and reporting burden. In
general, the simpler and less-burdensome the nature of the approach is,
the less precise that approach will be for defining and measuring state
of good repair. On the other hand, the more precise a particular
approach is at defining and measuring state of good repair, then so is
the overall burden and complexity of that approach.
The guidance provided by statute for selecting one of these
approaches is relatively limited. The definition must ``include
objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets;''
and must at least be applicable to ``equipment, rolling stock,
infrastructure, and facilities.'' The definition should also lend
itself to an implementable performance measure for purposes of 49
U.S.C. 5326(c) and the performance-based planning process in 49 U.S.C.
5303 and 5304. FTA recognizes that multiple approaches are capable of
satisfying these requirements, including the four approaches identified
above.
In our online dialogue, several commenters suggested that the
definition of state of good repair should be kept ``simple and short''
or ``simple and high level.'' While FTA appreciates the virtues of
simplicity, FTA also notes that the statute does require the definition
to include ``objective standards for measuring the condition of capital
assets.'' Thus, the definition of state of good repair must be detailed
enough to allow for the establishment of standards.
Another commenter proposed that, ``if a vehicle can be operated
safely, the state of good repair definition should not preclude that.''
Although there often are safety implications if assets are not in a
state of good repair, FTA does not intend to solely define state of
good repair in terms of safety. Poor asset condition also has other
important consequences beyond safety, such as reduced reliability,
increased maintenance costs, diminished system performance, which
delays transit riders from getting to their destinations, and decreased
passenger comfort and aesthetics. FTA's goal in defining state of good
repair is to draw attention to all of these negative impacts, as well
as safety risks. When an asset is identified as not being in a state of
good repair, this will trigger the need for a safety risk analysis in
the Transit Agency Safety Plan, which may result in the implementation
of appropriate controls.
FTA has developed a State of Good Repair White Paper \30\ that
provides greater detail on each of the proposed approaches to defining
state of good repair which is included in the docket for this ANPRM.
Commenters are strongly encouraged to review the White Paper alongside
this ANRPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Available at www.fta.dot.gov/sgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Asset Age
This approach relies on the assumption that most assets provide
reliable service for a predictable period
[[Page 61268]]
of time (adjusted by level of usage for some types of assets) after
which they should be replaced. Although assets may continue to function
safely and effectively at ages beyond this point, it is assumed that
failure to replace assets at the end of this period of useful life
leads to decreased performance, increased risk of in-service failure,
and higher maintenance costs.
This approach establishes a maximum useful life for many assets,
beyond which an asset is considered to be part of the state of good
repair backlog. This is not to be confused with the minimum useful
life, with which many FTA recipients may already be familiar and which
represents the age before which an asset should not be replaced.
The primary benefits of this approach are its simplicity,
consistency, and ease of implementation, while the primary drawbacks of
this approach are its lack of precision in identifying the actual
conditions of specific assets. For example, a well-maintained asset
might be in suitable condition beyond its maximum useful life, whereas
an asset with deferred maintenance might reach a deteriorated condition
before reaching its maximum useful life. For a more detailed analysis
of this approach please see the State of Good Repair White Paper.
(2) Asset Condition
This approach is based on periodic condition assessments of all
assets using a set of standardized procedures and criteria. Assets with
longer life expectations, such as buildings or tunnels, can be
inspected less frequently than assets with shorter life expectancies,
such as vehicles. Small or numerous assets (e.g. rail ties) may be
sampled, as determined by standard procedures, with the average
condition of the sample being applied to all assets in the category.
This approach would require FTA to develop significant guidance on
how and when to assess the conditions of different classes of assets,
including parameters for sampling, if necessary. The primary benefit of
this approach is that it identifies the actual condition of each asset
based upon its actual usage and maintenance history, while the primary
draw-back is that it is significantly more labor-intensive for
operators to complete and slightly less-consistent than the age-based
approach. For a more detailed analysis of this approach please see the
State of Good Repair White Paper.
(3) Asset Performance
This approach is based on a regular, comprehensive, assessment of a
system's performance and relies upon the assumption that as assets age,
they will become less durable and reliable, resulting in decreased
operational performance. In many respects, the ability of an asset to
safely and reliably perform its assigned function at a full-performance
level is at the heart of state of good repair. This approach has not
been tested in the United States but was the basis for public oversight
of the public-private partnership that briefly ran the London
Underground.
A performance-based approach would require far tighter integration
of operations and capital maintenance than currently exists at most
transit systems. It would also involve more FTA oversight of transit
operational performance measures at a much-greater level of detail than
currently occurs today. The primary benefit of this approach is that it
is focused on the actual outcomes of being in a state of good repair,
or not. The primary draw-back of this approach is that it is relatively
untested, and the requisite data infrastructure to support this
approach may still need to be developed. For a more detailed analysis
of this approach please see the State of Good Repair White Paper.
(4) Comprehensive Assessment of Assets
This approach combines the previous approaches to look at the age,
condition, and performance of a system's assets, as well as to
incorporate information on maintenance history for each asset.
Condition ratings are calculated as a weighted combination of metrics
for all the above considerations to produce a single rating for the
asset. This approach would produce the most-comprehensive results, and
would also involve FTA developing significant additional guidance in
order to implement it.
The primary benefit of this approach is that it takes into
consideration all the factors that contribute to state of good repair,
whereas the primary draw-back of this approach is that it is clearly
the most-complex and most-labor intensive approach for transit
operators and FTA to implement. For a more detailed analysis of this
approach please see the State of Good Repair White Paper.
FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
63. What is the appropriate balance that FTA should strike in
defining state of good repair between achieving precision in measuring
state of good repair vs. minimizing the cost of measuring state of good
repair?
64. What are the relative merits and drawbacks of each approach for
defining state of good repair for FTA grant recipients and
subrecipients of varying sizes, and/or with different modes? Should FTA
consider implementing different approaches for different transit modes,
or for grant recipients and subrecipients of different sizes? If so,
what modal delineations or size distinctions should FTA adopt?
65. What are the relative merits and drawbacks of each approach for
defining state of good repair for different classes of transit assets?
Should FTA consider implementing different approaches for different
asset classes? If so, what distinctions should FTA adopt between asset
classes?
66. Should FTA implement different approaches for defining state of
good repair based on a combination of the size of the recipient and the
class of asset, particularly given the role of state of good repair in
the SMS prescribed risk management process? If so, what delineations
should FTA make?
67. What are the relative merits and drawbacks of each approach for
purposes of implementing the required performance measures and
performance targets?
68. If a condition-based approach (or the comprehensive approach)
is adopted in whole, or in part, for certain asset classes or for
certain recipients, what requirements and procedures should FTA
establish for the requisite condition inspections?
69. If a performance-based approach (or the comprehensive approach)
is adopted in whole, or in part, for certain asset classes or for
certain recipients, what requirements and procedures should FTA adopt
for collecting the necessary performance data to implement this
approach?
70. How should the definition of state of good repair balance the
benefits of improved safety, performance, comfort, and other factors?
71. If the comprehensive approach is selected for one or more
classes of assets, how should FTA define the weights between various
aspects of this approach?
72. To what extent should FTA include measures of the intensity of
usage of an asset in its measure of state of good repair?
73. How do transit agencies currently evaluate the state of good
repair of their systems? What criteria are used for this evaluation?
What are the costs of the evaluation?
74. Are there any other approaches that FTA should consider?
[[Page 61269]]
C. Transit Asset Management Plans
(1) Plan Requirements
Under 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(2) every recipient and subrecipient of FTA
funds is required to develop a TAM Plan. The TAM Plan must include, at
a minimum, capital asset inventories and condition assessments,
decision support tools, and investment prioritization. These
requirements apply to every recipient and subrecipient that either
operates transit services or manages transit assets. Section 5326(a)(1)
specifically states that this includes ``equipment, rolling stock,
infrastructure, and facilities for use in public transportation owned
or leased by a recipient or subrecipient of Federal financial
assistance under this chapter.''
The foundation of any effective TAM Plan is a good capital asset
inventory. A transit agency must know what assets it has in order to
plan how to manage those assets. Although FTA is preparing a separate
Federal Register notice on collecting asset inventory information
through the NTD, that is a separate subject from what should be
included in the capital asset inventory of the TAM Plan. This is
particularly true for larger transit systems and transit systems with
rail modes, where the level of detail needed for a successful TAM Plan
is likely to be more detailed than the data that will eventually be
collected through the NTD.
Nevertheless, FTA recognizes that meeting the requirements for a
TAM Plan may be challenging for many of our recipients. For example,
out of 36 medium-sized rail and bus operators contacted by FTA for the
2010 National State of Good Repair Assessment,\31\ FTA found that none
of the sampled transit agencies possessed fully-developed capital asset
planning inventories. Additionally, out of seven large rail systems
contacted by FTA for the 2009 Rail Modernization Study Report to
Congress,\32\ only four had complete information on asset age or
condition and remaining useful life; only two had replacement cost data
for individual assets included in the inventory; and only one had
comprehensive data on past asset rehabilitation activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/National_SGR_Study_072010(2).pdf.
\32\ Available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Rail_Mod_Final_Report_4-27-09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
75. Some current recipients or subrecipients may currently have
Federally-funded assets with a Federal interest remaining in the asset,
but these recipients may not be seeking FTA funding in the future.
Should these recipients be required to develop TAM Plans?
76. What other elements of a good TAM Plan should FTA consider as
either requirements or as a suggested best-practice (e.g. a risk
analysis, or a consideration of life-cycle costs)?
77. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan apply to transit
systems that operate using a full-service contractor, where the
contractor both provides the assets and operates the assets? What
requirements for state of good repair and a TAM Plan should FTA require
to be included in such full-service contracts, if any?
78. How should the TAM Plan apply to assets that are owned and
operated by an entity other than the recipient, but upon which the
recipient's operations relies?
79. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan apply to grant
recipients who purchase an asset with Federal funds, and then lease
that asset to a third party who operates the asset? Should the
requirement for a TAM Plan apply to the party that is leasing the
asset? Or should the requirement for a TAM Plan only apply to the grant
recipient that is the lessor of the asset?
80. What level of detail should be required for the capital asset
inventory in a TAM Plan? What type of categorization of assets should
be required? Please be as specific as possible as to what requirements
FTA should propose to ensure that capital asset inventories included in
the TAM Plan support an effective transit asset management process.
81. What parameters should be required for the condition
assessments included in the TAM Plan? Should these parameters be based
on FTA's definition of state of good repair and the SGR performance
measure?
82. Should FTA construct one or more TAM Plan templates for
recipients to use? If so, should these templates be based upon asset
type, recipient size, and/or some other factor? Should FTA develop
professional certification or training courses related to TAM Plan
development?
(2) Investment Prioritization
As noted above, each TAM Plan must include investment
prioritization. 49 U.S.C. 5326(a)(2)(A). All projects identified in the
TAM Plan should reflect priorities for funding from all available
sources, including FTA program funds, State and local funds, and funds
transferred from the Federal Highway Administration. Specifically, the
new section 5337 State of Good Repair Formula Program requires that all
projects funded through this program must be identified in the TAM
Plan.
Investment prioritization and project identification in the TAM
Plans will connect funding decisions to projects that address SGR
needs. In this fiscally-constrained environment, it is unlikely that
sufficient increases in new funding from all sources will materialize
to directly address all transit SGR needs. Investment prioritization in
the TAM Plan will be the manifestation of each organization's strategic
process to balance the competing needs for operations, maintenance,
reinvestment, and system expansion in a resource-constrained
environment, all while addressing or controlling safety hazards.
In FTA's Online Dialogue, a recurrent theme from commenters was the
difficulty of balancing these competing needs. FTA recognizes that
there are no easy answers to this dilemma. Thus, it is critical that
the investment prioritization be done strategically, with an
organization-wide approach, informed by up-to-date and reliable data.
As such, investment prioritization must guide the setting of the SGR
performance targets and safety performance targets for the
organization.
These SGR priorities must ``be coordinated to the maximum extent
practicable'' with the transit state of good repair performance targets
being set by the States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 49
U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(i)(II). Identification of SGR projects in the
investment prioritization of the TAM Plan is the first step towards
including these projects in the transportation improvement program
(TIP) and the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). By
extension, inclusion in the TIP and the STIP is essential for meeting
the goals of the National TAM System to leverage both new and existing
sources of funding towards reducing the SGR backlog throughout the
industry.
FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
83. How specific should the investment prioritization section be in
the TAM Plan? Should it include specific projects, or just groups of
assets to be addressed? How should this requirement align with the
requirement that all projects funded by the SGR Formula Program
(section 5337) be identified in the TAM Plan?
84. What time period should the investment prioritization in the
TAM Plan cover?
85. What processes or procedures should FTA recommend or require
for balancing competing priorities for operations, maintenance, and
expansion projects with rehabilitation and
[[Page 61270]]
replacement projects in development of TAM Plans? How should these
trade-offs be reflected in final, certified TAM Plans?
86. What processes or procedures should FTA recommend or require to
ensure that the investment prioritization reflects an organization-wide
perspective towards establishing priorities?
87. What processes or procedures should FTA recommend or require to
ensure that the investment prioritization identified in the TAM Plan
match the actual investment decisions that are made?
88. At what level of detail should transit system safety be linked
to or included as part of a transit system's TAM Plan? In particular,
what procedures or requirements should FTA establish for incorporating
safety into the asset inventory, condition assessment, and/or
investment prioritization components of a TAM Plan?
89. Do transit agencies currently use any type of risk-based
process to make investment decisions? If so, please describe that
process.
90. How might a risk-based process change going forward to
systematically ensure that each agency's greatest safety
vulnerabilities are addressed first?
D. Performance Measures
Under 49 U.S.C. 5326(c)(1), FTA is required to establish SGR
performance measures, based on the definition of state of good repair.
Three months after a final rule is issued to establish SGR performance
measures each FTA grant recipient is required to establish annual SGR
performance targets in relation to those measures. Further, each year,
FTA grant recipients are required to report to FTA on progress towards
meeting those SGR targets, and to report the targets established for
the subsequent fiscal year. Please note that only recipients, not
subrecipients, will be required to set SGR performance targets. FTA
also intends to select SGR performance measures that will minimize the
administrative burden on small grant recipients.
The SGR performance measures are an essential component of the
National TAM System. Each FTA grant recipient will be accountable for
setting annual SGR performance targets relative to the measures. There
are neither rewards for meeting a performance target, nor consequences
for missing a performance target. Nevertheless, the process of setting
targets and measuring progress is not just a paper exercise, but
reflects the increased expectations by everyone involved with the
transit system, including the riding public, for bringing system assets
into a state of good repair.
As a practical matter, several strong candidates for a SGR
performance measures make reference to the SGR backlog for an
individual transit system, particularly if the age-based, condition-
based, or comprehensive approaches are used. The SGR backlog is a
measurement of the total size or amount of assets owned or leased by a
transit system that are not in a state of good repair. Under these
approaches, FTA envisions adopting performance measures that provide a
direct measure of each transit agency's SGR backlog. This sort of
direct performance measure, based on the size of the SGR backlog, will
allow individual transit systems to either show periodic progress
towards achieving a state of good repair or to identify the resource
investment necessary over a period of time for achieving a state of
good repair. An SGR performance measure based on the SGR backlog would
also be consistent with FTA's goal of working with the transit industry
towards reducing the National SGR backlog, which FTA currently
estimates to exceed $78 billion, and which continues to grow.
Alternatively, under the performance-based approach to defining state
of good repair, FTA envisions adopting performance measures that
provide an indirect measure of each transit agency's SGR backlog. These
indirect measures could include in-service vehicle failures,
maintenance break-downs, and track slow-zones.
The process of setting SGR performance targets will require each
recipient to think quantitatively about the size of its own SGR backlog
problem, and to analyze what resources it can leverage to address their
SGR needs. The setting of SGR performance targets will also be an
entirely local decision. Although FTA will strongly encourage
recipients, States, and MPO's to set meaningful SGR targets, based on a
creative and strategic leveraging of all available financial resources,
FTA will not have a role in setting or approving SGR performance
targets.
(1) Defining Performance Measures
FTA believes that the SGR performance measures should be
transparent, readily understandable by the public, and sustainable over
the long-term as possible. As such, FTA envisions that the SGR
performance measures will be quantitative, and that the measures will
not be constructed in reference to an arbitrary baseline. Rather, the
measures will identify a quantitative value, and each transit agencies'
SGR targets will represent goals for that measurement after a specific
time period. For example:
The estimated replacement value of all assets in the SGR
backlog for the transit system, e.g. the value of all assets in our SGR
backlog will be less than $100 million by the end of 2015.
The percent of total assets, weighted by replacement
value, in the SGR backlog for the transit system, e.g. fewer than 15%
of our assets, weighted by replacement value, will be in our SGR
backlog by the end of 2015.
The average condition of all assets, weighted by
replacement value, for the transit system as a whole, e.g. the average
condition of all of our assets, weighted by replacement value, will be
at least 3.14 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being
excellent) by the end of 2015.
FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
91. What are some other possible SGR performances measures that
would have significant practical utility? Please be as specific as
possible, using the format for the examples, above.
92. Should FTA consider a purely performance-based approach, i.e.
rather than establishing direct SGR measures, instead establishing
indirect SGR measures of in-service failures, maintenance break-downs,
and track slow zones?
93. Should FTA propose different measures for smaller agencies? How
should FTA develop different measures for different sized entities?
(2) Performance Targets
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5326(c)(2), FTA grant recipients will be
required to establish SGR performance targets in relation to the SGR
performance measures within three months after FTA establishes the
performance measures. Additionally, recipients of FTA funding will be
required to submit an annual report describing the progress of the
recipient toward meeting the recipient's SGR performance targets for
the subsequent year. FTA seeks comment on how the SGR performance
targets for each recipient should be reported to FTA, and how progress
should be reported annually to FTA. FTA is considering requiring the
SGR targets for each SGR performance measure be reported to the NTD
since most FTA recipients already file an annual report to the NTD.
These SGR targets could alternatively be reported to FTA through the
Transit Electronic Awards Management (TEAM) System, although these SGR
targets would need to be filed on a system-wide basis, and not on a
grant-by-grant basis. It is also possible that stand-alone performance
reports to
[[Page 61271]]
meet the statutory requirements could be considered, if that approach
is determined to be less burdensome.
FTA seeks comments and suggestions on the following questions:
94. Should FTA collect the SGR performance targets through its
National Transit Database? Or should SGR targets be collected through
some other system?
95. Should SGR targets be set on a system-wide basis? Or should SGR
targets be set on a per-mode basis, per asset class, or both? Or on
some other basis?
96. Should the SGR performance measures and performance results be
based on data reported through the NTD? Should the SGR performance
measures and performance results be based on data reported separately?
97. What should be the time horizon for the SGR performance
targets? Although the SGR targets must be set annually, as required by
law, should separate short-range (one year) and long-range (greater
than one year) targets be established?
98. How should the SGR performance measures and performance results
be connected to the requirement for applicants to the Pilot Program for
Expedited Project Delivery? Section 20008(b) of MAP-21. How should
applicants certify to FTA that their existing transit system ``is in a
state of good repair'' in order to be eligible for the Pilot Program?
E. Technical Assistance and Tools
As noted above, many of the TAM requirements outlined in MAP-21
apply to all FTA recipients who operate transit services. Because these
are new requirements and affect a variety of transit providers, FTA is
dedicated to providing guidance to recipients to assist in complying
with these requirements. MAP-21 requires FTA to provide technical
assistance on these provisions as well as develop an analytical process
or decision support tool for estimating capital investment needs of
transit systems over time and assisting with asset investment
prioritization by transit systems. 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(4).
Currently, there are a number of documents and resources \33\ that
have been developed that may assist recipients in meeting the
requirements of the National TAM System. These include:
\33\ All of these reports and decision support tools can be
found on FTA's Web site at http://www.fta.dot.gov/sgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset Management Methodology/Condition Assessment Methodology
Research, FTA-2011-002-TRI
Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management of our
Transit Investment
TCRP Report 157: State of Good Repair: Prioritizing the
Rehabilitation and Replacement of Existing Capital Assets and
Evaluation the Implications for Transit
TCRP Synthesis 92: Transit Asset Condition Reporting
FTA has also already developed its TERM-Lite \34\ model as a
possible tool for individual transit systems to estimate their own
capital investment needs. There may be a need for other decision
support tools to be developed to support TAM efforts. For example,
there may be a need for a tool to help estimate the risks of reduced
safety, increased maintenance costs, less reliability, and decreased
performance that may result from deferring investments on particular
assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ TERM-Lite can be accessed at http://www.fta.dot.gov/term-lite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA seeks comments and suggestions on the following questions:
99. What specific tools and resources should FTA develop to ease
the implementation of these requirements? Please be specific as to what
tools or resources would be most useful to you and your transit system,
such as guidebooks, classroom training, webinars or online training,
peer-to-peer exchanges, etc.
100. A number of private companies offer software tools for
compiling and maintaining an asset inventory. Are there gaps in what is
currently offered for these purposes that FTA should consider filling?
101. A number of private companies already offer software tools to
assist transit systems with taking an organizational approach to
investment prioritization. Are there specific gaps in what is currently
available for these purposes that FTA should consider filling?
102. FTA has currently developed TERM-Lite to assist transit
systems with estimating capital investment needs over time. Are there
additional tools that FTA should develop to assist transit systems with
estimating capital investment needs?
103. Are the various guidebooks and reports listed above useful to
your transit system in preparing to conduct transit asset management
planning? Are there other guidebooks or reports that FTA should develop
to support planning for transit asset management?
104. Are there any other support tools or resources not mentioned
here that would be helpful for recipients to have access to?
105. What decision support tools for investment prioritization and/
or analytic processes for capital investment needs estimation does your
transit agency already use?
106. What research should FTA be conducting or sponsoring to
support improved TAM analysis?
VIII. Certification of Transit Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset
Management Plans
Both the Transit Agency Safety Plan and the TAM Plan have a self-
certification requirement. See 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1) and 49 U.S.C.
5326(a)(2)(B). These certifications will serve two fundamental
purposes. First, certification provides assurance to FTA that
recipients have conscientiously sought to meet the requirements for the
Transit Agency Safety Plan and the TAM Plan established by FTA, and
that the resulting plans are supporting the goals for safety and
transit asset management, respectively. Second, a recipient that
engages in a rigorous review of their Transit Agency Safety Plan and
TAM Plan before certifying it to FTA will have confidence that their
plans meet the standards established by FTA.
FTA recognizes that applicants to FTA's grant programs are
currently required to certify and assure compliance with many other FTA
program elements. Although MAP-21 does not establish the process for
how FTA will oversee certification of Transit Agency Safety Plans and
TAM Plans, FTA will strongly consider using the existing certification
process with oversight through the Triennial and State Management
Reviews. However, FTA is also considering developing a new program for
review of Transit Agency Safety Plans and TAM Plan certifications.
Despite the method of oversight, recipients must ensure that FTA has
access to each of these plans upon request and should be able to
confirm that the certification requirements have been met.
FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
107. Should certification be done through the annual Certification
and Assurance process and a requirement to receive a grant? How should
subrecipients certify? Is there another process to consider?
108. Should FTA establish a self-assessment or other set of
procedures for recipients to follow before certifying their Transit
Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan?
109. After recipients have certified they have plans that comply
with FTA requirements, should FTA review the
[[Page 61272]]
plans prior to grant approval, as part of the Triennial/State
Management Review, or at some other time?
110. FTA is considering reviewing certification of Transit Agency
Safety Plans and TAM Plans on the basis of a weighted random sample of
recipients as an alternative to reviewing all plans. Would this be a
suitable alternative to reviewing all certifications?
111. What requirements and procedures should FTA establish for
States and urbanized area designated recipients to review the TAM Plans
of their subrecipients before certification?
112. What requirements and procedures should FTA establish for
States that develop and certify Transit Agency Safety Plans for rural
providers and small urban providers?
113. How frequently should TAM Plans be updated? How frequently
should FTA review a recipient's updated TAM Plan? How should the
certification be updated when the TAM Plan is updated?
114. For all grant recipients, should FTA require the certification
of the TAM Plan to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of transit
operations, and/or the Chief Executive Officer of the legal entity
receiving grants from FTA?
115. For grant recipients with a board of directors, should FTA
require the TAM Plan be approved by the Board before certification?
IX. Coordination of Targets and Plans With Metropolitan, Statewide and
Non-Metropolitan Planning
The Metropolitan Transportation Planning requirements at 49 U.S.C.
5303 and the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning requirements at 49
U.S.C. 5304, oblige Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and
States, respectively, to coordinate their performance targets, to the
maximum extent practicable, with performance targets set by FTA
recipients for safety and state of good repair, and to integrate these
targets into the planning process. See 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(E). At the MPO and State level, funding allocation for
surface transportation investments must weigh the needs for transit
safety and SGR side-by-side with the highway performance objectives and
targets, as well as with goals for the expansion of the existing
transit network. FTA plans to issue a joint NPRM with the Federal
Highway Administration on this new performance management framework.
As a reminder of Federal planning requirements, MPOs are
established in urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population, and must
prepare a long range plan of at least 20 years in duration (updated
every 4-5 years). 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(A)(ii). This plan is financially
constrained to revenue sources that are ``reasonably expected to be
made available'' over that period. 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(E)(i)(II). Any
projects anticipated to receive federal funds or that are subject to
federal actions must be included in the long range plan. In addition,
the MPOs are required to develop a metropolitan ``transportation
improvement program,'' (TIP) which includes projects consistent with
the long range plan that are expected to be implemented in the first
four years of the plan. 49 U.S.C. 5303(j). The TIP, too, is financially
constrained, in that any project included in it must demonstrate that
it is fully funded.
As a result of MAP-21, MPOs and States are now required to
establish performance targets that address forthcoming U.S. Department
of Transportation-issued national performance measures that are based
on the goals outlined in the legislation: safety, infrastructure
condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement
and economic vitality, environmental sustainability, reduced project
delivery delays, transit safety, and transit state of good repair. MPOs
also must coordinate their performance targets, to the maximum extent
practicable, with performance targets set by FTA recipients under the
new performance measure requirements for safety and state of good
repair. TIPs must include a description of the anticipated progress
toward achieving the performance targets resulting from implementation
of the TIP. The investment prioritization developed for the TAM Plan at
the individual system level must also be coordinated with development
of the long-range transportation plan and the TIP.
Additionally, States are required by 49 U.S.C. 5304(h)(2)(C) to
integrate transit safety and transit state of good repair performance
targets into the planning process, and are required by section
5304(d)(2)(B)(ii), for areas not represented by a MPO, to select
performance targets that are ``coordinated, to the maximum extent
practicable, with providers of public transportation'' to ensure
consistency with the state of good repair elements of section 5326(c)
and the safety program found in sections 5329(b)(2) and 5329(d)(1)(E).
Likewise, the investment prioritization developed for the TAM Plan at
the individual system level must also be coordinated with development
of the statewide transportation plan and the statewide transportation
improvement program (STIP).
In FTA's TAM Online Dialogue, one commenter noted that areas with
multiple transit systems under the same MPO face particular challenges
in coordinating efforts in the planning process. This commenter
suggested that it is important that ``coordination to the maximum
extent practicable'' should also extend in both directions, with
individual transit systems coordinating their own and SGR performance
targets with the regional and SGR performance targets being established
by the MPO. FTA raises this comment in order to get additional comments
on the merits of this suggestion, and how such a requirement might be
implemented.
FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
116. What procedures or requirements should FTA establish to ensure
that Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and
targets from individual transit systems are integrated into the
metropolitan transportation planning process?
117. Should MPO's be required to set a region-wide target for
transit state of good repair, or should MPO's be required to
incorporate the both safety and transit state of good repair targets
from each transit system within their jurisdiction into the
performance-based planning process, or should have MPO's have
discretion to choose between these two approaches?
118. What procedures or requirements should FTA establish to ensure
that Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and
targets from individual transit systems are integrated into the
statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning process? Since
States are already setting the transit SGR performance targets for
rural area grants received by the State, are any additional steps
needed for integration into the planning process?
119. Should FTA establish procedures or requirements to ensure that
Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and targets
from individual transit systems are integrated into other metropolitan
planning products, such as the Unified Planning Work Program (``UPWP'')
and Congestion Management Process (``CMP'')?
120. FTA is interested in hearing recipient and stakeholder
perspectives on how the investment priorities set forth in can be most-
effectively reflected in the prioritization of projects, strategies,
and resources--including Federal, state, and local funds--in MPO Plans
and Transportation Improvement Programs, as well as the Long-Range
Transportation Plans of States and Statewide Transportation Improvement
[[Page 61273]]
Programs. Specifically, how should transit state of good repair needs
identified in be addressed alongside other investment goals in these
financially-constrained plans?
121. How should safety targets be considered in the planning
process by State's and MPOs? Should MPO's be required to set a region-
wide safety target? Or, should MPO's be required to incorporate each of
the safety targets from each transit system within their jurisdiction
into the performance-based planning process? Or, should MPO's have
discretion to choose between these two approaches? How would each
approach make the planning process easier or more difficult for transit
agencies?
X. Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Requirements
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs, tailor a regulation to impose the least burden on
society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, and in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Consistent with the requirements in these executive orders, FTA
seeks comment on the following questions:
122. FTA seeks information from the public in order to assist it in
assessing the cost of alternative regulatory approaches for
implementing the National Safety Program and the National TAM System.
For example, for commenters who suggest that FTA consider adopting
certain safety performance criteria, minimum safety standards for
vehicles, or objective standards for measuring the condition of capital
assets, or training standards, what information do you have to assist
FTA in assessing the incremental cost of adopting your suggestion? FTA
is interested in information to assist it in assessing the full cost of
the suggestion, such as the cost for transit agencies to collect and
assess information and the cost to take action based on the
information.
123. Likewise, FTA seeks information from the public to assist FTA
in assessing the potential benefits of alternative regulatory
approaches for implementing the National Safety Program and the
National TAM System. For example, for commenters who suggest that FTA
consider adopting certain safety performance criteria, minimum safety
standards for vehicles, objective standards for measuring the condition
of capital assets, or training standards, what information do you have
to assist FTA in assessing the incremental benefit from adopting your
suggestion?
XI. Next Steps and Public Participation
This ANPRM seeks input from the public on these topics to ensure
that the final rules are clear and effective. It is important that
transit agencies, State agencies, SSO agencies, MPOs, other
organizations, as well as interested members of the public that could
potentially be affected by rules issued after this ANPRM, take this
opportunity to share thoughts, concerns, ideas, and general comments on
the topics presented herein.
After FTA reviews the comments collected through this ANPRM, FTA
will draft several Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRM) for the
National Safety Program and the TAM Program. These NPRMs will set forth
proposed regulations based on FTA's analysis of the statutory
requirements and relevant issues, as well as comments received from the
public. Once FTA publishes the proposed rules, stakeholders and the
public will have another opportunity to provide comments that FTA will
take into consideration prior to issuing final rules.
Peter Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-23921 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P