34418 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1 See United States Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ‘‘Table 2–1:
Transportation Fatalities by Mode 1960–2016,’’ at
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/national_
transportation_statistics/table_02_01; and ‘‘Table
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 673
[Docket No. FTA–2015–0021]
RIN 2132–AB23
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) is publishing a
final rule for Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans as authorized by
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP–21). This final
rule requires States and certain
operators of public transportation
systems that receive Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to
develop Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plans based on the Safety
Management System approach.
Operators of public transportation
systems will be required to implement
the safety plans. The development and
implementation of safety plans will help
ensure that public transportation
systems are safe nationwide.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
July 19, 2019.
FTA’s Office of Transit Safety and
Oversight (TSO) will host a series of
webinars to discuss the requirements of
the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan (PTASP) final rule. The first two
webinars will be held at 2 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 25, 2018 and Tuesday,
July 31, 2018.
ADDRESSES: To register for webinars and
for information about future webinars,
please visit https://www.transit.dot.gov/
about/events.
FTA is committed to providing equal
access for all webinar participants. If
you need alternative formats, options, or
services, contact FTA-Knowledge@
dot.gov at least three business days prior
to the event. If you have any questions,
please email [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : For
general information, contact PTASP_
[email protected]. For program matters,
contact Adrianne Malasky, Office of
Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366–
1783 or [email protected]. For
legal matters, contact Michael Culotta,
Office of Chief Counsel, (212) 668–2170
or [email protected]. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Legal Authority
C. Summary of Major Provisions
1. Summary of the Final Rule
2. Summary of Public Comments
3. Summary of the Major Changes to the
Rule
D. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Response to Relevant Comments
A. Scope and Applicability of Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans
1. Section 5310, Section 5311, Small
Section 5307, and Tribal Operators
2. Commuter Rail and Passenger Ferry
Service
3. Contracted Service
B. Definitions
1. Accident
2. Incident
3. Occurrence
4. Serious Injury
5. Accountable Executive
6. Chief Safety Officer
7. Operator of a Public Transportation
System
8. Rail Transit Agency
9. Performance Target, Safety Performance
Target, and Performance Criteria
10. Small Public Transportation Provider
11. Requests for New Definitions
C. General Requirements
1. Role of the Accountable Executive
2. Approval of a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan
3. Documentation of SMS Processes and
Activities
4. Safety Performance Targets
5. Future Requirements in FTA’s Public
Transportation Safety Program and
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan
6. Process and Timeline for Annual Review
and Update
7. Emergency Preparedness and Response
Plans
8. Multiple Modes of Transit Service
D. State and Transit Agency Roles
1. Large Transit Agencies
2. Small Public Transportation Providers,
Section 5311 Providers, and Section
5310 Providers
2.1. States Must Draft and Certify Safety
Plans on Behalf of Small Public
Transportation Providers
2.1.1. Option for State-Wide or Agency-
Specific Safety Plans
2.1.2. Drafting and Certifying Safety Plans
for Small Section 5307 Providers
2.2. Other Comments
3. Small Transit Providers May Draft and
Certify Their Own Safety Plans
4. Direct and Designated Recipients
Drafting and Certifying Safety Plans on
Behalf of Smaller Transit Providers
E. Existing System Safety Program Plan Is
Effective for One Year
1. General Comments
2. One-Year Compliance Timeframe
F. Certification of Safety Plans
G. SSOA Review and Approval of PTASPs
for Rail Transit Systems
H. Safety Performance Targets and
Performance-Based Planning
I. Safety Management Systems
1. Safety Management Policy: General
Comments
1.1. Safety Management Policy Statement
1.2. Employee Reporting Program
1.3. Safety Accountabilities and
Responsibilities
2. Safety Risk Management
2.1. Safety Risk Management: General
Comments
2.2. Safety Hazard Identification and
Analysis
3. Safety Assurance
3.1. Safety Assurance: Safety Performance
Monitoring and Measurement
3.2. Safety Assurance: Management of
Change
3.3. Safety Assurance: Continuous
Improvement
4. Safety Promotion
5. Scalability of SMS
6. SMS and Safety Culture
J. Safety Plan Documentation and
Recordkeeping
1. Safety Plan Documentation
2. Safety Plan Records
3. Other Comments on Documentation and
Recordkeeping
4. Database Systems
5. Staffing and Resources as a Result of
Documentation and Recordkeeping
K. Funding
L. Staffing
M. Enforcement and Oversight
1. Triennial Reviews and State
Management Reviews
2. State Oversight
3. Other Comments
N. NTD Reporting
O. Security
P. SSPP–PTASP Crosswalk
Q. Safety Performance Measures
R. Technical Assistance and Guidance
S. Coordination With Other Entities
T. Nexus Between the PTASP Rule and
Other FTA Requirements
U. Americans With Disabilities Act Issues
V. Other Comments on the Rule
W. Regulatory Impact Analyses
1. Costs
2. Benefits
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
X. Tribal Issues
1. Applicability of the Rule to Tribes
2. The State’s Role in Tribal Safety Plans
3. Financial Impact on Tribes
4. Tribal Consultation
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
The public transportation industry
remains among the safest surface
transportation modes in terms of total
reported safety events, fatalities, and
injuries.
1 Nonetheless, given public
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34419 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1–40: U.S. Passenger Miles (Millions) 1960–2015,’’
at https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/
national_transportation_statistics/table_01_40.
transportation service complexities, the
condition of transit equipment and
facilities, turnover in the transit
workforce, and the quality of policies,
procedures, and training, the public
transportation industry remains
vulnerable to catastrophic accidents.
This rule outlines requirements for
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans that would carry out explicit
statutory mandates in the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (Pub. L. 112–141; July 6, 2012)
(MAP–21), which was reauthorized by
the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114–94;
December 4, 2015) (FAST Act) and
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), to
strengthen the safety of public
transportation systems that receive
Federal financial assistance under 49
U.S.C. Chapter 53. This rule requires the
adoption of Safety Management Systems
(SMS) principles and methods; the
development, certification,
implementation, and update of Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans;
and the coordination of Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan
elements with other FTA programs and
rules, as specified in 49 U.S.C. 5303,
5304, and 5329.
B. Legal Authority
In Section 20021 of MAP–21, which
is codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329, Congress
directed FTA to establish a
comprehensive Public Transportation
Safety Program, one element of which is
the requirement for Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA
must issue a final rule requiring
operators of public transportation
systems that receive financial assistance
under Chapter 53 to develop and certify
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans.
C. Summary of Major Provisions
1. Summary of the Final Rule
This rule adds a new part 673,
‘‘Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans,’’ to Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. The rule
implements the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 5329(d).
One year after the effective date of
this rule, each State, local governmental
authority, and any other operator of a
public transportation system that
receives Federal financial assistance
under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, must certify
that it has established a comprehensive
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan (PTASP). 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1). At
this time, the rule does not apply to an
operator of a public transportation
system that only receives Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5310 (Section 5310), 49 U.S.C. 5311
(Section 5311), or both 49 U.S.C. 5310
and 49 U.S.C. 5311. Large transit
providers must develop their own plans,
have the plans approved by their Boards
of Directors (or equivalent authorities),
and certify to FTA that those plans are
in place and comply with this part.
Small public transportation providers
that receive Urbanized Area Formula
Program under 49 U.S.C. 5307 may have
their plans drafted or certified by the
State in which they operate. A small
public transportation provider may opt
to draft and certify its own plan.
At a minimum, and consistent with
49 U.S.C. 5329(d), each Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan
must:
• Include the documented processes
and procedures for the transit agency’s
Safety Management System, which
consists of four main elements: (1)
Safety Management Policy, (2) Safety
Risk Management, (3) Safety Assurance,
and (4) Safety Promotion, as discussed
in more detail below (49 CFR
673.11(a)(2));
• Include performance targets based
on the safety performance criteria
established under the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan (49 CFR
673.11(a)(3));
• Address all applicable requirements
and standards as set forth in FTA’s
Public Transportation Safety Program
and National Public Transportation
Safety Plan (49 CFR 673.11(a)(4)); and
• Establish a process and timeline for
conducting an annual review and
update of the Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan (49 CFR
673.11(a)(5)).
Each rail transit agency must include
in its Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan an emergency preparedness
and response plan, as historically
required by FTA under the former
regulatory provisions of the State Safety
Oversight rule at 49 CFR part 659 (49
CFR 673.11(a)(6)).
A transit agency may develop one
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan for all modes of its service, or it
may develop a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan for each mode of
service that is not subject to safety
regulation by another Federal entity. 49
CFR 673.11(b). A transit agency must
maintain records associated with its
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan. 49 CFR 673 subpart D. Any rail
fixed guideway public transportation
system that had a System Safety
Program Plan (SSPP) compliant with the
former regulatory provisions of 49 CFR
part 659 as of October 1, 2012, may keep
that plan in effect until one year after
the effective date of this rule. 49 CFR
673.11(e). A transit agency that operates
passenger ferry service regulated by the
United States Coast Guard (USCG) or
rail fixed guideway public
transportation service regulated by the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
is not required to develop a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for
those modes of service. 49 CFR
673.11(f).
States and transit agencies must make
their safety performance targets
available to States and Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO) to aid in
the planning process, and to the
maximum extent practicable, States and
transit agencies must coordinate with
States and MPOs in the selection of
State and MPO safety performance
targets. 49 CFR 673.15.
On an annual basis, transit agencies
and States must certify compliance with
this rule. 49 CFR 673.13.
2. Summary of Public Comments
On February 5, 2016, FTA issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
for Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans. 81 FR 6344 (https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-02-05/pdf/2016-
02017.pdf). The public comment period
closed on April 5, 2016. FTA received
approximately 647 comments from
approximately 77 entities, including
States, transit agencies, trade
associations, and individuals.
The majority of the comments
addressed the administration of the rule.
Over 100 comments focused on
definitions, with the vast majority of
those commenters requesting FTA to
align terms and definitions with the
terms and definitions that FTA recently
finalized in other rules, such as the
State Safety Oversight rule at 49 CFR
part 674 and the Transit Asset
Management rule at 49 CFR part 625.
FTA received nearly 300 comments on
issues relating to (1) the effective date
and compliance date of the rule; (2) the
drafting and certification of safety plans
on behalf of recipients of FTA’s
Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and
Individuals with Disabilities Program at
49 U.S.C. 5310 and other smaller
recipients; (3) clarification of FTA’s
oversight process; (4) the need for FTA’s
technical assistance; (5) documentation
and recordkeeping; and (6) the
applicability of the rule.
FTA received over 80 comments on
SMS. Many of the commenters
expressed support for SMS, particularly
given its flexibility and scalability.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34420 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Some commenters requested
clarification of the flexibility and
scalability of SMS, and to that end, they
requested that FTA develop and issue a
safety plan template. Other commenters
requested clarification regarding
specific provisions of SMS. In the
NPRM, FTA sought comments on
alternative regulatory frameworks to
SMS, and in response to this request,
FTA received no comments.
Detailed comment summaries and
responses are below.
3. Summary of the Major Changes to the
Rule
In response to the public comments,
FTA made a number of changes to the
rule. Below is a summary of those
changes, which are discussed in more
detail in the sections that follow.
Section 673.1 Applicability
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to apply
the rule to every ‘‘State, local
governmental authority, and any other
operator of a public transportation
system that receives Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.’’
FTA specifically asked the public
whether the rule should apply to
recipients and subrecipients of funds
under FTA’s Enhanced Mobility of
Seniors and Individuals with
Disabilities Program at 49 U.S.C. 5310
(Section 5310). FTA also specifically
asked the public for alternative
regulatory frameworks that satisfy the
statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329
and are tailored to fit the needs of
smaller operators of public
transportation.
FTA received numerous comments in
response to these questions and the
regulatory proposal. Several
commenters suggested that FTA exempt
Section 5310 recipients from the rule
because they are smaller non-traditional
transit providers. Several commenters
suggested that FTA adopt a more
streamlined and simplified approach
that is more tailored for smaller
operators. At least one commenter
suggested that FTA exempt
subrecipients of Section 5311 Rural
Area Formula Program funds from the
rule.
In light of these public comments and
the need for further evaluation, FTA is
deferring regulatory action at this time
on operators of public transportation
systems that only receive Section 5310
and/or Section 5311 funds. This deferral
will provide FTA time to further
evaluate information and safety data
related to these systems to determine
the appropriate level of regulatory
burden necessary to address the safety
risk presented by these systems. Thus,
this final rule does not address
operators of public transportation
systems that only receive Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C.
5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311.
Section 673.5 Definitions
FTA updated the definitions of the
terms ‘‘Accountable Executive’’ and
‘‘Transit Asset Management Plan,’’ and
FTA changed the term ‘‘Performance
Criteria’’ to ‘‘Performance Measure,’’ in
an effort to align these terms and
definitions with those in FTA’s Transit
Asset Management rule at 49 CFR part
625, which was published on July 26,
2016. FTA updated the definition of the
term ‘‘Safety Risk Management,’’ added
the term ‘‘Rail Fixed Guideway Public
Transportation System,’’ and changed
the term ‘‘Safety Risk’’ to ‘‘Risk’’ in an
effort to align these terms and
definitions with those in FTA’s State
Safety Oversight rule at 49 CFR part
674, which was published on March 16,
2016. FTA clarified in its definition of
‘‘Safety Management System Executive’’
that it means a ‘‘Chief’’ Safety Officer or
an equivalent. FTA changed the term
‘‘Safety Risk Evaluation’’ to ‘‘Safety Risk
Assessment’’ to add clarity to the final
rule.
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to define
‘‘operator of a public transportation
system’’ to exclude operators that
‘‘provide service that is closed to the
general public and only available for a
particular clientele.’’ This language was
intended to narrow the type of Section
5310 recipients that would be subject to
the rule. In light of FTA’s decision to
defer action on the applicability of the
rule to all Section 5310 recipients and
subrecipients—including operators that
‘‘provide service that is closed to the
general public and only available for a
particular clientele’’—FTA is removing
this language from the definition of
‘‘operator of a public transportation
system.’’
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to define
‘‘Small Public Transportation Provider’’
to mean ‘‘a recipient or subrecipient of
Urbanized Area Formula Program funds
under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that has one
hundred (100) or fewer vehicles in
revenue service and does not operate a
rail fixed guideway public
transportation system.’’ In response to
public comments and for consistency
with the Transit Asset Management
Rule (81 FR 48889), FTA changed the
definition of the term ‘‘Small Public
Transportation Provider’’ to mean 100
or fewer vehicles in ‘‘peak’’ revenue
service, as opposed to revenue service
generally.
Section 673.11(a)(6) General
Requirements: Emergency Preparedness
and Response Plans
Based on public comments, FTA will
provide rail transit agencies with the
option to either include an emergency
preparedness and response plan as a
section of their Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan, or they may
incorporate an existing emergency
preparedness and response plan into
their Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan by reference.
Section 673.11(d) General
Requirements; § 673.13 Certification of
Compliance: The Drafting and
Certification of Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans on Behalf of
Section 5310 Recipients and
Subrecipients
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to
require States to draft and certify safety
plans on behalf of certain recipients and
subrecipients of funds under Section
5310 and the Section 5311 Formula
Grants for Rural Areas Program. In light
of the public comments from these
recipients requesting exemptions from
the rule and a more streamlined and
tailored regulatory approach for smaller
operators, and given FTA has decided to
defer action on applicability of the rule
to Section 5310 and Section 5311
recipients and subrecipients, FTA does
not need to require States to draft and
certify safety plans for those recipients
and subrecipients at this time.
Section 673.23(a) Safety Management
Policy
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to
require transit agencies to develop a
written Safety Management Policy,
which would include safety
performance targets. FTA received
numerous comments noting that FTA
also was proposing to require transit
agencies to set safety performance
targets in the General Requirements
section of the rule, so the requirement
in the Safety Management Policy section
appeared redundant. FTA agrees, and to
eliminate any redundancies, FTA
deleted that requirement from the Safety
Management Policy section of the rule.
Section 673.25 Safety Risk
Management
In response to comments, FTA revised
its Safety Risk Management
requirements to add clarity to the safety
hazard identification, safety risk
assessment, and safety risk mitigation
processes in the final rule.
Section 673.27 Safety Assurance
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to
require all transit agencies to develop
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34421 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations and implement a comprehensive Safety
Assurance process. FTA proposed to
require all transit agencies to develop
and implement processes for (1) safety
performance monitoring and
measurement, (2) management of
change, and (3) continuous
improvement.
FTA received comments seeking
clarity on one of the requirements
related to safety performance
monitoring and measurement,
specifically, the requirement for each
transit agency to ‘‘[m]onitor its
operations to identify hazards not
identified through the Safety Risk
Management process established in
§ 673.25 of this subpart.’’ 49 CFR
673.27(b)(2) (as proposed in the NPRM).
Some commenters suggested that this
requirement appeared redundant and
duplicative of each of the requirements
under Safety Risk Management. FTA
agrees with these commenters, and to
add clarity, reduce redundancy, and
lower burdens, FTA eliminated this
requirement from the final rule.
More significantly, FTA received
numerous comments requesting a
reduction in the regulatory requirements
for small public transportation
providers. Given the limited
administrative and financial resources
available to small public transportation
providers, FTA believes that a reduction
in their regulatory burdens is
appropriate. To that end, and to address
the concerns expressed by commenters,
FTA eliminated significant Safety
Assurance requirements for all small
public transportation providers. In the
final rule, small public transportation
providers only need to develop
processes for safety performance
monitoring and measurement. Small
public transportation providers are not
required to develop and implement
processes for management of change
and continuous improvement. FTA
believes that these changes in the final
rule will reduce their burdens
significantly. Rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems and recipients
and subrecipients of Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53
that have more than one hundred
vehicles in peak revenue service must
develop and implement Safety
Assurance processes that include all of
the regulatory requirements under 49
CFR 673.27, specifically, processes for
safety performance monitoring and
measurement, management of change,
and continuous improvement.
Section 673.29(a) Safety Promotion
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to
require transit agencies to establish
comprehensive safety training programs
for staff and contractors directly
responsible for ‘‘the management of’’
safety. FTA received several comments
expressing confusion over this
requirement and the requirements of
FTA’s proposed Safety Certification
Training Program Rule, which applies to
staff and contractors who responsible
for safety ‘‘oversight’’ on rail transit
systems. In an effort to respond to the
commenters and to eliminate confusion,
FTA struck the language ‘‘the
management of’’ from the rule, so it now
requires safety training for staff and
contractors who are ‘‘directly
responsible for safety.’’
Section 673.31 Safety Plan
Documentation
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to
require transit agencies to maintain their
safety plan documents for a minimum of
three years. To add clarity in the final
rule, FTA is requiring transit agencies to
maintain safety plan documents for
three years ‘‘after they are created.’’
Also, in the NPRM, FTA proposed to
require a number of additional records
related to a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan. Specifically, FTA
proposed to require transit agencies to
maintain records related to (1) safety
risk mitigations, (2) results of safety
performance assessments, and (3)
employee safety training. FTA received
numerous comments requesting reduced
recordkeeping burdens. FTA also
received numerous comments, in
general, from smaller transit operators
requesting reduced regulatory burdens.
Upon review of these comments, FTA
has eliminated the recordkeeping
requirements in proposed 49 CFR
673.33 in their entirety. FTA believes
that the records developed and
maintained in accordance with 49 CFR
673.31 are sufficient to ensure that
transit agencies are complying with the
requirements of the statute and this final
rule. FTA believes that this change in
the final rule significantly will reduce
the administrative, financial, and
regulatory burdens on all transit
operators.
D. Costs and Benefits
As discussed in greater detail below,
FTA was able to estimate some but not
all of the rule’s costs. FTA was able to
estimate the costs for transit agencies to
develop and implement Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans,
which are approximately $41 million in
the first year, and $30 million in each
subsequent year, with annualized costs
of $31 million discounted at 7 percent.
These costs result from developing and
certifying safety plans, documenting
SMS processes and procedures,
implementing SMS, and maintaining
records. FTA was not able to estimate
the costs of actions that transit agencies
would be required to take to mitigate
risk as a result of implementing this
rule, such as vehicle modifications,
additional training, technology
investments, or changes to operating
procedures and practices. It is not
possible for FTA to anticipate the
strategies and actions agencies may
adopt to address safety risks, or the time
period over which these actions would
occur.
FTA was unable to quantify the rule’s
benefits. To estimate safety benefits, one
would need information regarding the
causes of safety events and the factors
that may cause future events. This
information is generally unavailable in
the public transportation sector, given
the infrequency and diversity of the
type of safety events that occur. In
addition, one would need information
about the safety problems that agencies
are likely to find through
implementation of their safety plans and
the actions agencies are likely to take to
address those problems. Instead of
quantifying benefits, FTA estimated the
potential safety benefits. The potential
safety benefits are an estimate of the
cost of all bus and rail safety events over
a future 20-year period. The estimate is
an extrapolation of the total cost of bus
and rail events that occurred from 2010
to 2016.
Table 1 below shows the summary of
the Costs and the Potential Benefits. The
benefits of the rule primarily will result
from mitigating actions, which largely
are not accounted for in this analysis.
FTA has not estimated the benefits of
implementing the rule without
mitigating actions, but expects they are
unlikely to be large. Estimated costs for
agencies’ safety plans include certain
activities that could yield safety
improvements, such as improved
communication, identification of
hazards, and greater employee
awareness, as well as increased
accountability at the higher echelons of
the organization. It is plausible that
these activities alone could produce
accident reductions that surpass the cost
of developing the plan, though even
greater reductions could be achieved in
concert with other mitigating actions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34422 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—S UMMARY OF THE COSTS AND THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS IF ADDITIONAL UNQUANTIFIED MITIGATION
INVESTMENTS OCCUR
[2016 Dollars]
Current dollar
value
7% Dis-
counted value
3% Dis-
counted value
Qualitative Benefits ........................................................................................................... ........... • Reduced bus and rail safety incidents with mitigation actions.
• Reduced delays in operations.
Estimated Costs (20-Year Estimate) ........................................................................................... $6 02,485,710 $323,732,747 $450,749,898 Unquantified Costs ............................................................................................................. ......... • Investments associated with mitigating safety risks (such as additional training, vehicle
modification, operational changes, maintenance,
and information dissemination).
Estimated Cost (Annualized) .................................................................................................... ... ........................ 30,558,081 30,297,473 II. Background
On July 6, 2012, the President signed
into law MAP–21 (Pub. L. 112–141).
MAP–21 authorized a number of
fundamental changes to the Federal
transit programs at 49 U.S.C. Chapter
53. This rule addresses the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan
within the Public Transportation Safety
Program authorized under 49 U.S.C.
5329. This authority was reauthorized
when the President signed into law the
FAST Act on December 4, 2015.
The Public Transportation Safety
Program consists of several key
elements: The National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, authorized
by 49 U.S.C. 5329(b); the Public
Transportation Safety Certification
Training Program, authorized by 49
U.S.C. 5329(c); the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans,
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); and the
State Safety Oversight Program,
authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e). FTA
has issued rules and guidance, and it
will continue to issue rules and
guidance, to carry out all of these plans
and programs under the rulemaking
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329 and
5334(a)(11).
On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans, the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan, the Safety Certification Training
Program, and a new Transit Asset
Management System. 78 FR 61251
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf).
Through the ANPRM, FTA sought
comments on 123 questions related to
the implementation of the public
transportation safety program and
transit asset management; 42 of the 123
questions specifically were related to
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans. The public comment period for
the ANPRM closed on January 2, 2014.
In response to the ANPRM, FTA
received comments from 167 entities,
including States, transit agencies, trade
associations, and individuals.
Following a comprehensive review of
the comments, FTA issued several
NPRMs for safety and transit asset
management. In particular, FTA issued
the NPRM for Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans on February 5,
2016. In this NPRM, FTA addressed
comments related to the 42 questions in
the ANPRM on Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans, specifically,
question numbers 8–10, 17–31, 33–44,
47, 107–110, 112, and 116–121.
Through the NPRM, FTA proposed to
create a new part 673 in Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, which
would require each operator of a public
transportation system to develop and
implement a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan. FTA proposed
specific requirements for these safety
plans in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d), including the following
minimum requirements:
• An approval by the transit agency’s
board of directors, or an equivalent
entity, and a signature from the transit
agency’s Accountable Executive;
• Documented processes and
procedures for an SMS, which would
include a Safety Management Policy, a
process for Safety Risk Management, a
process for Safety Assurance, and Safety
Promotion;
• Performance targets based on the
safety performance measures set out in
the National Public Transportation
Safety Plan;
• Compliance with FTA’s Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan and
FTA’s Public Transportation Safety
Program; and
• A process and timeline for
conducting an annual review and
update of the plan. In addition, rail
transit agencies would be required to
include an emergency preparedness and
response plan in their Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans.
In light of the public interest in this
rulemaking, and in an effort to provide
guidance on the proposal and to solicit
well-informed comments, FTA
conducted numerous public outreach
sessions and a webinar series related to
the NPRM. Specifically, on February 12,
2016, FTA conducted public outreach
for tribes and hosted a Tribal Technical
Assistance Workshop wherein FTA
presented its proposed rule and
responded to technical questions from
tribes. FTA subsequently delivered the
same presentation during a webinar
series open to all members of the public
on February 24, March 1, March 2, and
March 3. On March 7, FTA delivered
the same presentation at an outreach
session hosted by the National Rural
Transit Assistance Program, which also
was open to all members of the public.
During each of these public outreach
sessions and the public webinar series,
FTA received and responded to
numerous technical questions regarding
the NPRM. FTA recorded the
presentations, including the question
and answer sessions, and made
available the following documents on
the public docket for this rulemaking
(Docket FTA–2015–0021): (1) FTA’s
PowerPoint Presentation from the
public outreach sessions and public
webinar series (https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTA-
2015-0021-0012); (2) a written transcript
of FTA’s public webinar of March 1,
2016 (https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0010); (3)
a consolidated list of every Question
and FTA Answer from the public
outreach sessions and public webinar
series (https://www.regulations.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34423 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0041);
and (4) the results of polling questions
from FTA’s public outreach sessions
(https://www.regulations.gov/document
?D=FTA-2015-0021-0011). FTA also
uploaded onto YouTube an audiovisual
recording of its webinar from March 1,
2016. The video is available at the
following link: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBj5HRat
wGA&feature=youtu.be.
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Response to Relevant Comments
As stated above, FTA issued an NPRM
for Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans on February 5, 2016. 81 FR 6344
(https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2016-02-05/pdf/2016-02017.pdf). The
public comment period for the NPRM
subsequently closed on April 5, 2016.
FTA received approximately 647
comments from approximately 77
entities, including States, transit
agencies, trade associations, and
individuals. FTA reviewed all of the
comments and took them into
consideration when developing today’s
final rule. Some comments were outside
the scope of this rulemaking and FTA
did not respond to comments that were
outside the scope.
FTA received a number of comments
related to the definitions of terms that
are defined in other safety rulemakings.
For example, FTA received comments
on the terms, ‘‘Accident,’’ ‘‘Incident,’’
and ‘‘Occurrence,’’ which FTA defined
in the NPRM to provide clarity
regarding the types of safety ‘‘Events’’
that a transit agency should investigate,
and these terms are defined in the State
Safety Oversight (SSO) rulemaking.
Given that the Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan rule has a more
inclusive universe of stakeholders than
the SSO rule, FTA is including
responses to the majority of the
comments that it received related to
these and other definitions included in
other safety rules, but in this final rule,
FTA does not respond to comments
related to reporting thresholds and other
requirements under the final SSO rule.
On March 16, 2016, FTA issued a final
rule for State Safety Oversight (see
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2016-03-16/pdf/2016-05489.pdf for a
discussion of comments received on
these terms), and FTA has adopted
definitions found in that rulemaking in
this rulemaking, where appropriate.
Similarly, FTA received several
comments related to the definition of
the term ‘‘State of Good Repair,’’ which
FTA was required to define in a
rulemaking for transit asset management
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5326. On July 26,
2016, FTA issued a final rule for Transit
Asset Management wherein FTA defines
the term ‘‘State of Good Repair,’’ and
FTA has adopted that definition in this
rulemaking. Please review the preamble
of the Transit Asset Management final
rule for FTA’s responses to the
comments that it received related to the
proposed definition of ‘‘State of Good
Repair’’ (see https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2016-07-26/pdf/2016-
16883.pdf). Relatedly, a number of
commenters noted inconsistencies with
the definitions throughout FTA’s several
safety rulemakings. In response, FTA
has aligned the definitions in today’s
rule with other safety rulemakings and
the Transit Asset Management final rule
to ensure consistency.
Below, the NPRM comments and
responses are subdivided by their
corresponding sections of the proposed
rule and subject matter.
A. Scope and Applicability of Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans
1. Section 5310, Section 5311, Small
Section 5307, and Tribal Operators
Comments: Several commenters
supported FTA’s proposal to require
States to draft and certify safety plans
on behalf of recipients and
subrecipients of FTA financial
assistance through the Enhanced
Mobility of Seniors and Individuals
with Disabilities Program at Section
5310. Several commenters also
supported FTA’s proposal only to apply
this rule to Section 5310 recipients and
subrecipients that provide service open
to the public, and not to apply this rule
to Section 5310 recipients and
subrecipients that provide service
closed to the public and only available
for a particular clientele.
Several commenters recommended
that FTA exempt all Section 5310
recipients and subrecipients from this
rule. These commenters asserted that
many Section 5310 operators are not
traditional transit agencies—they are
human service organizations with a
small transportation service, and they
do not have sufficient staff, money, or
resources to implement all aspects of a
safety plan. One commenter stated that
recipients and subrecipients of FTA
financial assistance under Section 5310
and Section 5311 should not be
considered operators of public
transportation, and thus, they should
not be subject to this rule. Several
commenters also requested that tribal
transit operators be excluded from the
requirements of this rule.
A few commenters asserted that the
proposed delineation between ‘‘general
public’’ and ‘‘closed door’’ is
ambiguous. These commenters
expressed concern that many smaller
Section 5310 recipients may decide to
discontinue transit service, thus
reducing mobility for seniors and
individuals with disabilities.
One commenter stated that any new
regulations should be tailored for small
operators, and that FTA should avoid
adding additional requirements and
regulatory burdens. This commenter
requested that FTA consider an
exemption for transit agencies that
operate fewer than 30 vehicles in peak
revenue service. Another commenter
suggested requiring a limited set of
streamlined and simplified
requirements, without identifying what
those requirements might be.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding the
proposed applicability of this rule.
Pursuant to the statutory requirements
of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), ‘‘each recipient or
State’’ is required to draft and certify a
safety plan. The statute defines
‘‘recipient’’ to mean ‘‘a State or local
governmental authority, or any other
operator of a public transportation
system, that receives financial
assistance under [49 U.S.C. Chapter
53].’’
Notwithstanding this definition, and
in light of the public comments and
need for further evaluation, FTA is
deferring regulatory action regarding the
applicability of this rule to operators of
public transportation systems that only
receive Section 5310 and/or Section
5311 funds. Further evaluation of
information and safety data related to
these operators is needed to determine
the appropriate level of regulatory
burden necessary to address the safety
risk presented by these operators.
Consequently, the rule does not apply to
an operator of a public transportation
system that only receives Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C.
5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311.
FTA disagrees with the suggestion to
create a threshold of 30 vehicles in peak
revenue service, and it is adopting the
definition of ‘‘operator of a public
transportation system’’ as ‘‘a provider of
public transportation as defined under
49 U.S.C. 5302(14).’’
FTA agrees with the commenters who
suggested that the final rule should be
tailored for small operators and that the
final rule should have simplified
requirements. To that end, and as
discussed in more detail below, FTA
eliminated several significant
requirements related to Safety
Assurance for all small public
transportation providers. Additionally,
FTA eliminated requirements for Safety
Assurance and a series of recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34424 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations requirements for all transit operators,
regardless of size, in an effort to reduce
their administrative, financial, and
regulatory burdens.
2. Commuter Rail and Passenger Ferry
Service
Comments: Several commenters
supported FTA’s proposal to exclude
from this rule rail fixed guideway public
transportation (commuter rail) service
regulated by FRA. Several commenters
requested FTA to clarify that the rule
applies to rail transit systems not
subject to regulation by FRA. Three
commenters requested FTA to clarify
what it means to exclude rail transit
agencies subject to regulation by another
Federal agency. One commenter urged
FTA to ensure that the rule does not
duplicate the efforts of State Safety
Oversight Agencies (SSOAs) and overly
burden transit agencies.
One commenter suggested that FTA
replace the term ‘‘commuter rail
system’’ with the term ‘‘passenger rail
system.’’ This commenter stated that the
term ‘‘commuter’’ is not defined in the
rule, leaving no context for determining
what types of rail systems would be
excluded. The commenter also asserted
that rail transit agencies might provide
passenger rail service that is subject to
FRA regulations, but that service may
not be considered ‘‘commuter’’ service,
thus resulting in a too-narrow
description of ‘‘commuter’’ and a
contradiction to FTA’s intent to prevent
‘‘duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicting
regulations.’’
Several commenters supported FTA’s
proposal to exclude from this rule
passenger ferry service regulated by
USCG. Two commenters expressed
support for the exclusion of USCG-
inspected ferry vessels from the
proposed rule. However, these
commenters suggested that FTA should
revise the term ‘‘passenger ferries’’ to
clarify that the exclusion refers to
passenger-only ferry vessels and ferry
vessels that carry both passengers and
vehicles (the commenters suggested the
phrase ‘‘ferry as defined by title 46
United States Code 2101(10b)’’).
Additionally, this commenter urged
FTA to clarify that the exclusion of
USCG-inspected vessels applies to
subparts C and D of the proposed rule,
in addition to subpart B.
Response: FTA appreciates the
support for its proposal to exclude
passenger rail service regulated by FRA
and passenger ferry service regulated by
USCG from the requirements of this
rule. As discussed throughout this
document, this rule applies to each
operator of a public transportation
system, including rail fixed guideway
public transportation passenger rail
service that is not regulated by another
Federal agency. To further clarify, to the
extent that an operator of a public
transportation system provides
passenger rail service that is regulated
by FRA and rail fixed guideway public
transportation service that is not
regulated by FRA, this rule only would
apply to that portion of the rail fixed
guideway public transportation service
that is not regulated by FRA.
FTA appreciates the concerns
regarding the use of the term ‘‘commuter
rail system,’’ which is not defined in
this rule, and the suggestion to replace
the term ‘‘commuter rail system’’ with
the term ‘‘passenger rail system.’’
Instead, in an effort to use terms
consistently throughout all of FTA’s
rules and regulations, FTA is replacing
the term ‘‘commuter rail system’’ with
the term ‘‘rail fixed guideway public
transportation’’ and is adopting the
definition of this term as used in FTA’s
new State Safety Oversight (SSO) rule at
49 CFR part 674.
With respect to passenger ferry
service, FTA clarifies that this rule
would not apply to any passenger ferry
service that is regulated by USCG,
including passenger ferry service and
ferry service that involves the
transportation of both passengers and
vehicles. The exclusion of ferry service
regulated by USCG applies to the rule in
its entirety.
3. Contracted Service
Comments: Several commenters
requested FTA to clarify how the rule
would apply to transit agencies that
contract for transit service. A
commenter stated that the proposed
elements of PTASPs are being
implemented in the majority of transit
systems operated by contractors, but
contractors generally do not have direct
relationships with transit agencies’ top
leadership. A commenter requested that
FTA clarify how contracted agencies
should divide roles and responsibilities
and implement SMS without having to
revisit existing contractual agreements.
This commenter also encouraged FTA to
provide additional technical assistance
to assist agencies operating in contract
environments in the development and
implementation of PTASPs. Another
transit agency urged FTA to clarify the
extent to which the implementation and
administration of SMS principles could
be delegated to contractors. One
commenter stated that if inter-city bus
service is contracted, then the
contractor, not the transit agency,
should have primary responsibility for
safety and compliance with the rule.
Two commenters asked FTA to clarify
the rule’s application to paratransit
service. One of these commenters
requested clarification as to how the
rule would apply to an instance where
a contractor provides paratransit service
for a Section 5311 recipient and a
separate Section 5310 recipient.
Response: As noted above, the
statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)
require each ‘‘State or local
governmental authority, or any other
operator of a public transportation
system, that receives financial
assistance under [49 U.S.C. Chapter 53]’’
to draft and certify a safety plan.
Consequently, this rule applies to FTA’s
recipients and subrecipients, unless the
transit operator only receives Section
5310 and/or Section 5311 funds. To the
extent that a recipient or subrecipient
contracts for transit service, FTA will
defer to the recipient or subrecipient to
ensure that each of the requirements of
this rule are being satisfied through the
terms and conditions of its contract,
including the identification of safety
roles and responsibilities. Ultimately,
under the statute, each FTA recipient or
subrecipient has the responsibility to
ensure compliance with this rule and to
certify compliance annually—not a
contractor.
Similarly, paratransit service—
whether general public or ADA
complementary, and including
contracted paratransit service—is
subject to this rule, unless the transit
operator only receives Section 5310
and/or Section 5311 funds. To the
extent that a contractor provides
paratransit service for multiple FTA
recipients, each FTA recipient
ultimately has responsibility for
ensuring that its transit operation
complies with this rule.
B. Definitions
1. Accident
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concerns with the proposed
definition of ‘‘Accident.’’ Many of these
commenters expressed concern with the
phrase ‘‘a report of a serious injury to
a person’’ within the definition of
Accident. One commenter stated that
‘‘serious injury’’ relies on information
that a transit agency is unlikely to
possess or be able to validate. Another
commenter expressed that this phrase
would significantly increase transit
agencies’ notification and follow-up
burdens. One commenter stated that the
term ‘‘Accident’’ is a bias-laden term
which suggests that an undesirable
event could not be foreseen, prevented,
or avoided. This commenter also
asserted that the continued use of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34425 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations term diminishes advances made by
safety and risk management
professionals to adopt and promote bias-
free language describing and
categorizing incidents. Another
commenter suggested that the proposed
definition offers several categorizations
for accidents without regard to cause,
circumstance, or affected environment.
Several commenters suggested
alternatives for the proposed definition
of ‘‘Accident.’’ A commenter
recommended using the threshold for
accident notification in the former SSO
rule at 49 CFR 659.33: ‘‘[M]edical
attention away from the scene for two or
more individuals.’’ Another commenter
proposed that the definition for
‘‘Accident’’ should include a threshold
of at least $100,000, otherwise every
minor collision would be reportable in
accordance with 49 CFR part 674,
creating a burden on rail transit
agencies’ resources. This commenter
suggested that accidents which result in
property damage of $100,000 or less be
classified as ‘‘incidents,’’ and be
reportable to the SSOA and FTA, with
a corresponding report to the National
Transit Database (NTD) within thirty
days. Another commenter remarked that
the proposed definition of ‘‘Accident’’
should be more applicable to rail and
bus/paratransit operations by using
separate definitions for train and bus/
paratransit accidents. For bus/
paratransit, the commenter
recommended that FTA should use the
current Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) definition for
‘‘Accident’’ found in 49 CFR part 390.
The commenter suggested that FTA
could use an amended version of their
proposed definition for ‘‘Accident’’ for
rail operations that replaces ‘‘a report of
serious injury to a person,’’ with
‘‘injuries requiring immediate medical
attention away from the scene for two or
more individuals.’’
Response: FTA included the
definition of ‘‘Accident’’ in the
proposed rule because the term appears
in the definition of ‘‘Event’’ which is
mentioned in the Safety Assurance
section of the NPRM (a transit agency
must develop a process to ‘‘[i]nvestigate
safety events to identify causal factors’’).
FTA defined ‘‘Event’’ as an ‘‘Accident,
Incident, or Occurrence,’’ and to
provide guidance to the industry on
these terms, FTA defined them in its
safety rules. Notably, FTA finalized a
definition for ‘‘Accident’’ in its new
SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674, and FTA
is adopting that definition in today’s
rule to ensure consistency throughout
FTA’s regulatory framework for safety.
FTA did not propose any reporting or
notification requirements in this rule.
FTA established reporting and
notification requirements in the new
SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674 and FTA’s
NTD Reporting Manual. Today’s rule
requires transit agencies to develop
safety plans, and this rule outlines the
requirements for those plans.
Accordingly, FTA will not amend those
notification and reporting requirements
through today’s rule.
FTA disagrees with the commenter
who suggested that the phrase ‘‘serious
injury’’ will increase transit agencies’
notification and follow-up burdens; this
language should simplify, streamline,
and make consistent any follow-up
process. FTA also disagrees with the
commenter who stated that the term
‘‘Accident’’ is a bias-laden term. Its use
is intended to define the universe of
safety Events that must be investigated.
FTA disagrees with the suggestion that
the proposed definition offers several
categorizations for Accidents without
regard to cause, circumstance, or
affected environment. FTA has offered
clarification on this term in Appendix A
to the new SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674
(https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2016-03-16/pdf/2016-05489.pdf).
FTA acknowledges that a transit
agency may have difficulty ascertaining
a precise type of injury due to medical
privacy laws. FTA does not expect
transit agencies to violate any medical
privacy laws to determine whether an
injury is serious. FTA does not expect
transit agencies to seek medical records
of individuals involved in Accidents
that may have resulted in serious
injuries.
FTA disagrees with the commenter
who recommended using the threshold
for accident notification in 49 CFR
659.33, ‘‘medical attention away from
the scene for two or more individuals,’’
as FTA believes that a serious injury to
a single person is of sufficient concern
to warrant designation as an
‘‘Accident.’’ Additionally, ambulance
transportation away from the scene may
not necessarily be an accurate indicator
of the actual gravity of the Event, given
the possibility of ambulance operators
transporting individuals with minor
injuries.
FTA disagrees with the commenter
who suggested that the definition of
‘‘Accident’’ include a threshold of at
least $100,000, and that Events which
result in property damage of $100,000 or
less be classified as ‘‘Incidents.’’ FTA
did not utilize the original $25,000
threshold for ‘‘Accident’’ in the SSO
rule because most collisions involving
rail transit vehicles exceeds $25,000 in
property or equipment damage and FTA
believes that any threshold for property
damage is arbitrary when determining
whether an Event qualifies as an
Accident. Removal of the $25,000
threshold also eliminates any need to
separate rail transit property from non-
rail transit property when making an
assessment of damages.
Finally, FTA disagrees with the
commenter who suggested that the
proposed definition of ‘‘Accident’’ be
made more applicable to rail and bus/
paratransit by using separate definitions
for train and bus/paratransit accidents.
FTA intends to be consistent with its
definitions, especially since this final
rule applies to all operators of public
transportation systems.
2. Incident
Comments: One commenter stated
that the proposed definition of
‘‘Incident’’ seems broad and undefined,
asserting that under the proposed
definition, any reported injury could be
classified as an Incident. Another
commenter asked how to distinguish
between medical transport for serious
and non-serious injuries. A commenter
asked FTA to clarify what is considered
‘‘damage to facilities, equipment, rolling
stock, or infrastructure’’ and how
‘‘damage’’ would be assessed to
determine qualification for an Incident.
Additionally, the commenter asked how
a transit agency would differentiate
damage and a simple mechanical issue,
and whether every defect found on an
inspection would now be considered
‘‘damage.’’ This commenter also
remarked that the terms ‘‘personal
injury’’ and ‘‘injury,’’ which are used in
the definition for ‘‘Incident,’’ are not
defined. A commenter suggested that
the definition of ‘‘Accident’’ would be
the better place to include one or more
injuries requiring medical transport
away from the scene.
One commenter asked whether a
transit agency must track Incidents.
Another commenter stated that the
Appendix to 49 CFR part 674 requires
rail transit agencies to report Incidents
to FTA using NTD within thirty days;
the commenter asked whether transit
agencies providing bus transportation
also must report bus-related incidents to
FTA using NTD.
Response: FTA included the
definition of ‘‘Incident’’ in the proposed
rule because the term appears in the
definition of ‘‘Event’’ which is
mentioned in the Safety Assurance
section of the NPRM (a transit agency
must develop a process to ‘‘[i]investigate
safety events to identify causal factors’’).
FTA defined ‘‘Event’’ as an ‘‘Accident,
Incident, or Occurrence,’’ and to
provide guidance to the industry on
these terms, FTA defined them in its
safety rules. Notably, FTA finalized a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34426 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2 See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
(11th edition).
definition for ‘‘Incident’’ in its new SSO
rule at 49 CFR part 674, and FTA is
adopting that definition in today’s rule
to ensure consistency throughout FTA’s
regulatory framework for safety.
FTA disagrees with the commenter
who stated that the definition of
‘‘Incident’’ is broad and undefined and
that any reported injury could be
classified as an Incident. As discussed
in more detail in response to the
comments on the definition for ‘‘Serious
Injury,’’ FTA believes that there is a
clear delineation between ‘‘serious
injury’’ and ‘‘non-serious injury.’’
FTA provided guidance in Appendix
A to 49 CFR part 674 on how to define
‘‘damage to facilities, equipment, rolling
stock, or infrastructure’’ and how
‘‘damage’’ would be assessed to
determine qualification for an Incident.
In Appendix A, ‘‘damage’’ that meets
the Incident threshold is any non-
collision-related damage to equipment,
rolling stock, or infrastructure that
disrupts the operations of a transit
agency. Ultimately, each transit agency
must assess the safety risk associated
with any damage to its equipment
facilities, equipment, rolling stock, or
infrastructure, and whether it meets the
definition of Accident, Incident, or
Occurrence.
FTA does not believe that it is
necessary to define ‘‘injury’’ or
‘‘personal injury’’ in this rule, and it
defines ‘‘Serious Injury’’ for purposes of
establishing a threshold by which an
Event would be considered an Accident
instead of an Incident. In today’s rule,
FTA has revised the definitions of
‘‘Accident’’ and ‘‘Incident’’ to make
them consistent with FTA’s SSO rule at
49 CFR part 674. Under the updated
definitions, one or more ‘‘serious
injuries’’ is the threshold for Accident
and one or more non-serious injuries
requiring medical transport away from
the scene is considered an Incident.
Under FTA’s new SSO rule at 49 CFR
part 674, a rail transit agency must track
and report an ‘‘Incident’’ through NTD,
as has been the historical practice.
Furthermore, a transit agency also must
report Incident information for other
modes to FTA through NTD. Please refer
to the NTD Reporting Manual for further
information on what information is
collected on safety Events as a well as
Accidents and Incidents, for both rail
transit and bus agencies.
3. Occurrence
Comments: One commenter asked
how damage would be differentiated
from mechanical issues or normal wear-
and-tear. This commenter asked FTA to
clarify the relationship between
‘‘Occurrence’’ and ‘‘Injury’’ given that
neither ‘‘personal injury’’ nor ‘‘injury’’
are defined in the rule. Another
commenter asked FTA to define
‘‘disrupt transit operations.’’ Finally,
one commenter recommended omitting
the proposed definition because it is too
broad and does not serve a clear
purpose.
Response: FTA included the
definition of ‘‘Occurrence’’ in the
proposed rule because the term appears
in the definition of ‘‘Event’’ which is
mentioned in the Safety Assurance
section of the NPRM (a transit agency
must develop a process to ‘‘[i]investigate
safety events to identify causal factors’’).
FTA defined ‘‘Event’’ as an ‘‘Accident,
Incident, or Occurrence,’’ and to
provide guidance to the industry on
these terms, FTA defined them in its
safety rules. Notably, FTA finalized a
definition for ‘‘Occurrence’’ in its new
SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674, and FTA
is adopting that definition in today’s
rule to ensure consistency throughout
FTA’s regulatory framework for safety.
FTA believes that there is a clear
distinction between damage and
mechanical issues or normal wear and
tear. Damage is physical harm done to
something or someone.
2 Mechanical
issues and normal wear and tear are not
the result of something or someone
inflicting harm on equipment, facilities,
equipment, rolling stock, or
infrastructure.
A disruption to transit operations
could be any interference with normal
transit service at an agency. An
Occurrence is a safety Event that only
involves a disruption of transit service.
A safety Event that results in a serious
or non-serious injury would not be an
Occurrence.
FTA disagrees with the commenter
who suggested that FTA should omit the
proposed definition of ‘‘Occurrence’’
because it does not serve a clear
purpose. The definition helps identify
the universe of activity that a transit
agency should investigate because it
could present a safety risk.
4. Serious Injury
Comments: Several commenters
stated that transit agencies would not be
able to obtain enough information about
injuries to classify them as ‘‘serious,’’
given Federal Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) privacy regulations. These
commenters suggested that HIPAA
privacy regulations prevent transit
agencies from obtaining personal
medical information from individuals
involved in accidents. One commenter
remarked that, in their experience,
hospital staff refused to provide
personal medical information to a
transit police officer.
One commenter recommended that
FTA should explain how transit
agencies and SSOAs can comply with
this definition, and this commenter
suggested that FTA create the legal
authority for States to do so, or develop
an alternative approach. A commenter
remarked that if FTA has authority to
obtain this type of information, then
FTA should do so on its own accord.
The commenter asked if it would meet
one of the exemptions from the
Government in the Sunshine Act if FTA
collects information. One commenter
asked how FTA would address and
reconcile the proposed definition with
other applicable Federal policies and
regulations.
One commenter asked whether FTA
would expect transit agencies, States,
and SSOAs to obtain contact
information for every individual
involved in an accident, and then
monitor local hospitals or contact these
individuals in the seven-day period to
determine if anyone involved in the
accident had to be hospitalized for more
than 48 hours as a result of this
accident. Finally, one commenter asked
whether a doctor would be required to
respond to every transit event that has
the possibility of being classified as an
accident to triage the situation and
determine whether the event meets the
definition of an accident.
Several commenters expressed
concern about the definition of ‘‘Serious
Injury’’ and its associated burden on
transit agency staff. A commenter
concluded that the proposed definition
would require transit agencies, States,
and SSOAs to step outside their training
to practice some form of medicine—for
which they are not licensed—to comply
with the proposed rule, unless transit
agencies, States, and SSOAs are
expected to hire trained medical
personnel as a part of their programs.
The commenter stated that transit
agency staff may not be aware of the
nature or extent of an individual’s
injury, and these staff may only know
that an individual was transported away
from the scene for medical attention
with very limited ability (and no
authority) to confirm the individual’s
injury status. A commenter stated that,
in order to meet a similar FRA
requirement, the commenter expends
considerable resources following up on
individual claims, and is sometimes
unable to properly classify events for
months or years after the event date.
The commenter concluded that the
resources needed to gather this
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34427 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations proposed information would be
burdensome, as the volume of
passengers is much greater for FTA.
A commenter asserted that transit
agency staff could report certain
findings on their initial incident reports,
but this effort would be burdensome,
and the transit agency staff would have
to rely on eyewitness reports rather than
medical professionals’ opinions,
rendering the effort unreliable. The
commenter asked whether an initial
patient/scene assessment would suffice,
or whether a definitive medical
diagnosis would be required.
Several commenters suggested
alternatives to the proposed definition
of ‘‘Serious Injury.’’ Two commenters
recommended that FTA use the
definition in the former SSO rule at 49
CFR 659.33, which states that an
accident involves injuries if there is a
need for ‘‘immediate medical attention
away from the scene for two or more
individuals.’’ According to these
commenters, verifying transport away
from the scene would have several
benefits, such as: Not requiring transit
agencies, States, and SSOAs to practice
medicine to classify events; avoiding
HIPAA complications; allowing events
classified as accidents and incidents to
be reported and investigated in a timely
manner; being a more reasonable
threshold for injury definitions;
requiring only easily attainable
information; and its alignment with
NTD reporting requirements.
One commenter questioned how FTA
determined the classification for
‘‘serious’’ and questioned how serious
an injury could be if no medical
treatment was sought for seven days.
The commenter stated that FTA needs
to define ‘‘serious’’ and remove the
subjectivity of whether or not an injury
is serious. Two commenters asked for
the value of defining ‘‘Serious Injury’’
(that is, why does FTA want to collect
this information and how would it
enhance overall safety). One commenter
recommended that FTA remove this
definition from all of its safety rules.
Response: Through the Safety
Assurance section of today’s rule (49
CFR 673.27), FTA requires each
operator of a public transportation
system to develop a process for
conducting investigations of safety
events to identify causal factors. FTA
defines the word ‘‘Event,’’ to mean an
‘‘Accident, Incident, or Occurrence,’’
and FTA defines ‘‘Accident’’ to mean,
among other things, ‘‘a report of a
serious injury to a person.’’ To provide
guidance to the industry on this term,
FTA defined ‘‘Serious Injury’’ in its
safety rules, including its new SSO rule
at 49 CFR part 674. FTA is adopting the
definition of ‘‘Serious Injury’’ from the
new SSO rule to ensure consistency
throughout FTA’s regulatory framework
for safety.
FTA has addressed comments
regarding its proposed definition of
‘‘Serious Injury’’ in the final SSO rule at
49 CFR part 674 (https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-16/pdf/2016-
05489.pdf) and in its responses to the
definition of ‘‘Accident,’’ above. FTA
acknowledges that a transit agency may
have difficulty ascertaining a precise
type of injury due to medical privacy
laws, such as HIPPA. FTA does not
expect transit agencies to violate these
laws in order to obtain the information
needed to determine whether an injury
is serious, and it does not expect transit
agencies to request the medical records
of individuals involved in safety Events
that may be classified as Accidents
resulting in Serious Injuries. Nor does
FTA expect transit agency staff to
undergo medical training in order to
determine whether an injury meets the
threshold of ‘‘serious.’’ Instead, FTA
expects safety personnel to exercise a
common sense approach when
evaluating injuries. As several
commenters noted, some injuries may
be readily known or observable at the
scene of an event, in which case, a
transit agency may make a
determination as to whether an injury is
serious. Other injuries may not be
apparent until the individual undergoes
a medical examination, in which case
the injury would be deemed ‘‘serious’’
only if a transit agency becomes aware
that the injury meets the threshold for
seriousness. FTA believes that a transit
agency may utilize these approaches
when determining the seriousness of an
injury, and it does not believe that it
needs to reconcile the definition of
‘‘Serious Injury’’ with other laws.
Given the ability of transit agencies to
make observations at the scenes of
safety events and to evaluate data and
information collected at these scenes,
FTA does not believe that any burdens
of this rule are unreasonable. FTA does
not expect transit agencies to monitor
local hospitals or contact individuals
involved in safety events within the
seven day period to determine if the
individuals were hospitalized for more
than 48 hours. FTA is not requiring
doctors to respond to every safety Event
that has the possibility of being
classified as an Accident to triage the
situation and determine whether the
event meets the definition of an
Accident, and FTA is not requiring
transit agencies to hire medical
personnel. In today’s rule, FTA is
requiring transit agencies to develop a
process for conducting safety
investigations.
5. Accountable Executive
Comments: FTA received numerous
comments regarding its proposed
definition of ‘‘Accountable Executive.’’
Several commenters provided input on
the definition of ‘‘Accountable
Executive’’ as it relates to ‘‘Chief Safety
Officer.’’ One commenter stated that,
according to the proposed rule, the
Accountable Executive is responsible
for implementing and maintaining the
SMS; however, this should be a primary
responsibility of the Chief Safety
Officer. Another commenter asked
whether an Accountable Executive
would experience a conflict of interest
if he or she also serves as the Chief
Safety Officer or SMS Executive, as
allowed under proposed 49 CFR
673.23(d)(2), because the duties also
involve operational, financial, and other
responsibilities that may be in conflict
with safety responsibilities.
Several commenters recommended
that FTA clarify in the final rule that
State officials are not ‘‘Accountable
Executives’’ unless the State is a transit
operator, and if so, only with respect to
the State’s activities as a transit
operator. Several commenters asked
whether the Accountable Executive is
the chief elected official, such as a
county executive or mayor, in cases
where the transit operator is a county or
city government. A transit agency, with
a general manager who is responsible
for the day-to-day aspects of the transit
system and a chief administrator who is
responsible for the administrative
aspects of the organization, asked how
it would designate a single Accountable
Executive who meets all of the criteria
of 49 CFR part 673.
A few commenters expressed
concerns about the overlapping and
burdensome responsibilities of the
Accountable Executive, which may not
allow for sufficient attention to safety.
Several commenters said the proposed
definition may give an elected official or
board chair the designation of an
Accountable Executive despite serving
at a policy, rather than an operational,
level. A transit agency argued that the
proposed definition is ambiguous and
inconsistent with the proposed National
Public Transportation Safety Plan, and
some definitions state that the
Accountable Executive is in charge of an
asset management plan, while other
areas omit this requirement. One
commenter asserted that the job duties
of planning staff are inherently much
different from maintenance staff
activities, and staff should report to
their respective managers instead of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34428 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations single executive. Similarly, a
commenter stated that, in some
instances, a transit agency’s reporting
structure is shaped by State or local
laws to promote a separation of duties
and financial checks and balances, and
these important governmental tenets
should not be disrupted by the new
safety requirements. Several
commenters suggested that the
definition of Accountable Executive
may not be applicable in some non-
traditional transit agency hierarchies.
Several commenters suggested that
the Accountable Executive should be a
general manager, president, or
equivalent officer who is responsible for
safety, asset management, and human
resources, but not have full control over
the budgeting process. Another
commenter stated that that proposed
definition may be inappropriate because
having one Accountable Executive for
SMS, the asset management plan, and
the safety plan is ineffective because the
Accountable Executive should be
represented by different individuals for
each regulatory program. The
commenter recommended that FTA
define an Accountable Executive to be
‘‘an individual who is responsible for
the Safety Management System and
Agency Safety Plan, who shall be
required to have a role in the [transit
asset management plan] and investment
prioritization for the respective agency.’’
Response: Each transit operator must
identify an Accountable Executive
within its organization who ultimately
is responsible for carrying out and
implementing its safety plan and asset
management plan. And to be clear, a
State that drafts a plan on behalf of
another recipient or subrecipient is not
the Accountable Executive for those
transit operators.
An Accountable Executive should be
a transit operator’s chief executive; this
person is often the president, chief
executive officer, or general manager.
FTA understands that at many smaller
transit operators, roles and
responsibilities are more fluid.
However, FTA believes that, even in
circumstances where responsibilities are
either shared or delegated, there must be
one primary decision-maker who is
ultimately responsible for both safety
and transit asset management. It is a
basic management tenet that
accountabilities flow top-down.
Therefore, as a management system,
safety and transit asset management
require that accountability reside with
an operator’s top executive.
FTA received numerous comments on
its proposed definition of ‘‘Accountable
Executive’’ in its rulemaking on transit
asset management, and FTA directs
readers to the final Transit Asset
Management rule at 49 CFR part 625 for
further information (https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-07-26/
pdf/2016-16883.pdf).
6. Chief Safety Officer
Comments: One commenter agreed
with FTA that a Chief Safety Officer
should not serve in other service,
operational, or maintenance capacities.
Several commenters agreed with FTA’s
proposal to allow Section 5310, Section
5311, and small public transportation
providers to designate as the Chief
Safety Officer a person who also
undertakes other functions. Several
commenters asked FTA to clarify the
term ‘‘adequately trained.’’
One commenter expressed concern
that FTA may be assuming that any rail
transit agency is large enough to merit
its own Chief Safety Officer with no
additional operational or maintenance
responsibilities, indicating that this
requirement is burdensome because a
rail transit agency would have to hire or
contract a separate Chief Safety Officer
for a limited role. The commenter
suggested that FTA should permit an
exemption for small rail transit agencies
similar to the exemption for small
public transportation providers to
resolve this concern. This commenter
also asked FTA to clarify whether a
Chief Safety Officer has to be in the
direct employ of a rail transit agency
and whether he or she could be a part-
time employee.
A commenter stated that FTA has
proposed, but not promulgated, training
rules for SSOA managers, Federal
employees, and transit agency staff who
are responsible for safety oversight, and
argued that these training requirements
also should apply to a Chief Safety
Officer prior to designation by the
Accountable Executive.
One commenter stated that the terms
‘‘Chief Safety Officer’’ and ‘‘Safety
Officer’’ are inconsistently used, and the
term ‘‘Safety Officer’’ was not defined in
the NPRM. To rectify this inconsistency,
the commenter, who concluded that it is
implied that the Safety Officer is the
Chief Safety Officer, suggested that FTA
should replace the term ‘‘Safety Officer’’
with ‘‘Chief Safety Officer.’’
Response: FTA appreciates the
support from commenters regarding its
proposed definition of ‘‘Chief Safety
Officer.’’ Given the different sizes of
transit operators, and given the varying
operating environments of transit
systems across the nation, FTA is
deferring to each transit operator to
determine the level of training that is
adequate for their Chief Safety Officer.
FTA disagrees with the commenter
who suggested that a Chief Safety
Officer at a rail transit agency should be
able to have multiple roles within the
organization. Given the more complex
operating environments of rail transit
systems and the increased safety risks in
these environments, FTA will not allow
the Chief Safety Officers for rail transit
agencies to have additional operational
and maintenance responsibilities; it is
necessary to have a single individual
wholly dedicated to ensuring safety.
FTA believes that this role should be a
full-time responsibility at rail transit
agencies, unless a rail transit agency
petitions FTA to allow its Chief Safety
Officer to serve multiple roles given
administrative and financial hardships
with having a single, dedicated, and
full-time Chief Safety Officer.
Finally, FTA notes that all references
to the term ‘‘Safety Officer’’ in the
NPRM were intended to mean the term
‘‘Chief Safety Officer.’’
7. Operator of Public Transportation
System
Comments: One commenter suggested
that an ‘‘Operator of a Public
Transportation System’’ should be ‘‘any
organization, agency, or company that
operates, or contracts someone to
operate, any mode of transportation that
is used by the general public in a
defined city, State, or region.’’
Response: The proposed rule defines
‘‘Operator of a Public Transportation
System’’ as ‘‘a provider of public
transportation as defined under 49
U.S.C. 5302(14), and which does not
provide service that is closed to the
general public and only available for a
particular clientele.’’ Given that FTA is
deferring action regarding the
applicability of this rule to Section 5310
recipients, FTA has changed this
definition in the final rule to be ‘‘a
provider of public transportation as
defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302(14).’’ The
additional language—‘‘and which does
not provide service that is closed to the
general public and only available for a
particular clientele’’—is not needed
since the rule is not applicable to
Section 5310 recipients at this time.
FTA believes that the proposed
definition is sufficiently broad to
encompass the categories of transit
providers referenced in the commenter’s
definition. FTA does not agree that the
definition needs to specify that an
operator provide service in a defined
city, State, or region.
8. Rail Transit Agency
Comments: The proposed rule defines
a ‘‘Rail Transit Agency’’ as ‘‘any entity
that provides services on a rail fixed
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34429 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations guideway public transportation
system.’’ One commenter asked FTA to
clarify whether the proposed definition
applies equally to a public transit
operator and a contracted private firm
that operates and maintains services on
a rail fixed guideway public
transportation system.
Response: This rule applies to any
operator of a public transportation
system that receives Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53,
including rail transit operators that
receive FTA funds and are not regulated
by FRA, unless the operator only
receives Section 5310 and/or Section
5311 funds. The application of this rule
extends to contracted private firms that
operate public transportation and
receive FTA funds, but it does not
extend to private contractors that
provide service that is not public
transportation.
9. Performance Target, Safety
Performance Target, and Performance
Criteria
Comments: One commenter remarked
that the proposed definition for
‘‘Performance Target’’ needs clarity.
Another commenter stated that FTA
should consider deleting the proposed
definition for ‘‘Performance Target,’’
because the proposed definition for
‘‘Safety Performance Target’’ is more
appropriate for this safety-related rule.
This commenter also suggested revising
the definition of ‘‘Safety Performance
Target’’ to ‘‘a specific level of
measurable performance for a given
safety performance criteria over a
specified timeframe.’’
FTA proposed to define ‘‘Performance
Criteria’’ as ‘‘categories of measures
indicating the level of safe performance
within a transit agency.’’ One
commenter stated that this definition is
confusing and possibly inconsistent
with the proposed National Public
Transportation Safety Plan. The
commenter stated that the terms
‘‘Criteria’’ and ‘‘Measures’’ appear to be
synonymous, and proposed the
following definition for ‘‘Performance
Criteria’’: ‘‘Categories of safety
performance measures that focus on the
reduction of safety events, both for the
public who use or interface with the rail
system, and employees who operate and
maintain the system.’’
Response: As appropriate, FTA has
incorporated into this rule definitions
that appear in other rulemakings
undertaken pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329
and 5326, as well as the final joint
FHWA/FTA Planning Rule which was
published May 27, 2016 (see https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-05-27/
pdf/2016-11964.pdf). Accordingly, FTA
has revised the definition of
‘‘Performance Target’’ and added the
definition of ‘‘Performance Measure’’ to
match the definitions used in the joint
FHWA/FTA Planning rule and FTA’s
Transit Asset Management rule.
To avoid redundancy, FTA is deleting
the definition for ‘‘Safety Performance
Target’’ and keeping the definition of
‘‘Performance Target,’’ since these terms
are one and the same for purposes of
this rule.
FTA had to reconcile the use of
similar terms throughout its statutory
authorizations for safety and asset
management, including the terms
‘‘criteria’’ and ‘‘measures.’’ Although
Congress used two different terms
throughout 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, it
intended these terms to be synonymous.
In the NPRM, FTA proposed to define
‘‘Performance Criteria’’ to mean
‘‘categories of measures indicating the
level of safe performance within a
transit agency,’’ but to eliminate
confusion in this final rule, FTA
removes that term, replaces it with the
term ‘‘Performance Measure,’’ and
incorporates the definition of
‘‘Performance Measure’’ as used in
FTA’s Transit Asset Management rule.
Consequently, FTA uses the term
‘‘Performance Measure,’’ in the place of
‘‘Performance Criteria,’’ throughout this
final rule.
10. Small Public Transportation
Provider
Comments: The proposed rule defines
‘‘Small Public Transportation Provider’’
as ‘‘a recipient or subrecipient of
Urbanized Area Formula Program funds
under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that has one
hundred (100) or fewer vehicles in
revenue service and does not operate a
rail fixed guideway public
transportation system.’’
Several commenters requested FTA to
clarify that the ‘‘100 buses in revenue
service standard’’ applies only to
recipients of Section 5307 funds, and
not recipients of Section 5310 or 5311
funds. One commenter asked whether
the threshold of 100 vehicles in revenue
service refers to total revenue fleet
vehicles, peak vehicles, or something
else. Another commenter that operates
commuter rail service regulated by FRA,
but has fewer than 100 buses in revenue
service, asserted that they met the
definition of a ‘‘Small Public
Transportation Provider.’’ The
commenter stated it posed this assertion
to FTA during a webinar for this
rulemaking on March 2, 2016, and it
requested that FTA clarification the
application of the rule to its scenario.
A couple of commenters remarked
that the proposed definition for ‘‘Small
Public Transportation Provider’’
differed between related rulemakings
and notices, specifically the TAM
proposed rule and FTA’s Circular
9030.1E. Commenters noted that the
TAM rule’s reference to ‘‘in revenue
service’’ is a typical definition in the
industry and should be adhered to
across all proposed rulemakings.
Other commenters suggested that the
definition include providers with ‘‘100
or fewer fixed-route vehicles,’’ or be
based on the service area’s population
rather than the number of buses.
Additionally, one commenter suggested
that vanpool fleets that are not open to
the general public should be counted as
revenue service vehicles.
Several commenters noted that
significant differences exist between rail
transit operators, large bus operators,
and smaller operators, particularly in
the ways in which they conduct
business and in the rate of accidents and
the consequences of those accidents.
One commenter stated that the
categories in the proposed rule are too
broad and rigid and could have
unintended consequences for small
operators. The commenter remarked
that the rigidity of a ‘‘two-tier system’’
could cause a Section 5307 recipient,
with under 100 vehicles, to have their
oversight provided by the State. Another
commenter stated that the two-tier
system does not take into account a
Section 5311 recipient that may serve
multiple counties with over 100
vehicles. The commenter remarked that
there is no definition for this type of
system within the ‘‘tiers’’ and that the
Section 5311 recipient might be bumped
into a higher category. One commenter
suggested adding a third tier for systems
operating fifty or fewer vehicles and no
rail fixed guideway public
transportation service to provide States
with the opportunity to implement SMS
scalable to the size and complexity of
the transit organization.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding its
proposed definition for ‘‘Small Public
Transportation Provider.’’ FTA agrees
with the commenters who suggested
that FTA align this definition with the
definition in the final TAM rule, and
FTA agrees with the commenters who
suggested that FTA create the threshold
for Small Public Transportation
Providers based on vehicles utilized in
peak revenue service, as opposed to
revenue service in general, as peak
revenue service is a threshold
commonly used in the transit industry.
Therefore, in today’s final rule, FTA
defines ‘‘Small Public Transportation
Provider’’ to mean ‘‘a recipient or
subrecipient of Federal financial
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34430 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that has
one hundred (100) or fewer vehicles in
peak revenue service and does not
operate a rail fixed guideway public
transportation system.’’
11. Requests for New Definitions
Comments: One commenter requested
that FTA add new definitions for the
term ‘‘safety performance assessment.’’
One commenter recommended that FTA
clarify whether the term ‘‘Public
Transportation Vehicle’’ includes rail,
bus, paratransit, maintenance, and non-
revenue vehicles. Several commenters
recommended that FTA define the term
‘‘Transit Provider’’ as follows: ‘‘A State
is not considered to be a transit provider
by virtue of passing on funds to
subrecipients under 49 U.S.C. 5310,
5311, or 5339, administering these
programs, developing and implementing
a TAM plan, or safety plan or certifying
a safety plan, or taking any other steps
required of a State by Chapter 53 of title
49, United States Code or other Federal
statue, or by this or other FTA rules.’’
Response: For purposes of
implementing this rule, FTA does not
find it necessary to further define the
term ‘‘safety performance assessment.’’
Generally, this term refers to a transit
agency’s evaluation of its success of
managing safety risks. To the extent
there is any confusion over this term,
FTA will provide technical assistance.
FTA notes that a public transportation
vehicle may include rail, bus,
paratransit, maintenance, and non-
revenue vehicles, as the term is utilized
in the definition of ‘‘Accident.’’
Finally, FTA did not propose to
define the term ‘‘Transit Provider’’ in
the NPRM, and FTA believes that the
term is sufficiently descriptive and does
not need to be defined in this rule.
C. General Requirements
Comments: Several commenters
provided high-level feedback regarding
the general requirements for PTASPs as
proposed in 49 CFR 673.11. One
commenter suggested that FTA should
clearly emphasize that these elements
are minimum requirements and that a
transit agency should be able to enhance
its SMS and incorporate tools and best
practices that are proven to be effective,
particularly given the adaptability,
scalability, and flexibility of SMS.
One commenter asserted that the
combination of the general requirements
for each written safety plan, along with
the requirements to ‘‘establish SMS
processes,’’ results in a lack of clarity
regarding the required contents of the
actual document that a transit agency
would consider to be its safety plan.
This commenter stated that FTA should
provide at least the same degree of
specificity with regard to the required
contents of a transit agency’s written
safety plan that FTA provided for SSPPs
under the former SSO rule at 49 CFR
part 659.
Response: As discussed throughout
today’s final rule, SMS is scalable and
flexible, and it can be adapted to any
transit agency’s unique operating
environment. The requirements in the
rule provide the skeleton framework for
safety plans, and FTA encourages transit
agencies to incorporate tools and best
practices that effectively mitigate and
eliminate safety risks throughout their
systems.
To be clear, each written safety plan
must include the documented processes
and procedures related to SMS, and the
written plan must include each of the
other requirements as outlined in the
rule. FTA intentionally drafted broad,
non-prescriptive requirements for SMS
in an effort to develop a safety
framework that could fit within the
thousands of unique transit operating
environments across the nation.
1. Role of the Accountable Executive
Comments: Pursuant to FTA’s
proposed provisions at 49 CFR
673.11(a)(1), each transit agency’s
Accountable Executive must sign the
agency’s safety plan and subsequent
updates thereto. One commenter
supported this provision and asserted
that the requirement is essential for
SMS and for maintaining a positive
safety culture. Another commenter
agreed that the Accountable Executive
with budgetary authority should review
and approve the safety plan.
A couple of commenters asked
whether the Accountable Executive
must be the same individual for
purposes of approving the agency’s
safety plan and the agency’s transit asset
management plan, and they asked
whether the Accountable Executive
must be the individual explicitly
‘‘responsible for implementing SMS.’’
These commenters also inquired about
the Accountable Executive’s role for
municipal government agencies, and
they asked whether the head of a city’s
department of transportation, the head
of a city’s department of public works,
or a city manager may serve as the
Accountable Executive for a municipal
government agency, as opposed to a
city’s mayor.
Response: As a preliminary matter,
FTA distinguishes the role of the
Accountable Executive from the role of
a Board of Directors, or an Equivalent
Authority. Pursuant to 49 CFR
673.11(a)(1), the Accountable Executive
must sign the safety plan; the Board of
Directors or an Equivalent Authority
must approve the safety plan in
accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(A).
Given the varying sizes and natures of
transit systems, FTA defers to those
systems in their designation of an
Accountable Executive, so long as that
single individual has the ultimate
responsibility and accountability for the
implementation and maintenance of the
SMS of a public transportation agency;
responsibility for carrying out the
agency’s transit asset management plan;
and control or direction over the human
and capital resources needed to develop
and maintain both the agency’s public
transportation agency safety plan and
the agency’s transit asset management
plan. For municipal government
agencies, that individual could be a
county executive or a mayor, or it could
be the head of a city’s department of
transportation, the head of a city’s
department of public works, or a city
manager. FTA has offered this non-
exhaustive list of examples of
Accountable Executives for illustrative
purposes only. And while many
individuals within a transit agency may
be responsible for ‘‘implementing’’
SMS, the Accountable Executive is the
individual with the ultimately
responsibility for SMS implementation
at the agency.
2. Approval of a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan
Comments: Pursuant to FTA’s
proposed provisions at 49 CFR
673.11(a)(1), each transit agency would
be required to have its safety plan, and
subsequent updates thereto, approved
by the agency’s Board of Directors, or an
Equivalent Authority. One commenter
supported this provision, indicating that
this activity is essential for SMS and for
maintaining a positive safety culture.
Several commenters asserted that the
agency’s Accountable Executive, not the
Board of Directors, would be the more
appropriate entity to approve the safety
plan. These commenters stated that a
Board of Directors, which can consist of
limited-term elected officials, are not
subject to the same training
requirements as the Accountable
Executive, and do not have the
operational knowledge and expertise
suitable for the review and approval of
a safety plan. One of these commenters
suggested that the Accountable
Executive have top-level ownership of
the safety plan, with a stipulated
responsibility to educate and report to
the Board of Directors on the agency’s
safety program.
Several commenters asked questions
about the implementation of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34431 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations provision for agencies that lack Boards
of Directors. A couple of commenters
asked if transit agencies can request
FTA to approve their ‘‘Equivalent
Authorities,’’ or whether they must wait
for an FTA oversight review to
determine whether their Equivalent
Authorities are consistent with the rule.
A couple of commenters had specific
questions regarding the adequacy of an
Equivalent Authority. One example
involved a streetcar being owned by a
city, but being operated and maintained
by a non-profit organization with its
own Board of Directors. Another
example involved a State Department of
Transportation which does not have a
Board of Directors, but instead, has an
Administrator/CEO. One commenter
asked FTA to provide a clear example
of an ‘‘Equivalent Authority’’ if a
recipient does not have a Board of
Directors. Similarly, another commenter
asserted that a State may have difficulty
identifying an Equivalent Authority
because a subrecipient may be a parish
or county that does not necessarily have
a Board of Directors. Another
commenter recommended that an
Equivalent Authority should have a
thorough knowledge of a transit
agency’s daily operations and the
authority to obtain operational and
safety data so that it could provide
safety oversight.
One commenter asked about the
measure of ‘‘approval’’ for the Board of
Directors, and inquired as to what that
approval would denote in terms of
safety responsibility.
Another commenter observed that a
transit agency with rail and bus
operations must have its safety plan
approved by the SSOA for purposes of
its rail operations, and suggested that
FTA would have to approve the safety
plan for purposes of its bus operations.
This commenter expressed concern that,
unless there are very clear guidelines for
the review and approval of the safety
plans, there is the potential for
conflicting views and approvals,
including approval of one operation and
not the other.
Response: FTA appreciates concerns
from commenters indicating that
members of a transit agency’s Board of
Directors may not be fully educated in
safety; however, through the statutory
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A),
Congress required each transit agency’s
Board of Directors, or an Equivalent
Authority, to approve the agency’s
safety plan. Through the Safety
Management Policy provisions of 49
CFR 673.23 and the Safety Promotion
provisions of 49 CFR 673.29, each
transit agency is required to identify
individuals who are responsible for
safety in their organization and to
ensure that those individuals are
adequately trained, including staff and
executive leadership, and this
requirement should extend to a transit
agency’s Board of Directors.
If a transit agency does not have a
Board of Directors, then an Equivalent
Authority may approve its safety plan.
An Equivalent Authority is an entity
that carries out duties similar to that of
a Board of Directors, including
sufficient authority to review and
approve a safety plan. For example, an
Equivalent Authority could be the
policy decision-maker/grant manager for
a small public transportation provider;
the city council and/or city manager for
a city; a county legislature for a county;
or a State transportation commission for
a State. Given the varying sizes and
organizational structures of the
thousands of recipients and
subrecipients throughout the country,
FTA is not providing a prescriptive
definition of this term, and it is
deferring to each transit agency to
identify who would be an Equivalent
Authority for its system. FTA intends its
list of examples to be non-exhaustive
and illustrative only.
The approval of the safety plan
should mean that the Board of Directors
or the Equivalent Authority accepts the
safety plan as satisfactory, that the
safety plan complies with each of the
requirements of this rule, and that the
safety plan effectively will guide the
transit operator with the management of
safety risks.
Finally, to clarify, FTA does not
intend to collect and ‘‘approve’’ safety
plans. FTA intends to ensure that transit
agencies comply with this rule by
reviewing their safety plans through
FTA’s existing Triennial Reviews and
State Management Reviews. Through
these oversight processes, FTA may
collect various documents, including
safety plans, to ensure compliance with
this part, but FTA will not provide
regular ‘‘approvals’’ of the plans.
SSOAs, however, must approve the
safety plans of rail fixed guideway
public transportation operations within
their jurisdictions.
3. Documentation of SMS Processes and
Activities
Comments: Pursuant to FTA’s
proposed provisions at 49 CFR
673.11(a)(2), each transit agency would
be required to document its processes
and activities related to SMS in its
safety plan. One commenter sought
clarity regarding whether the safety plan
must detail the processes and activities,
or just indicate that such processes and
activities exist. Another commenter
asked which documents should be
included in the safety plan, specifically
whether the safety plan should include
documents that are generated by the
results of ongoing SMS activities, or
only those documents which formally
present a description of SMS processes.
Response: Each safety plan must
include documented SMS processes; it
is not sufficient to merely indicate in
the safety plan that SMS processes exist.
Through the practice and
implementation of SMS, each transit
agency may generate data and other
documentation, but the safety plan itself
must document each of the processes as
outlined in this rule. FTA is providing
discretion to each transit agency to
decide for itself whether it will
incorporate processes and documented
activities beyond those required in
today’s final rule.
4. Safety Performance Targets
Comments: Pursuant to FTA’s
proposed provisions at 49 CFR
673.11(a)(3), each transit agency would
be required to identify in its safety plan
performance targets based on the safety
performance measures that FTA
establishes in the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan. One
commenter supported FTA’s proposed
list of safety performance measures as
outlined in the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, but several
commenters recommended that FTA
expand the list of performance
measures. One commenter
recommended that FTA reduce its
proposed list of safety performance
measures to align with the safety
outcomes that transit agencies currently
report to NTD. One commenter stated
that the proposed definition of
‘‘Performance Criteria’’ is confusing and
inconsistent with the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan. The
commenter stated that the terms
‘‘Criteria’’ and ‘‘Measures’’ are
synonymous, and proposed the
following alternate definition:
‘‘categories of safety performance
measures that focus on the reduction of
safety events, both for the public who
use or interface with the rail system,
and employees who operate and
maintain the system.’’ Several
commenters requested that FTA provide
agencies with additional guidance on
the four basic safety performance
measures.
One commenter asked whether the
safety plan must contain specific
quantitative performance targets for all
performance measures. This commenter
stated that specific quantitative targets
would pose challenges for transit
agencies and that all targets should be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34432 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations broad and not static to allow agencies to
adjust their targets as new information
dictates. Several commenters requested
FTA to allow transit agencies to update
and revise their safety plans if FTA
alters or adjusts performance measures.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding its
proposed safety performance measures;
however, the proper vehicle for
addressing these comments is through
the notice and comment process tied to
FTA’s proposed National Public
Transportation Safety Plan (RIN 2132–
ZA04). The National Public
Transportation Safety Plan will identify
FTA’s safety performance measures, not
today’s rule for Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans. The Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan rule
only requires transit agencies to set
performance targets based on the
performance measures established in
the National Public Transportation
Safety Plan. FTA will address all of the
comments related to safety performance
measures in the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, including
the above-referenced comments that
were directed to this rulemaking.
FTA notes that in the NPRM for this
rule, FTA used the term ‘‘Performance
Criteria,’’ which it proposed to define as
‘‘categories of measures indicating the
level of safe performance within a
transit agency.’’ FTA used this term
because the language of 49 U.S.C. 5329
uses the term ‘‘Performance Criteria.’’
Other parts of FTA’s authorizing statute,
such as the Transit Asset Management
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5326, use the
term ‘‘Performance Measures.’’ FTA
believes that Congress intended the
terms ‘‘Performance Criteria’’ and
‘‘Performance Measures’’ to be
synonymous. To eliminate confusion
over distinctions between these terms
and to ensure consistency with the use
of these terms throughout FTA’s
programs, FTA has removed the term
‘‘Performance Criteria’’ from today’s
final rule and replaced it with the term
‘‘Performance Measure.’’
Finally, in accordance with the
statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(E), each transit agency must
include in its safety plan, ‘‘performance
targets based on the safety performance
criteria and state of good repair
standards.’’ These targets must be
specific numerical targets set by transit
agencies themselves. FTA emphasizes,
however, that the safety plan is
intended to be a living document that
evolves over time. FTA expects transit
agencies to modify their safety plans,
and to adjust their performance targets,
as they collect data and implement
SMS. Indeed, the performance targets
may change from year to year, or more
frequently, as safety data may
necessitate.
5. Future Requirements in FTA’s Public
Transportation Safety Program and
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan
Comments: One commenter requested
FTA to provide guidance on what it
means to ‘‘address’’ the requirements
and standards in its Public
Transportation Safety Program and
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan. Another commenter expressed
concern that FTA has not established
formal standards for these requirements,
and requested FTA to establish
minimum measures and targets for
safety performance and improvement.
Response: In today’s final rule, FTA is
requiring each transit agency to
address—more specifically, to ensure
that it is complying with—all applicable
requirements and standards as set forth
in FTA’s Public Transportation Safety
Program at 49 CFR part 671 and the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan. In particular, each transit agency
must identify safety performance targets
based on the performance measures that
FTA establishes in the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan.
Additionally, FTA encourages transit
agencies to adopt any voluntary
minimum safety performance standards
established in the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, until
mandatory standards are established, in
which case each transit agency must
fully comply with those safety
performance standards. To the extent
that FTA amends its Public
Transportation Safety Program Rule or
the National Public Transportation
Safety Plan in the future, FTA expects
each transit agency to amend its safety
plan, as appropriate.
6. Process and Timeline for Annual
Review and Update
Comments: One commenter asked
FTA to clarify if the timeline for the
annual review process is determined by
each transit agency, or whether there is
a particular date by which an annual
review and update is required.
Several commenters disagreed with
the proposed requirement that the plans
be updated annually. Some commenters
suggested that safety plans only need to
be updated every two years because the
requirement for an annual update of
safety plans is excessive and
burdensome. Several of these
commenters asserted that if annual
action is needed, an annual review and
status report would be less resource
intensive. A few commenters suggested
that safety plans need only to be
updated every two years, unless there is
a significant policy or change in
condition (such as a fatality) that
warrants a change. Another commenter
recommended the same approach, but
with updates required every three years
rather than two years. One commenter
suggested alternative review schedules
ranging from every two years to every
five years. One commenter suggested
that organizations which meet various
criteria should be placed on a five year
review plan and they should be required
to submit any requested updates to
policies for review and approval.
One commenter asserted the review
requirement should be consistent with
FTA’s proposed rule for Transit Asset
Management Plans, which would
require each transit agency to update its
Transit Asset Management Plan at least
once every four years. Additionally, this
commenter suggested that the rule
should require an update of a safety
plan in any year when risk assessments
result in the need for substantial
mitigation, or if there are significant
changes to asset inventory, condition
assessments, or investment
prioritization.
A couple of commenters asked about
the required annual update as it may
relate to a rail transit agency’s SSPP
annual reviews. A commenter asked
whether the process for conducting
annual reviews would likely be similar
to the SSPP annual reviews, including
requirements that an Accountable
Executive would perform the review
and that a transit agency document all
updates and revisions. A commenter
suggested that the proposed requirement
to conduct an annual review and update
the safety plan, as needed, differed from
the requirement to conduct a formal
annual internal audit of the SSPP.
A commenter expressed concern with
FTA’s decision to publish the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan with
no schedule for revision, which would
cause transit agencies to continuously
update their safety plans to coincide
with any changes in FTA guidance
documents. This commenter further
encouraged FTA to define prescriptive
elements of the annual review and
update process to better guide agencies.
Response: Pursuant to the statutory
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5239(d)(1)(D),
each operator of a public transportation
system must develop a safety plan
which includes ‘‘a process and timeline
for conducting an annual review and
update of the safety plan.’’ In light of
this statutory language, today’s final
rule requires each transit agency to
establish a process and timeline for
conducting a review and update of its
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34433 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations safety plan, and this review and update
must occur at least annually. 49 CFR
673.11(a)(5).
Given the diversity in transit systems
across the country, and given each
transit agency’s unique operating
environment, FTA is deferring to each
transit agency to determine, for itself,
the frequency of its safety plan reviews
and updates each year, and the process
for doing so. Each transit agency must
certify compliance with these
requirements through its annual
Certifications and Assurances to FTA.
FTA disagrees with the commenters
who proposed that the annual review
period for the safety plans be changed
to a less frequent time period, such as
two years, three years, four years, or five
years. The statutory provisions of 49
U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D) do not provide that
latitude. Notwithstanding the statute, as
a matter of a best safety practice, FTA
believes that each transit agency should
annually review its process for hazard
identification and risk analysis in an
effort to prevent safety events. As a
transit agency collects data through the
hazard identification and risk analysis
processes, the transit agency should be
evaluating its safety performance targets
to determine whether they need to be
changed, as well.
FTA agrees with the commenter who
suggested that along with an annual
review, a transit agency should update
its safety plan at any point when risk
assessments result in the need for
substantial safety mitigation, or if there
are significant changes to asset
inventory, condition assessments, or
investment prioritization.
Regarding the annual reviews of
SSPPs, FTA notes that under its new
public transportation safety program,
the requirements for SSPPs under the
former regulatory provisions of FTA’s
SSO rule at 49 CFR part 659 have been
eliminated. Today’s requirement for a
PTASP under 49 CFR part 673 replaces
the old requirement for an SSPP under
49 CFR part 659. Therefore, annual
reviews of the PTASP now will be
required, and SSPPs will become
obsolete for rail transit agencies one
year after the effective date of this final
rule.
Finally, regarding the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, FTA will
update the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan when it
believes it is necessary to do so, based
on safety needs in the public
transportation industry. FTA notes that
it must make any changes to the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan through the public notice and
comment process, and the transit
industry will have the opportunity to
provide input on any changes to this
document. Furthermore, FTA believes
that changes to the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan will not
necessarily cause transit agencies to
update their PTASPs. Currently, the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan and the Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans are linked through
the requirements for performance targets
in agency safety plans based on the
performance measures in the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan.
7. Emergency Preparedness and
Response Plans
Comments: Pursuant to the proposed
provisions of 49 CFR 673.11(a)(6), each
rail transit agency would be required to
include an emergency preparedness and
response plan in its safety plan.
Although a commenter noted that there
is no statutory language in 49 U.S.C.
5329 which requires emergency
preparedness and response plans, the
commenter agreed that this type of plan
is important and should be included in
safety plans. One commenter supported
the requirement that transit agencies
develop a plan for the delegation of
responsibilities during an emergency,
but encouraged FTA to include in the
final rule a requirement that ensures
transit agencies provide adequate
training for workers responsible for
tasks during emergencies.
Two commenters suggested that FTA
should provide transit agencies with the
option of separating their safety plans
and their emergency preparedness and
response plans, developing them as two
separate documents. One of these
commenters suggested that these
documents are fundamentally different
and the emergency preparedness and
response plan contains information that
should not be widely distributed. One of
these commenters suggested that some
transit agencies that have not previously
complied with 49 CFR part 659 may
have difficulty developing a robust
emergency preparedness and response
plan. This commenter also stated that
FTA should take into consideration the
time and resources needed to develop a
comprehensive emergency response
plan by publishing templates for these
plans, offering assistance to those transit
agencies developing them for the first
time, and extending the implementation
deadline for this final rule. Another
commenter requested clarification
regarding whether this final rule would
require a System Security Plan and an
emergency preparedness and response
plan to be separate documents.
One commenter suggested that FTA
revise the rule to allow a transit agency
to include or reference the emergency
preparedness and response plan in its
safety plan. This commenter said this
revision would be consistent with the
intent of FTA in the Section-by-Section
Analysis portion of the NPRM which
states that this section would require
that each rail transit agency ‘‘include, or
incorporate by reference’’ the emergency
preparedness plan in its safety plan.
Another commenter asked FTA to
clarify the relationship between the
emergency preparedness and response
plans required in this rule to the
emergency preparedness and response
plans required in the former SSO
provisions of 49 CFR 659.19(k).
Response: Although the statutory
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329 do not
require emergency preparedness and
response plans, FTA’s State Safety
Oversight Rule historically has required
rail transit agencies to have emergency
preparedness and response plans as part
of their SSPPs. Since rail transit
agencies already have these plans in
place, FTA is carrying over the
requirement for those plans into today’s
rule. FTA’s intent is to make transit
safer, not to make transit less safe by
eliminating historical requirements that
have proven to be effective. FTA
acknowledges the potential burdens on
transit agencies that do not have these
plans in place, and therefore, FTA only
is requiring emergency preparedness
and response plans from rail transit
agencies, which should already have
them in place. FTA agrees with the
commenter who suggested that these
plans are important, as recent safety
events have demonstrated the need and
utility of emergency preparedness and
response plans, particularly for rail
transit systems.
FTA agrees that rail transit agencies
should develop plans to include the
delegation of responsibilities during an
emergency. FTA is deferring to transit
agencies on how to document their
emergency preparedness and response
plans, and FTA will allow transit
agencies to combine, include,
incorporate by reference, or separate
their emergency preparedness and
response plans and their safety plans.
FTA is issuing templates and
guidance for safety plans concurrently
with the issuance of today’s final rule.
FTA intends to develop guidance
specific to emergency preparedness and
response plans in the future. FTA also
will provide technical assistance to rail
transit agencies that are modifying or
developing emergency preparedness
and response plans.
FTA notes that it no longer is
requiring System Security Plans as
previously required for rail transit
agencies under the former regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34434 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations provisions of 49 CFR part 659—the
responsibility for the oversight of transit
security resides with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security’s
Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). However, to the extent that a
transit agency has a security plan, FTA
will allow a transit agency to
incorporate the security plan into its
safety plan, if the transit agency desires.
In light of the above, FTA is revising
the language in today’s final rule to
match the intent referenced in the
NPRM’s Section-by-Section Analysis,
which states that each rail transit agency
is required to ‘‘include, or incorporate
by reference’’ an emergency
preparedness and response plan in its
safety plan. FTA directs readers to its
SSPP–PTASP Crosswalk interim
guidance document for further
information on the relationship between
SSPPs and PTASPs (https://
www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/
files/docs/PTSP_NPRM_SSPP_Side_by_
Side.pdf). Additional guidance will be
forthcoming, and FTA will post it on its
website (see https://
www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-
guidance/safety/transit-safety-oversight-
tso).
8. Multiple Modes of Transit Service
Comments: A few commenters
supported FTA’s proposed flexibility for
transit agencies to develop one safety
plan for all modes of transit. A couple
of commenters stated that they would
develop one safety plan for all modes.
One of these commenters stated that
updating and monitoring several plans
is unrealistic and increases the
workload and approval processes. This
commenter also asked if FTA would
issue rules specific to locally operated
transit systems.
A couple of commenters encouraged
the use of one safety plan that
encompasses all modes of
transportation. A commenter stated that
if a transit agency develops one safety
plan for all transportation modes, then
that transit agency should identify those
portions of its system that are regulated
by another Federal entity and include
any additional requirements from those
Federal entities in the safety plan.
One commenter suggested that safety
plans for all transit modes creates a
difficult regulatory process for SSOAs,
since SSOAs have regulatory authority
over the rail mode only. This
commenter recommended that FTA
require rail transit agencies to develop
a separate plan for rail, since the safety
plan must be submitted to the SSOA for
review and approval. Alternatively, the
commenter requested that FTA include
specific processes for SSOAs and rail
transit agencies when dealing with a
single plan covering multiple modes.
Response: FTA agrees with and
appreciates the commenters who would
like the flexibility to either have one
safety plan or multiple safety plans for
multiple modes of transit service. As
FTA stated in the NPRM, it intends to
allow flexibility and choice so that
transit agencies may draft multiple
plans or only one plan, as there are
many different sizes and types of transit
agencies—a single plan may work better
for some agencies, whereas multiple
plans for multiple modes of transit
service may work better for others
(especially the larger transit agencies
that have multiple divisions and operate
commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, bus,
and other transit modes).
FTA disagrees with commenters who
would like to develop a single plan for
all modes of transportation service,
particularly service that is regulated by
another Federal entity, such as FRA.
Other Federal regulators may have
specific requirements for safety plans
that fall under their jurisdiction that
may conflict with this final rule.
Notably, FRA’s statutory and regulatory
framework for rail safety provides data
protection in safety plans; FTA’s
statutory and regulatory framework does
not. FTA is concerned that combining
PTASPs and FRA-regulated safety plans
would result in a loss of that data
protection for the rail safety covered by
FRA. Therefore, FTA will not allow a
transit agency to combine its PTASP
with a safety plan for service regulated
by another Federal agency.
FTA disagrees that SSOAs will have
difficulty approving safety plans that
address rail and bus service. Indeed,
SSOAs have regulatory authority over
rail transit service only, and SSOAs
should review only the rail components
of safety plans. FTA will provide
additional guidance and training in the
future to assist SSOAs with their review
and oversight of PTASPs and SMS.
D. State and Transit Agency Roles
1. Large Transit Agencies
Comments: One commenter
recommended that the rule detail the
requirements applicable to large transit
agencies.
Response: Pursuant to this rule, every
operator of a public transportation
system—large and small—must comply
with each of the requirements outlined
in today’s final rule, unless the operator
only receives Section 5310 and/or
Section 5311 funds. All sections and
requirements of this rule as outlined in
49 CFR part 673 are applicable to large
transit agencies, specifically, rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems
and recipients and subrecipients of FTA
funds under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 that
operate more than 100 vehicles in peak
revenue service.
2. Small Public Transportation
Providers, Section 5311 Providers, and
Section 5310 Providers
2.1. States Must Draft and Certify Safety
Plans on Behalf of Small Public
Transportation Providers
2.1.1. Option for State-Wide or Agency-
Specific Safety Plans
Comments: Several commenters
responded to FTA’s question as to
whether FTA should require States to
draft a single state-wide plan; individual
safety plans for each Section 5310,
Section 5311, and small public
transportation provider located within
that State; or defer to the State’s
preference. A few commenters
recommended that each State should
have the flexibility to choose whether
the State will develop and certify a
single state-wide plan or draft
individual safety plans on for each
agency. One commenter stated that the
State should be required to draft an
umbrella plan for more than just ‘‘small
public transportation providers’’ and an
agency can choose to use that plan or
develop their own plan that complies
with the overarching plan. Another
commenter stated that state-wide plans
should be generic and that States should
develop an SMS that would be flexible
enough to meet the needs of each of the
individual transit agencies within their
jurisdictions. This commenter also
asked what might happen when a transit
agency’s safety plan differs from another
transit agency’s safety plan drafted by
their State. One commenter suggested a
‘‘hybrid’’ approach whereby the State
may draft a single safety plan, and
include appendices that incorporate
unique situations for certain transit
agencies. Another commenter suggested
that if a State develops a state-wide
plan, then all transit providers should
be required to provide copies of their
plans and self-certifications to the State.
One commenter asserted that small
urban and rural operations likely will be
different, and if a State must draft
separate safety plans for each transit
agency, then this effort will be
burdensome. On the other hand, the
commenter asserted, if the State drafts
only a single safety plan for all transit
agencies under this regulatory
provision, then the safety plans may be
ineffective and meaningless.
In response to FTA’s question as to
how a single state-wide safety plan
could respond to the Safety Risk
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34435 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Management component of SMS (such
as the identification of risks and hazards
for each unique transit agency), several
commenters stated there are already
processes in place at State Departments
of Transportation that can integrate
individual SMS components of Safety
Risk Management for small bus public
transportation providers to enable the
drafting of a state-wide agency safety
plan.
Response: To provide maximum
flexibility for States and transit
providers, FTA is deferring to the States
and the small public transportation
providers within those States to
determine whether each State will draft
and certify a single state-wide safety
plan for all small public transportation
providers or whether it will draft and
certify multiple individualized safety
plans for each of these transit operators.
FTA recommends as a best practice that
each State draft and certify
individualized safety plans on behalf of
each of these small public
transportation providers given the
inherently unique safety concerns,
issues, hazards, and risks for each
transit operator. If a State drafts a single
state-wide safety plan, then the State
must ensure that the plan clearly
identifies each transit operator that the
plan will cover, the names of the
Accountable Executives and Chief
Safety Officers, the safety performance
targets for each transit operator (and
determined in conjunction with each
operator), and the hazard identification,
risk analysis, Safety Assurance, and
other SMS processes for each transit
operator (and developed in conjunction
with each transit operator).
FTA notes that, in this rule, States are
not required to draft and certify safety
plans on behalf of transit operators that
only receive Section 5310 and/or
Section 5311 funds. As discussed above,
FTA is deferring regulatory action
regarding the applicability of this rule
on these operators until a later date.
2.1.2. Drafting and Certifying Safety
Plans for Small Section 5307 Providers
Comments: Several commenters
suggested that States should not be
required to draft and certify safety plans
for small Section 5307 providers in large
urbanized areas because these providers
are not subrecipients of funds
apportioned to States, they have a direct
funding relationship with FTA, States
do not review their grant applications,
States do not review their NTD reports,
and States do not provide their
oversight.
A few of these commenters only
supported the requirement that States
draft and certify safety plans on behalf
of open door Section 5310 and Section
5311 subrecipients. A couple of
commenters supported the requirement
that a State draft and certify safety plans
on behalf of small Section 5307
providers operating 100 or fewer
vehicles, as long as the final rule
clarifies that the ‘‘100 vehicles in
revenue service’’ criteria applies only to
Section 5307 recipients, not Section
5310 or Section 5311 recipients.
Response: FTA notes that 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(3)(B) provides that States may
draft or certify safety plans on behalf of
‘‘small public transportation providers’’
that receive Section 5307 funds, even
though, for recipients in large urbanized
areas, no funding relationship exists
between the States and those small
Section 5307 recipients. In response to
comments and to ensure consistency
across FTA’s safety rules and Transit
Asset Management rule, FTA is defining
‘‘small public transportation provider’’
to mean ‘‘a recipient or subrecipient of
Federal financial assistance under 49
U.S.C. 5307 that has one hundred (100)
or fewer vehicles in peak revenue
service and does not operate a rail fixed
guideway public transportation
system.’’ A small Section 5307 provider
may opt to draft and certify its own
safety plan.
FTA notes that it received numerous
comments requesting reduced
requirements for small public
transportation providers. Given their
limited resources, FTA believes that a
reduction in requirements for small
public transportation providers is
appropriate, and to that end, FTA
eliminated Safety Assurance
requirements for all small public
transportation providers under 49 CFR
673.27(a).
2.2. Other Comments
Comments: One commenter expressed
a concern about potential conflicts of
interest regarding the drafting and
certifying of safety plans. This
commenter stated that if a State drafts
and certifies a safety plan on behalf of
a transit operator, and if the State is also
the grant manager for the transit agency
using the safety plan, then the State may
monitor compliance with the safety plan
that it drafted through grant compliance
reviews. The commenter suggested that
this situation may create a conflict of
interest, similar to the conflict of
interest that would arise if an SSOA
drafted and certified a safety plan on
behalf a rail transit agency subject to its
jurisdiction.
One commenter asked whether a
small transit provider may continue to
use its safety plan drafted by its State if
it grows to a size where it no longer
would be considered small. In this
scenario, the commenter asked how
much time the transit provider would
have to draft and certify a new safety
plan.
One commenter recommended that
FTA clarify the definition of the term
‘‘State’’ so that SSOAs would not draft
or develop a transit agency’s safety plan
if a conflict of interest exists.
Additionally, the commenter suggested
adding the following language at the
end of section 49 CFR 673.11: ‘‘the State
Safety Oversight Agency cannot be
involved in the development of the
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans they are charged with
overseeing.’’
Response: FTA disagrees with the
commenter who suggested that a
potential conflict of interest would exist
if a State drafted and certified a safety
plan on behalf of a small transit
provider. The funding relationships
created by Congress differ from the new
safety relationships in 49 U.S.C.
5329(d). From a federal perspective, the
State has no role in safety enforcement
or oversight of small Section 5307
providers. For rail transit agencies, the
SSOAs serve in a different, independent
role, and they are required by 49 U.S.C.
5329(e) to provide enforcement.
Moreover, as a legal matter, the statutory
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) require
States to draft and certify safety plans
on behalf of small Section 5307
providers.
If a transit agency grows in size so
that it no longer is considered ‘‘small,’’
then it would have one year to draft and
certify its own safety plan. The safety
plan developed by the State would
remain in effect until the transit agency
drafts its own safety plan.
Finally, FTA does not agree that the
rule text should be clarified to
distinguish between a State’s role and
an SSOA’s role in the development and
certification of safety plans. The rule
provides that a State must draft and
certify safety plans only on behalf of
small public transportation providers
that do not operate rail service, and that
an SSOA must review and approve a
rail transit agency’s safety plan.
3. Small Transit Providers May Draft
and Certify Their Own Safety Plans
Comments: Many commenters
asserted that, when a transit agency
‘‘opts out’’ of the state-wide safety plan
and drafts and certifies its own plan,
then the final rule should clarify that
the State has no further obligation
related to the safety plan.
One commenter observed that the
‘‘opt out’’ provision places the decision
on a State’s responsibilities in the hands
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34436 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations of its subrecipients instead of the State,
which is where that responsibility exists
in the context of funding relationships.
The commenter recommended that FTA
clarify in the final rule that the State is
responsible for its own safety plan and
for those of its subrecipients, and that
the determination of whether the State
will draft plans for its subrecipients
remains at the discretion of the State.
Response: If a transit agency ‘‘opts
out’’ and decides to draft and certify its
own safety plan, then the State has no
further responsibility regarding that
safety plan and the transit agency may
seek guidance and technical assistance
directly from FTA. FTA disagrees with
the commenter who suggested that
States should have the discretion to
draft and certify safety plans. In an
effort to reduce the administrative and
financial burdens of small public
transportation providers, and given the
statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C.
5329(d), FTA is requiring States to draft
and certify safety plans on behalf of
small Section 5307 recipients and
subrecipients. FTA is providing those
recipients and subrecipients with the
discretion to ‘‘opt out’’ of this
arrangement (however, the State will
not have the option to ‘‘opt out,’’ as this
discretion lies with the small transit
operator).
4. Direct and Designated Recipients
Drafting and Certifying Safety Plans on
Behalf of Smaller Transit Providers
Comments: Several commenters
responded to FTA’s question about
whether a Section 5310 recipient should
draft and certify their own safety plans
if they are direct recipients, instead of
having the States draft and certify their
safety plans on their behalf. Many
commenters stated that the designated
or direct recipient should have this
responsibility for themselves, given the
fact that they do not receive their funds
through the State under recent changes
to the Section 5310 program under the
FAST Act. One commenter supported
the idea of having designated recipients
draft and certify their own safety plans,
as well as their subrecipients, only if the
plans are based on templates provided
by FTA. One commenter asked whether
the State or the transit agency should be
responsible for reviewing safety plans
when a subrecipient receives funding
through the transit agency and not the
State.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding this
issue. In light of the public comments
that FTA received regarding the
application of this rule to Section 5310
and Section 5311 recipients, FTA is
deferring regulatory action regarding the
applicability of this rule to operators of
public transportation systems that only
receive Section 5310 and/or Section
5311 funds. Further evaluation of
information and safety data related to
these operators is needed to determine
the appropriate level of regulatory
burden necessary to address the safety
risk presented by these operators. At
this time, the rule does not apply to an
operator of a public transportation
system that only receives Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C.
5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311. Consequently,
States are not required to draft and
certify safety plans on behalf of
operators of public transportation
systems that only receive Section 5310
and/or Section 5311 funds.
Consistent with the statutory
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B), a
State still has the responsibility of
drafting and certifying safety plans on
behalf of small Section 5307 recipients,
unless they opt to draft and certify their
own safety plans. To ease the burdens
with these efforts, FTA is issuing a
safety plan template with today’s rule to
assist States and smaller operators with
the drafting and certification of their
plans.
E. Existing System Safety Program Plan
Is Effective for One Year
1. General Comments
Comments: A couple of commenters
suggested that the final SSO rule and
the proposed PTASP rule are
contradictory in terms of
implementation deadlines, and they
recommended that FTA allow an SSPP
to remain in effect until an SSOA has
approved a rail transit agency’s new
PTASP. One of these commenters stated
that FTA should remove all
requirements involving SSPPs from the
final PTASP rule. One commenter asked
if a rail transit agency must keep its
SSPP and reference it in its PTASP.
Response: FTA acknowledges that the
compliance dates in the final SSO rule
at 49 CFR part 674 differ from those in
the PTASP rule at 49 CFR part 673.
These compliance dates are creations of
statute. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3),
each State must have an SSO program
compliant with the new SSO rule
within three years after the effective
date of that final rule. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), each operator of a
public transportation system must have
a PTASP compliant with the new
PTASP rule within one year after the
effective date of this final rule.
Although these compliance dates
differ, an SSOA can apply the regulatory
requirements of the PTASP rule and
ultimately review and approve a PTASP
based on those requirements, even if it
has not fully developed its new program
standard in accordance with the new
SSO rule. As demonstrated through the
SSPP–PTASP Crosswalk that FTA
posted to this rulemaking docket, the
substantive elements of the old SSPPs
carry over into the SMS portions of
PTASPs. The same basic requirements
exist, albeit, reshuffled into a different
format that is intended to more
effectively address safety risks. Finally,
the staff of SSOAs have been taking
training courses in SMS in accordance
with the interim rule for the Public
Transportation Safety Certification
Training Program. Given the above, FTA
expects each SSOA to review and
approve each PTASP of a rail transit
agency within its jurisdiction, even if it
has not fully complied with the new
SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674.
Ultimately, the SSPP will become
obsolete one year after the effective date
of this final rule, and an agency’s
PTASP will replace the SSPP. However,
if a transit agency would like to
maintain the SSPP and use it as a
reference document, it may do so. FTA
only will conduct oversight, including
Triennial and State Management
Reviews, to ensure that a transit
agency’s PTASP complies with this rule,
not its former SSPP. Given the April 15,
2019 deadline for updated SSO
Programs under 49 CFR 674.11, FTA
believes that the effective date and
compliance date of today’s final rule
will provide rail transit agencies and
their SSOAs with more time to
harmonize their safety plans and
program standards before they are
finalized.
2. One-Year Compliance Timeframe
Comments: Several commenters
provided input on the one-year
compliance timeframe for the proposed
rule. One commenter expressed support
for the one-year compliance period, but
stated that transit agencies may need
more than one year to draft their safety
plans, hire and train the necessary
personnel, and certify the plan.
Some commenters stated that FTA
should provide a longer compliance/
implementation period for the rule.
Several of these commenters remarked
that the proposed compliance period is
aggressive and may lead to rushed or
subpar safety plans with limited SMS
training for staff. The commenters also
suggested that a longer compliance
period may be necessary given the
requirements for a signature from the
Accountable Executive and approval
from a Board of Directors. One
commenter suggested that,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34437 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations notwithstanding Federal requirements,
State legislatures may not be able to
amend State safety requirements prior to
the compliance deadline for this rule,
which may force some transit agencies
to create two safety plans for purposes
of Federal and State law, or be in non-
compliance with the Federal and State
laws.
Most commenters provided
suggestions for an alternative
compliance deadline, with many
commenters suggesting that FTA extend
the compliance deadline to two years.
Several commenters suggested that FTA
extend the compliance deadline or
allow for a multi-part implementation or
a transitional grace period for agencies
to show progress with the development
of their safety plans. A couple of
commenters recommended that FTA
extend the compliance period until one
year after FTA issues templates for
safety plans. One commenter stated that
the compliance deadline for this rule
should be tied to the finalization of the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan. Several commenters also
suggested aligning the compliance
deadline of this rule with the two-year
compliance deadline for the Transit
Asset Management rule.
Response: As a preliminary matter,
FTA notes that many commenters
referred to the ‘‘implementation’’
deadline of this final rule, as opposed to
the rule’s ‘‘compliance’’ deadline. The
compliance deadline is the date by
which transit operators and States must
comply with the final rule and have a
safety plan in place. FTA emphasizes
that this rule implements a statutory
requirement that each operator of a
public transportation system draft and
certify a safety plan within one year
after the effective date of this final rule.
The safety plan must include all of the
information, processes, and procedures
as outlined in this rule. FTA expects
each operator of a public transportation
system to ‘‘implement’’ the processes
and procedures outlined in its safety
plan after it drafts and certifies that plan
in accordance with this rule. That
implementation should take place
continually, and the implementation,
particularly the implementation of SMS,
should mature over time. But to comply
with this rule, each operator of a public
transportation system must draft and
certify a safety plan within one year
after the effective date of this final
rule—that one-year deadline is the
‘‘compliance’’ deadline for this rule.
The one-year compliance deadline
was created by the statutory provisions
of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), and FTA does
not have the flexibility to extend it.
Nevertheless, FTA does not expect that
all transit agencies will have fully
implemented SMS one year after the
effective date, but rather, FTA expects
that transit agencies will have the
processes and procedures put in place
for SMS, including hazard
identification, risk analysis, and the
Safety Assurance procedures as outlined
in Subpart C of this rule. The full
implementation of SMS may take
longer, in some cases years to fully
mature in large multi-modal transit
agencies. FTA is providing more
guidance on how a transit agency may
fully implement a mature SMS in the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan, and it intends to provide
additional guidance and technical
assistance to the industry in the future.
FTA appreciates the comments that it
received suggesting that transit agencies
may need more than one year to certify
compliance with the rule. Although, by
statute, the compliance deadline must
be one year from the rule’s effective
date, FTA has discretion on setting the
effective date itself. In response to the
public comments and in an effort to
assist the industry with meeting the
requirements of this rule, FTA is making
the effective date one year after its
publication date. As a result, transit
agencies will have a total of two years
(one year from the publication date to
the effective date, plus another year
from the effective date to the
compliance deadline) to certify that they
have safety plans meeting the
requirements of 49 CFR part 673.
F. Certification of Safety Plans
Comments: Several commenters
requested additional information on
how agencies may certify compliance
with this rule and what this certification
means. One commenter remarked that
the rule contains neither a definition
nor an explanation of the term
‘‘certification’’ or ‘‘certify.’’ Two
commenters questioned how an agency
may certify their safety plans if FTA
may adopt additional performance
measures in the future.
One commenter expressed concern
with self-certification, asserting that
self-certification is not a reliable method
for establishing effective safety
management by public transportation
providers. This commenter suggested
that each transit agency should submit
its safety plan to FTA for approval and
certification so that FTA could verify
that the plan satisfies the statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Several commenters expressed
concern over the one-year certification
timeline, indicating that one year may
not be enough time for transit agencies
to certify compliance with the rule. One
commenter suggested that FTA lengthen
the certification period to two years,
which would provide agencies with
additional time and align the
certification deadline for the
compliance deadline for developing
transit asset management plans as
outlined in the TAM rule.
One commenter urged FTA to clarify
the process by which a State should
certify a safety plan on behalf of a
Section 5310, Section 5311, or small
Section 5307 recipient or sub-recipient.
Additionally, the commenter asked who
would conduct oversight on a safety
plan if a small transit agency opts out
of any plan developed by a State.
Response: As a statutory matter,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), each
recipient or State must ‘‘certify’’ that the
recipient or State has established a
comprehensive agency safety plan.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5323(n), each
recipient must submit to FTA a list of
‘‘Certifications and Assurances’’ as part
of the grant award and oversight process
during each fiscal year. FTA will use
this existing Certifications and
Assurances process to satisfy the
statutory requirement for safety plan
certifications. FTA has added a section
to the list of Certifications and
Assurances to address safety. FTA will
issue future guidance on how States can
certify safety plans and transit asset
management plans on behalf of transit
operators.
To the extent that FTA amends the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan in the future, or any of its
regulatory requirements in general, FTA
will amend the annual list of
Certifications and Assurances, as
necessary.
FTA appreciates concerns regarding
the self-certification process; however,
FTA does not have the resources to
collect and review hundreds of safety
plans each fiscal year. Consequently,
FTA intends to utilize its existing risk-
based approach to oversight by using its
Triennial Reviews and State
Management Reviews to ensure
compliance with this rule. FTA notes
that it does not need to wait to review
a safety plan every three years. FTA may
review an agency’s safety plan
whenever it deems necessary.
As noted above, in response to the
public comments and in an effort to
assist the industry with meeting the
requirements of this rule, FTA is making
the effective date one year after its
publication date. As a result, transit
agencies will have a total of two years
from the rule’s publication date to
certify that they have safety plans
meeting the requirements of 49 CFR part
673.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34438 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations G. SSOA Review and Approval of
PTASPs for Rail Transit Systems
Comments: Pursuant to the proposed
provisions at 49 CFR 673.13(a), each
SSOA would be required to review and
approve a PTASP developed by a rail
fixed guideway system. Some
commenters expressed concern with the
one-year deadline that a transit agency
has to certify its PTASP and the three-
year deadline that an SSOA has to
comply with the new SSO rule at 49
CFR part 674. One commenter
recommended that FTA should allow
rail transit agencies to certify
compliance with the PTASP rule one
year after the relevant SSOA develops
its program standard pursuant to 49 CFR
part 674. Several commenters
questioned whether a rail transit agency
must submit its PTASP to the SSOA by
one year after the PTASP final rule’s
effective date, or whether the SSOA
must approve the agency’s PTASP by
one year after the PTASP rule’s effective
date. Several commenters urged FTA to
clarify whether SSOAs must update
their program standards prior to
approving rail transit safety plans since
most SSOAs will be operating under a
program standard based on 49 CFR part
659 when the PTASP final rule becomes
effective.
A few commenters requested FTA to
clarify the role of an SSOA with respect
to PTASP certification. One commenter
suggested that a PTASP should not be
executed without SSOA approval.
Several commenters suggested that FTA
develop guidance for obtaining SSOA
approval and a resolution process for
situations in which a rail transit agency
certifies compliance and then an SSOA
does not approve the safety plan.
Several commenters requested
clarification of an SSOA’s approval
power and role, with a couple of these
commenters encouraging FTA to modify
the rule’s text to make clear that SSOAs
only have authority over rail transit
systems. One commenter recommended
that FTA require transit agencies that
operate rail and bus service to develop
separate safety plans for rail and bus
service so that it is easier for SSOAs to
approve the plans for rail safety.
A few commenters stated that FTA
should define the SSOA’s role and
responsibilities in approving plans that
contain modes of service not subject to
state specific oversight rules, such as
rules for bus transit. The commenters
argued that while SSOAs are
responsible for the review and approval
of rail transit plans, FTA’s proposed
rule only specifies that bus agencies will
self-certify.
Several commenters expressed
concerns over the requirement to have
the transit agency’s Board of Directors
and the SSOA approve the safety plan,
fearing that this two-tiered review
process could subject plans to
conflicting evaluation criteria, which
could weaken plans and cause delays in
implementation.
One commenter suggested that FTA
should clarify that SSPPs will become
obsolete.
Response: As a preliminary matter,
FTA notes that the comments above
regarding state safety oversight are more
appropriately addressed through FTA’s
SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674, which
governs the activities of SSOAs. FTA’s
PTASP rule governs the activities of
operators of public transportation
systems. Nevertheless, to provide the
industry with additional clarification
regarding the role of SSOAs, FTA
provides the responses below.
Through FTA’s new SSO rule at 49
CFR part 674, each SSOA has a great
deal of flexibility regarding the timing of
its approval of a PTASP within its
jurisdiction. Pursuant to the new rule,
each SSOA is obliged to ‘‘adopt and
distribute a written SSO program
standard’’ consistent with the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan and
the PTASP rule (49 CFR 674.27(a));
‘‘explain’’ an SSOA’s ‘‘role . . . in
overseeing’’ a rail transit agency’s
‘‘execution of its Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan’’ (49 CFR
674.27(a)(4)); and ‘‘describe the process
whereby the SSOA will receive and
evaluate all material submitted under
the signature of [a rail transit agency’s]
accountable executive’’ (49 CFR
674.27(a)(4)). Given these requirements,
an SSOA could choose to ‘‘approve’’ a
PTASP at virtually any point in time,
and as often as it might like. FTA
expects each SSOA to develop its
program standard in consultation with
the rail transit agencies within the
SSOA’s jurisdiction. FTA intends to
provide deference to the State decision
makers on this matter.
Optimally, an SSOA would have its
program standard in place before
reviewing the merits of a rail transit
agency’s PTASP, but it is not necessary,
as a matter of law. An SSOA still
operating under the old SSO rule at 49
CFR part 659 and transitioning to the
new SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674 still
can judge the adequacy of a rail transit
agency’s PTASP by applying the
standards and regulatory requirements
set forth in the new rules at 49 CFR
parts 673 and 674.
Through the new SSO rule, FTA
addresses scenarios in which an SSOA
does not approve a PTASP. Pursuant to
49 CFR 674.29(c), ‘‘In an instance in
which an SSOA does not approve a
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan, the SSOA must provide a written
explanation, and allow the [rail transit
agency] an opportunity to modify and
resubmit its . . . Plan for the SSOA’s
approval.’’ This mechanism should lead
to negotiations that resolve
disagreements between an SSOA and a
rail transit agency. In those instances in
which an SSOA and a rail transit agency
continue to disagree in good faith, FTA
may step into the dispute to help the
issue. If a rail transit agency is
comfortable certifying its own
compliance with the rules, but it
receives objections or disapprovals from
its SSOA, then FTA could take
regulatory enforcement action under the
Public Transportation Safety Program
rule at 49 CFR part 670 (see https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-11/
pdf/2016-18920.pdf), as necessary and
appropriate, to ensure compliance with
the PTASP rule.
It is abundantly clear in 49 U.S.C.
5329(e) and FTA’s new SSO rule at 49
CFR part 674 that an SSOA only has
jurisdiction over a ‘‘rail fixed guideway
public transportation system’’ that is not
subject to regulation by FRA.
Consequently, when reviewing a PTASP
for an agency that operates rail fixed
guideway public transportation and bus
public transportation, an SSOA should
focus its review on the rail fixed
guideway public transportation system
only, given the fact that as a legal
matter, Federal law does not give an
SSOA the authority to regulate the
safety of bus systems. Unless provided
by State law, an SSOA has no legal
authority to compel a transit agency to
change its safety practices for bus
operations. FTA disagrees with the
commenters who believe that FTA
should require separate safety plans for
rail and bus; FTA will defer to each
transit agency to decide whether it is
more appropriate for their system to
have a single plan covering rail and bus
(and other modes of transit) or whether
to have multiple plans for each mode of
transit.
Finally, FTA re-emphasizes that every
operator of a public transportation
system subject to this rule, or State,
must certify compliance with this rule,
whether it provides rail transit service,
bus transit service, or other modes of
transit service. SSPPs will become
obsolete one year after the effective date
of this final rule.
H. Safety Performance Targets and
Performance-Based Planning
Comments: Pursuant to the proposed
provisions at 49 CFR 673.15, each
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34439 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations transit agency or State would be
required to make its safety performance
targets available to States and MPOs to
aid in the planning process, and each
transit agency or State would be
required to coordinate with States and
MPOs in the selection of safety
performance targets.
Several commenters generally
supported the coordination provisions.
One commenter supported flexibility in
the target-setting process and
coordination of targets between the
State, regional, and transit agency
levels. One commenter was encouraged
that FTA acknowledged the vital role of
the planning process in safety
management and recommended that the
Transit Asset Management Plans also be
included in the coordination process.
A couple of commenters asked FTA to
explain the purpose of communicating
safety performance targets to States and
MPOs. One commenter asked FTA to
clarify the MPO’s role in the planning
process, stating that if an MPO has any
approval or review authority of safety
performance targets, then an MPO
should be required to have the same
safety expertise and training as an
SSOA.
Several commenters asked whether a
transit agency only would be required to
make its targets available to a State and
an MPO, or whether it also would be
required to make the supporting
performance data pertaining to those
targets available to a State and an MPO.
One commenter suggested that FTA
avoid creating this requirement or to
make a general requirement that transit
agencies cooperate with States and
MPOs in the planning process.
Several commenters expressed
concerns with requiring coordination
among planning organizations. They
argued that this coordination would be
unreasonably burdensome on some
transit agencies. Several commenters
argued that these provisions are not
required by statute and that MPOs
generally do not operate transit service
and do not have transit operations and
safety expertise or experience. Several
commenters suggested that coordination
should be revised to a ‘‘consultation’’
requirement. One commenter
recommended that FTA delete these
requirements, and that planning
coordination should be encouraged
through guidance instead.
Several commenters requested
clarification on how a State or transit
agency should coordinate with MPOs
and States to select safety performance
targets. One of these commenters argued
that if by ‘‘coordination,’’ FTA’s intent
is that a transit agency share its PTASP
(which will include performance
targets) with States and MPOs, then
FTA should clearly state such a
requirement. Additionally, the
commenter stated that the proposed rule
did not specify which State agencies,
other than MPOs, transit agencies are
expected to coordinate with.
Several commenters asked which
accountability measures will be used to
ensure that coordination is occurring
‘‘to the maximum extent practicable.’’
One commenter asked what recourse an
MPO would have if the State or transit
operator chooses not to coordinate on
target setting, claiming there is not a
‘‘practicable’’ way to do so. The
commenter argued that the rule must
recognize that target setting across
multiple functions and dimensions
would require an extremely robust
degree of coordination and suggested
removing that phrase.
One commenter stated that the
proposed rule does not identify the
responsibilities of the State in the
planning process. Another commenter
asked whether States and MPOs would
be required to keep confidential any
information related to safety
performance targets.
One commenter stated that it is
unclear how the development of
performance targets at the State and
MPO levels will impact individual
transit agency targets in the future,
particularly when FTA may develop
safety performance targets under a
separate NPRM. This commenter also
said it is unclear how the State and
MPO safety performance targets would
impact individual transit agency safety
plans, as these are to be determined at
the local level by each individual transit
agency.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received in support of
its proposed safety performance target
provisions. FTA emphasizes that these
requirements are rooted in the statutory
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E),
which requires each operator of a public
transportation system subject to this
rule to include in its PTASP
‘‘performance targets based on [FTA’s]
safety performance criteria and state of
good repair standards.’’ Moreover, the
statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C.
5303(h)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C.
5304(d)(2)(B) further require that
‘‘[s]election of performance targets by a
metropolitan planning organization
shall be coordinated, to the maximum
extent practicable, with providers of
public transportation to ensure
consistency with sections . . . 5329(d)’’
and ‘‘[s]election of performance targets
by a State shall be coordinated with the
relevant metropolitan planning
organizations to ensure consistency to
the maximum extent practicable.’’ Since
these activities are required by law, FTA
will not merely encourage these
practices through guidance, as some
commenters requested. FTA will require
these practices as a legal matter.
Moreover, FTA emphasizes that the
PTASP rule only governs the activities
of operators of public transportation
systems. The recent FTA/FHWA joint
planning rule 23 CFR part 450 governs
the planning activities of transit
agencies, States, and MPOs. FTA refers
readers to the Final Rule dated May 27,
2016, for further guidance on the roles
and responsibilities of States and MPOs
in the planning process (see https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-05-27/
pdf/2016-11964.pdf).
In response to the question as to
whether a transit agency only would be
required to make its safety performance
targets available to a State and an MPO,
or whether it also would be required to
make the supporting performance data
pertaining to those targets available to a
State and an MPO, FTA defers to the
State and local processes developed by
States and MPOs. FTA only requires
that transit agencies coordinate with
States and MPOs to the maximum
extent practicable to assist those States
and MPOs with the selection of
Statewide and regional safety
performance targets. At a minimum,
FTA requires each operator of a public
transportation agency to make its safety
performance targets available to States
and MPOs.
To ensure that a transit agency
complies with these requirements, FTA
intends to utilize its existing Triennial
Reviews and State Management
Reviews. FTA intends to ensure that
MPOs comply with the joint planning
rule through the existing MPO
certification process.
Finally, FTA notes that it is not
developing safety performance targets
for the industry—it is developing safety
performance measures by which each
operator of a public transportation
system, and each State and MPO, must
set targets. These targets are intended to
guide transit agencies, States, and MPOs
with the prioritization of transportation
investments. The goal is for the
prioritization of capital investments that
help meet safety performance targets
and state of good repair targets.
I. Safety Management Systems
1. Safety Management Policy: General
Comments
Comments: Numerous commenters
expressed general support for the
proposed Safety Management Policy
provisions of 49 CFR 673.23.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34440 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Response: FTA appreciates the
support from the transit industry on
Safety Management Systems, and
specifically the Safety Management
Policy provisions of 49 CFR 673.23.
1.1. Safety Management Policy
Statement
Comments: Several commenters
encouraged FTA to allow for maximum
flexibility in safety management policy
statements and urged FTA to allow
deviation in policy adoption whenever
consistent with the overarching
principles of SMS.
A few commenters expressed concern
regarding the inclusion of safety
performance targets in the safety
management policy statement. One
commenter suggested that it is
inappropriate to include specific safety
performance targets in an overarching
safety management policy statement and
suggested deleting the requirement from
the rule. This commenter also suggested
that FTA replace the term SMS with
PTASP where references to safety
performance targets are made. Another
commenter urged FTA to clarify that the
intent of including safety performance
targets in the safety management policy
statement is not to require annual
updates of the target values, but rather,
the measures that the targets address.
Response: FTA agrees with the
commenters who suggested that the
inclusion of safety performance targets
in the safety management policy
statement is unnecessary, and FTA has
updated the rule text, accordingly. The
location of this requirement under the
‘‘Safety Management Policy’’ section of
this rule is redundant, given the fact
that FTA is requiring each transit
agency to establish safety performance
targets through the ‘‘General
Requirements’’ section of this rule at 49
CFR 673.11(a)(3). If a transit agency
wishes to include its safety performance
targets in its safety management policy,
it may do so, although it may identify
those targets in another section of its
safety plan. The rule text in 49 CFR
673.23 now reads, ‘‘A transit agency
must establish its organizational
accountabilities and responsibilities and
have a written statement of safety
management policy that includes the
agency’s safety objectives.’’
To clarify, during a transit agency’s
annual review and update of its safety
plan (which is required under 49 CFR
673.11(a)(5)), a transit agency may need
to update its safety performance targets
based on the data and safety conditions
at that time, but a transit agency may
not necessarily need to alter its target
values each year. A transit agency only
needs to examine them and decide, for
itself, whether it should amend them.
1.2. Employee Reporting Program
Comments: Numerous commenters
expressed support for FTA’s proposed
employee reporting program. Several
commenters urged FTA to provide more
detail on the requirements for employee
reporting programs. Two commenters
suggested that FTA encourage transit
agencies to establish ‘‘close call’’
reporting programs. Another commenter
requested guidance from FTA on how
reports from employee reporting
programs would be protected from
disclosure.
One commenter supported non-
punitive employee reporting, but stated
that disciplinary actions for employee
safety behaviors are the subject of
collective bargaining at the majority of
transit systems. As such, the commenter
stated that collective bargaining
agreements may affect disciplinary
actions in employee reporting programs.
Response: FTA appreciates the
support for employee reporting
programs and believes it is an essential
part of a transit agency’s SMS. Pursuant
to 49 CFR 673.23(b), FTA is requiring
each transit agency to ‘‘establish a
process that allows employees to report
safety conditions to senior
management,’’ and FTA is providing
significant latitude and flexibility to
transit agencies to determine their own
processes for the reporting of safety
conditions. These reporting processes
could include hotlines, web-based
reporting systems, form-based reporting
systems, or direct reporting to
management, but ultimately, each
transit agency must decide the process
and procedures that will work best
within that individual agency.
‘‘Close call’’ reporting systems are a
type of employee reporting, and FTA
strongly supports the establishment of
close call reporting systems, although
these systems are not required.
Currently, FTA does not have
statutory protections in place to protect
safety information from public
disclosure, as is the case with FRA and
the System Safety Programs required of
commuter and intercity passenger
railroads under 49 CFR part 270 (see
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/
L18294). FTA requested these
protections through the ‘‘Grow America
Act’’. Following this request, in Section
3021 of the FAST Act, Congress
authorized a study ‘‘on evidentiary
protection for public transportation
safety program information.’’ The
results of this study will help inform the
need to develop statutory and regulatory
protections for safety data.
Finally, FTA acknowledges that
disciplinary actions for employee safety
behaviors may be the subject of
collective bargaining agreements
throughout the country. Consequently,
many transit agencies may need to work
with their labor unions to establish
employee safety reporting programs that
fit the needs of management and a
transit agency’s operational and
maintenance staff.
1.3. Safety Accountabilities and
Responsibilities
Comments: Two commenters
expressed concern over the requirement
that each transit agency employ an
Accountable Executive and either a
Chief Safety Officer or an SMS
Executive. These commenters argued
that this requirement could be overly
burdensome for rural, specialized,
tribal, or small transit systems where the
administrative staff could be limited to
only a single executive. One commenter
suggested that FTA add language in the
final rule that requires small transit
agencies to hire necessary safety
personnel. Another commenter urged
FTA to clarify whether the Chief Safety
Officer must be a direct employee of the
transit agency or whether the Chief
Safety Officer may be a position held by
a part-time employee.
A few commenters provided input on
the role of the Chief Safety Officer and
other SMS executives. One commenter
urged FTA to clarify the role of the
Accountable Executive in relation to the
Chief Safety Officer and the transit
agency’s Chief Executive Officer. The
commenter argued that the proposed
rule would require the Accountable
Executive to implement and maintain
SMS, but that responsibility should
belong to the Chief Safety Officer. One
commenter suggested that FTA identify
the link between the transit agency’s
Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive
and the operations and asset
management departments, which is
integral for a successful SMS.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding the
Accountable Executive and the Chief
Safety Officer (or SMS Executive),
however, FTA is requiring that each
transit agency identify individuals to fill
these positions in its system. FTA
clarified in the NPRM for this rule, and
it is clarifying again here, that at many
smaller transit agencies, roles and
responsibilities may be more fluid and
shared. Nevertheless, even in
circumstances where responsibilities are
either shared or delegated, each transit
agency must identify a single primary
decision-maker, or ‘‘Accountable
Executive,’’ who is ultimately
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34441 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations responsible for controlling the human
and financial resources necessary to
maintain and implement the transit
agency’s safety plan and transit asset
management plan.
FTA acknowledges that small transit
agencies may not have many executive
staff, and therefore, FTA is allowing
small Section 5307 recipients and
subrecipients to identify a Chief Safety
Officer, or ‘‘SMS Executive,’’ that may
serve other functions, such as
operations, maintenance, and grant
administration. For these transit
agencies, the Chief Safety Officer may
be a full-time employee of the transit
system who has responsibility for duties
other than safety, a part-time employee
of the transit system, or a contracted
employee. To illustrate, in a small bus
agency, the general manager or
operations manager may be the same
individual as the Chief Safety Officer or
SMS Executive.
Given the increased safety risks and
complex operations associated with rail
transit systems, FTA is requiring each
rail transit agency to identify a single
full-time Chief Safety Officer solely
dedicated to safety. These Chief Safety
Officers cannot have responsibilities
other than safety. Similarly, FTA
expects bus transit systems that operate
more than 100 vehicles in peak revenue
service to have a dedicated Chief Safety
Officer, given the increased safety risks
in those systems, although, this is not a
requirement.
The role of the Accountable Executive
in relation to the Chief Safety Officer
and transit agency’s CEO may vary from
system to system. In many cases, as a
transit agency’s CEO or president or
general manager, that individual likely
will serve as the Accountable Executive.
The Accountable Executive and the
Chief Safety Officer are responsible for
implementing and maintaining a transit
agency’s SMS, although at smaller
transit agencies, this individual may be
the same person. Ultimately, as noted
above, the Accountable Executive must
be the individual with the authority to
dedicate the human and financial
resources to maintain and implement a
transit agency’s safety plan and transit
asset management plan. The
Accountable Executive should oversee,
and the Chief Safety Officer should have
a strong working relationship with, the
operations and asset management
departments at a transit agency in order
for SMS to be successful and effective.
2. Safety Risk Management
2.1. Safety Risk Management: General
Comments
Comments: Two commenters
supported the general inclusion of a
safety risk management process in a
safety plan as detailed in the NPRM, but
expressed concern about the level of
data collection and assessment activities
required. The commenters
recommended that FTA provide best
practices and technical assistance to
assist States and transit agencies with
the preparation and execution of safety
risk management processes. Similarly, a
commenter expressed concerns over the
data requirements of the proposed rule,
noting that the commenter’s
organization employs hazard
identification and tracking logs, but the
organization now would have to
incorporate into its SMS the data
obtained through these systems. The
commenter asked FTA to clarify if it
would need to apply a safety risk
management process for paratransit
services, and this commenter asked
where transit asset management fits into
the safety risk management process.
While stating that safety risk
management is an essential component
of SMS, a commenter asserted that the
proposed provisions at 49 CFR 673.25
do not specify that hazard analysis, risk
assessment, or safety certification is
required for new and major capital
projects. Additionally, the commenter
suggested that the rule fails to address
configuration management or risk
assessments to system alterations, and it
does not require transit agencies to
consider the results of asset condition
assessments while performing safety
hazard identification activities. This
commenter also asserted that the
proposed rule suggests, but would not
require, that the results of asset
condition assessments and SMS
analysis be considered in the
determination of whether an asset meets
the SGR standards under FTA’s Transit
Asset Management rule at 49 CFR part
625.
One commenter asked what the
phrases ‘‘new operations of service to
the public’’ and ‘‘new operations or
maintenance procedures’’ mean, as used
in the section-by-section analysis of the
proposed 49 CFR 673.25(a).
Additionally, the commenter stated that
the definition of safety risk management
is unclear.
Two commenters encouraged FTA to
allow flexibility in the hazard
identification and risk management
processes. One of these commenters
stated that transit agencies should be
encouraged to incorporate existing
hazard identification and risk
management processes, and evaluate
any new processes that may be more
effective. The other commenter asked
whether a transit agency must develop
its own safety risk management process,
or whether FTA will establish a
nationwide model.
One commenter remarked that there
are organizational pressures exerted on
the safety staff and other personnel who
participate in the safety risk
management process to rate safety risk
as low as possible. This commenter
expressed a hope that with the full
implementation of SMS in an
organization, these types of
organizational pressures would
dissipate under a positive safety culture,
but cautioned that the development of a
positive safety culture could take five to
six years, or even longer, in many
organizations.
Response: FTA appreciates the
support from the industry on the
proposed safety risk management
process. FTA intends this process to be
flexible, and it avoided prescriptive
requirements in this rule. For example,
the level of data collection and
assessment activities will vary from
agency to agency. For some transit
agencies, data collection and analysis
processes could be conducted using
computer software programs; at other
transit agencies, especially at smaller
transit agencies, the data collection and
analysis processes could involve a
transit agency’s management team, staff,
and bus operators meeting in a room
and discussing the most significant
safety hazards and evaluating any
associated risks. FTA has produced a
safety plan template with this final rule,
and it should assist transit agencies with
the development of Safety Risk
Management processes and
considerations. To be clear, this rule
applies to any transit service not
regulated by another Federal agency,
including general public and ADA
complementary paratransit service, so
each transit service provider will need
to develop a safety plan which includes
a Safety Risk Management process.
Also, each transit agency must apply
its Safety Risk Management processes—
and all other SMS processes—to all
elements of its operations, including the
design, construction, and operation of
major capital projects, New Starts and
Small Starts projects, and any other
extension or expansion of transit
service. These requirements extend to
any ‘‘new operations or maintenance
procedures,’’ meaning, any new
operations or maintenance processes for
railcars, buses, track, facilities, or other
service or infrastructure undertaken by
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34442 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations a transit agency. FTA is providing a
great deal of flexibility here and is
allowing systems to determine the
hazards and risks for which it will
prioritize and mitigate from an
individual agency level. A transit
agency also must apply its Safety Risk
Management process to its existing
operations and maintenance procedures,
and all other aspects of its system.
Pursuant to 49 CFR 673.5, FTA is
defining the term ‘‘Safety Risk
Management’’ to mean ‘‘a process
within a transit agency’s Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for
identifying hazards and analyzing,
assessing, and mitigating safety risk.’’
FTA outlines the scope of necessary
procedures within Safety Risk
Management 49 CFR 673.25.
With respect to condition
assessments, FTA expects each transit
agency to consider the results of its
condition assessments undertaken
pursuant to its Transit Asset
Management plan when it conducts
SMS activities. For example, if an asset
does not meet a transit agency’s state of
good repair targets, then the transit
agency may conduct Safety Risk
Management activities and analysis to
determine whether the asset presents a
safety hazard and any safety risks. The
transit agency could mitigate any risks
and prioritize investments in its capital
plan, accordingly. In an effort to provide
flexibility and scalability, FTA defers to
each transit agency to determine for
itself its own processes and procedures
for these activities.
FTA agrees with commenters who
suggested that transit agencies should be
encouraged to incorporate existing
hazard identification and risk
management processes, and utilize any
new processes that may provide a more
effective means of identifying and
addressing safety hazards and safety
risks. FTA is providing a safety plan
template, technical assistance, and
guidance to assist transit agencies with
the development and implementation of
Safety Risk Management, and it is not
applying a one-size-fits-all model for the
industry since safety hazards and safety
risks vary significantly nationwide.
One of the goals of this rule is create
stronger and more positive safety
cultures within transit agencies, and
FTA expects that a transit agency’s
personnel would not feel pressure to
rate all safety risks as low as possible.
To the extent this sentiment exists
within a transit agency, FTA anticipates
that these types of practices would
dissipate as a transit agency implements
its SMS over time. FTA agrees that it
may take a few months to even a few
years to fully implement a mature SMS,
and FTA will provide guidance and
technical assistance to the industry, as
necessary.
2.2. Safety Hazard Identification and
Analysis
Comments: One commenter suggested
that FTA clarify the distinction between
safety hazard analysis and safety risk
evaluation. This commenter asserted
that FTA should articulate this
distinction because the concepts of
evaluation and analysis are used
interchangeably in common language.
Another commenter asked FTA to
define the term ‘‘consequence.’’
A commenter encouraged FTA to
establish standard processes for hazard
identification and provided FTA with
the hazard analytical methods and
safety risk determination techniques
adapted from the U.S. Department of
Defense’s Military Standard 882 series
of standards as a model for national
standardization. Similarly, one
commenter suggested that FTA specify
that transit agencies must utilize data
and information from oversight
authorities, including FTA, when
conducting hazard identification and
risk analysis.
Response: In an effort to provide
clarity to the Safety Risk Management
process, FTA has amended the
terminology used in the final rule. A
transit agency must develop a Safety
Risk Management process that is
comprised of three steps: (1) Safety
hazard identification, (2) safety risk
assessment, and (3) safety risk
mitigation. A transit agency must first
identify potential hazards throughout its
system, and then it must analyze these
hazards to determine whether they
present safety risks and safety
consequences. After a transit agency
identifies and analyzes potential
hazards and consequences, the agency
must undertake activities to assess and
prioritize the safety risk associated with
the potential consequences of the
identified safety hazards, in accordance
with 49 CFR 673.25(c). This process
includes an evaluation wherein the
transit agency assigns a level of
probability and severity to the
consequences, and then develops
mitigation, as necessary and
appropriate. FTA encourages transit
agencies to utilize computer software
programs for safety risk assessment and
mitigation, although smaller transit
operators may not need them.
FTA has taken efforts to avoid
requiring prescriptive processes for
hazard identification and risk analysis.
FTA encourages transit agencies to
review the U.S. Department of Defense’s
Military Standard 882 (available at
http://www.system-safety.org/
Documents/MIL-STD-882E.pdf) and
utilize the hazard analytical methods
and safety risk determination
techniques, to the extent appropriate,
but FTA is not mandating that transit
agencies adopt any particular method of
process for hazard identification and
risk analysis—FTA is providing transit
agencies with flexibility given the large
range of sizes and types of operators
nationwide. Finally, FTA will not
specify the type of data and information
that oversight authorities must share
with transit agencies. Oversight
authorities and transit agencies will
need to make these decisions for
themselves.
3. Safety Assurance
3.1. Safety Assurance: Safety
Performance Monitoring and
Measurement
Comments: Pursuant to the proposed
provisions at 49 CFR 673.27(b)(2), each
operator of a public transportation
system would be required to monitor its
operations to identify any potential
safety hazards not previously identified
through the Safety Risk Management
process outlined in proposed 49 CFR
673.27. One commenter suggested that
FTA delete this requirement because,
presumably, transit agencies already
would have established activities to
identify potential safety hazards as part
of their Safety Risk Management
processes. One commenter suggested
deleting the word ‘‘any’’ in the
requirement because the word suggests
that safety risk mitigations may not exist
and/or the transit agency’s Safety Risk
Management Process is broken. One
commenter asked what type of hazards
might not be identified in the Safety
Risk Management process and asked
whether the proposed requirement
indicates a flaw in the Safety Risk
Management process.
A couple of commenters requested
clarification of the term ‘‘safety event’’
as used in proposed 49 CFR
673.27(b)(4). Specifically, a transit
agency asked if a ‘‘safety event’’ in this
provision is the same as ‘‘Event’’ as
defined in the proposed rule. If the
terms are the same, then the commenter
asked whether a transit agency would
have to develop a process for
investigating ‘‘Accidents,’’ ‘‘Incidents,’’
and ‘‘Occurrences.’’ Additionally, the
commenter asked to whom it should
report a ‘‘safety event,’’ if anyone.
Two commenters asserted that this
aspect of SMS appears one-size-fits-all,
perhaps appropriate for a large agency
operating a rail system but burdensome
for small-urban, rural, specialized, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34443 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations tribal transit agencies. Several
commenters recommended that FTA
should establish minimal monitoring
requirements for Section 5310, Section
5311, and small Section 5307 recipients.
These requirements should be scalable
and reflect the size and scope of these
organizations.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding the
Safety Assurance processes proposed in
the NPRM. FTA agrees with the
commenter who suggested that the
requirement for transit agencies to
continually monitor their operations to
identify any potential safety hazards
that it might not have captured when
undertaking its Safety Risk Management
process is a redundant requirement.
FTA has eliminated this requirement for
all transit operators in the final rule.
Under the proposed provisions for
Safety Assurance at 49 CFR 673.27(b)(4),
a transit agency would be required to
establish a process to: ‘‘Investigate
safety events to identify causal factors.’’
FTA proposed the following definition
for the word, ‘‘event,’’ as used
throughout the rule: ‘‘Accident,
Incident, or Occurrence.’’ Therefore,
each transit agency must develop
procedures for investigating Accidents,
Incidents, and Occurrences.
As discussed throughout this
rulemaking, SMS is scalable, and FTA is
providing transit agencies with great
latitude and flexibility in developing
procedures for investigating Events. For
example, a small bus operator may
develop a simple process for
investigating the cause of a bus
accident. The process may involve an
on-site examination of the vehicle and
the scene, a review of any video
recordings from cameras mounted
inside or outside of the bus, an
interview with the bus operator and
witnesses at the scene, and a toxicology
test for the bus operator. A large rail
operator may need to develop a more
robust process for investigating the
cause of a rail car accident, involving
communications between safety and
operating divisions of the transit agency,
a shutdown of track operations, the
deployment of designated safety
inspectors and engineers, a
comprehensive investigative report, etc.
FTA is not prescribing any particular
process for investigating safety events,
but it notes that, as part of the larger
safety management process, it is critical
for transit agencies to identify and
understand the causes of the Accidents,
Incidents, and Occurrences in their
systems so that the circumstances
leading to the Events can be mitigated
and prevented in the future.
FTA notes that its reporting
requirements for safety events are
outlined in the National Transit
Database Reporting Manuals (see
https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd). Rail
transit agencies should follow the
notification and reporting requirements
of the new SSO rule at 49 CFR part 674,
including Appendix A to that rule. FTA
is not requiring any reporting through
this PTASP rule.
Finally, FTA agrees with the
commenters who recommended that
FTA should establish minimal
monitoring requirements for smaller
transit operators. Consequently, in
today’s final rule, FTA has eliminated
many of the Safety Assurance
requirements for all small public
transportation providers. Small public
transportation providers only would
need to develop procedures for safety
performance monitoring and
measurement; they would not need to
develop procedures for management of
change and continuous improvement.
FTA believes that these revisions reduce
the administrative, financial, and
regulatory burdens for small transit
providers significantly and help them
transition to the new part 673. Rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems,
and FTA recipients and subrecipients
that operate more than 100 vehicles in
peak revenue service, would be required
to develop safety plans that include all
of the processes under Safety
Assurance, namely, safety performance
monitoring and measurement,
management of change, and continuous
improvement.
3.2. Safety Assurance: Management of
Change
Comments: One commenter
emphasized the importance of the
proposed provisions at 49 CFR 673.27(c)
involving the management of change
and assessing changes that may
introduce new hazards or impact a
transit agency’s safety performance.
This commenter suggested moving these
requirements from the Safety Assurance
provisions of the rule to the Safety Risk
Management provisions of the rule,
indicating that this relocation would
elevate the importance of the
requirement. One commenter requested
clarification regarding which changes
might impact a transit agency’s safety
performance.
Another commenter encouraged FTA
to include Management of Change
within the SMS context, stating that
safety within the scope of capital
projects, acquisitions, procurements,
and system changes only fully can be
measured and verified through system
safety engineering practices and
principles. This commenter argued that
Management of Change within the
context of SMS should include effective
safety management procedures and
processes to ensure that plans, policies,
procedures, and practices effectively are
measured and incorporated into an
overall Management of Change program.
One commenter expressed confusion
over the provision for transit agencies to
map updates of their safety plans to
Safety Assurance instead of Safety
Management Policy.
Response: The Safety Assurance
element of SMS involves the continual
monitoring of a transit agency’s safety
performance. Safety Assurance activities
serve as a check on the Safety Risk
Management of a transit agency. The
procedures are designed to ensure that
safety risk mitigations are effective, to
collect safety performance data that will
help a transit agency predict future
safety events and mitigate or eliminate
them, and to analyze the potential safety
risks of any new practices or procedures
adopted by a transit agency. For these
reasons, the ‘‘Management of Change’’
activities are housed within Safety
Assurance. Each transit agency must
establish a process for identifying and
assessing changes that may introduce
new hazards or impact the transit
agency’s safety performance, and if the
transit agency determines that a change
may impact its safety performance, then
the transit agency must evaluate the
proposed change through its Safety Risk
Management process. FTA disagrees
with the commenter who suggested that
moving these procedures from Safety
Assurance to Safety Risk Management
will elevate their importance—
ultimately, these all are requirements for
safety plans. FTA is providing each
transit agency with great latitude and
flexibility in developing these
procedures and identifying the types of
changes in its system that could impact
safety performance. These changes may
include changes to the design of a new
public transportation system, service
changes to the existing public
transportation system, new operational
or maintenance procedures, new
organizational changes, and changes to
internal standard operating procedures,
such as changes to procurement or
safety management processes. Each of
the SMS procedures are equally
important and are designed to work
together as a system for managing safety
risks in a transit agency.
In response to the commenter who
encouraged FTA to include
Management of Change within the SMS
context, FTA makes clear that all of the
activities within Safety Assurance—
Safety Performance Monitoring,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34444 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Management of Change, and Continuous
Improvement—are core components of
SMS.
Finally, as noted above, under today’s
final rule small public transportation
providers are not subject to the
management of change requirements
under Safety Assurance. These
requirements only apply to rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems
and FTA recipients and subrecipients
that operate more than one hundred
vehicles in peak revenue service.
3.3. Safety Assurance: Continuous
Improvement
Comments: One commenter sought
clarification on the term ‘‘continuous
improvement,’’ and another commenter
recommended replacing the term
‘‘continuous’’ in proposed 49 CFR
673.27(d) with ‘‘continual’’ because
‘‘continuous’’ suggests no room to
backslide. Additionally, the commenter
suggested replacing the phrase, ‘‘If a
transit agency identifies any
deficiencies . . . , ’’ in proposed 49
CFR 673.27(d)(2) with the phrase,
‘‘When a transit agency . . . , ’’ to
maintain consistency with the spirit of
SMS.
One commenter stated that transit
agencies have developed practices for a
variety of safety oversight programs to
assess and ensure continuous
improvement of safety performance. The
commenter encouraged FTA to allow
transit agencies to continue the
development and execution of effective
system safety oversight functions, such
as safety audits, observations,
inspections, assessments, and data
analysis, in order to strengthen this
component and work towards fully
achieving the SMS model.
Response: FTA notes the suggested
changes to the verbiage in 49 CFR
673.27(d), but these suggestions are
stylistic in nature, and offer no
substantive amendments to the
regulatory text.
FTA appreciates the commenter who
noted the various safety oversight
programs that transit agencies have
developed over the years to manage
safety risk. FTA is providing transit
agencies with great latitude and
flexibility in developing procedures for
managing safety risk, and through the
requirements outlined in today’s rule,
transit agencies should be developing
procedures for conducting safety
observations, inspections, assessments,
and data analysis. FTA expects that the
continual efforts tied to safety
implementation will improve a transit
system’s safety performance by
reducing, mitigating, and preventing
safety outcomes.
Finally, as noted above, under today’s
final rule small public transportation
providers are not subject to continuous
improvement requirements under Safety
Assurance. These requirements only
apply to rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems and FTA
recipients and subrecipients that
operate more than one hundred vehicles
in peak revenue service.
4. Safety Promotion
Comments: Several commenters
supported the establishment of a
comprehensive safety training program,
including refresher training, through the
Safety Promotion element of SMS.
Several commenters provided input on
or asked questions about the types of
employees who would be subject to
training. A few commenters expressed
concern with the phrase ‘‘directly
responsible for the management of
safety,’’ asserting that this language is
vague and could be interpreted
inconsistently. One commenter stated
that FTA should replace this phrase
with the terminology in FTA’s proposed
Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program rule at 49
CFR 672.13, which requires transit
agencies to ‘‘designate its personnel
who are directly responsible for safety
oversight and ensure that they comply
with the applicable training
requirements.’’ Another commenter
expressed concern that this phrase
could be misinterpreted by transit
agencies to imply that only management
or safety department employees would
be subject to a comprehensive safety
training program. The commenter
suggested that safety training should
include all levels of employees at a
transit agency and recommended that
FTA change this language to cover all
employees and contractors. One
commenter, however, stated that transit
agencies should not be required to train
contractors. Another commenter
suggested that the terminology used to
describe categories of employees is not
consistent with the terminology used in
49 CFR part 674, without qualification.
Another commenter stated the rule
should specify that the training program
should apply to the Accountable
Executive.
Several commenters recommended
that FTA not apply the training
requirements to Section 5310 and
Section 5311 operators, arguing that the
development and implementation of a
training program would be a financial
and administrative burden. These
commenters suggested that FTA should
only mandate driver safety training for
these operators. Another commenter
indicated that live, face-to-face training
is preferred, but noted that this type of
training is difficult to schedule and
suggested that FTA provide online
training and host workshops for the
industry.
Several commenters requested
additional clarification regarding the
proposed training provisions. One
commenter asked if FTA would
‘‘grandfather’’ in existing agency safety
training programs. Another commenter
asked what constitutes a
‘‘comprehensive safety training
program’’ and whether FTA foresees any
minimum requirements for this
program. Another commenter asked
whether FTA would provide further
guidance on the specific types of safety
training that it would require. One
commenter believed that FTA’s intent is
to create a single, comprehensive
training program, but references to
training throughout the rule make that
unclear. One commenter suggested that
Safety Promotion could include
certifications and evaluations, including
a driver report card and/or a
professional transit driver program.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received supporting
the safety training program. FTA
emphasizes that this program is a
statutory requirement under 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(G), which requires each
operator of a public transportation
system to establish ‘‘a comprehensive
staff training program for the operations
personnel and personnel directly
responsible for safety’’ and includes
‘‘completion of a safety training
program’’ and ‘‘continuing safety
education and training.’’
Given the unique operating
environments and operating systems of
each transit agency, FTA is providing
great latitude and flexibility in
complying with these provisions. Each
transit agency should determine for
themselves the classes of employees
who are directly responsible for safety
in that unique system. These employees
could include vehicle operators,
maintenance staff, dispatchers, the Chief
Safety Officer, the Accountable
Executive, and other agency staff and
management who have direct
responsibility for safety. The training
program should cover all levels of
employees and contractors, and FTA
disagrees with the commenter who
suggested that these provisions should
not apply to contractors. In many
systems, contractors have direct
responsibility for safety, particularly in
circumstances where a transit agency
contracts for service, and it is critical
that these individuals have training in
safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34445 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations In response to the commenters who
recommended that FTA not apply the
training requirements to Section 5310
and Section 5311 operators, FTA notes
that it is deferring regulatory action
regarding the applicability of this rule to
these recipients and subrecipients until
a later time. FTA is providing the
industry with template safety plans and
training courses, including online
training courses, to assist small and
large transit agencies with the
development of training programs.
In response to the question regarding
whether FTA would ‘‘grandfather’’ in
existing safety training programs, FTA
does not find a need to do so. Certainly,
transit agencies can use existing safety
training programs, or augment those
programs, so long as they meet the
requirements in this rule. FTA is not
issuing any prescriptive requirements
regarding these training programs
because it does not believe that a one-
size-fits all approach is appropriate.
FTA agrees with the commenter who
suggested that Safety Promotion could
include certifications and evaluations,
including a driver report card and/or a
professional transit driver program,
although FTA is not requiring this type
of documentation. Ultimately, each
transit agency must determine what is
best for its system. Finally, FTA agrees
with the commenters who stated that
the language in this section could be
‘‘misinterpreted by transit agencies to
imply that only management or safety
department employees would be subject
to a comprehensive safety training
program’’ and does intend to create
confusion between today’s rule and the
Safety Certification Training Program
rule. Therefore, FTA is updating the
language in 49 U.S.C. 673.29 to state: ‘‘A
transit agency must establish and
implement a comprehensive safety
training program for all agency
employees and contractors directly
responsible for safety in the agency’s
public transportation system.’’
5. Scalability of SMS
Comments: Many commenters
requested guidance and technical
assistance on how SMS could be scaled
for small transit providers. One
commenter urged FTA to keep guidance
and templates at a high level so that
they can be tailored to fit the unique
needs and circumstances of the broad
range of transit agencies subject to the
PTASP rule.
Several commenters stated that an
appropriately scaled safety plan is
particularly important in a zero fatality
environment, and FTA should clarify
that the transit agency, or the State, is
responsible for deciding how to scale
the plan. These commenters suggested
that FTA revise 49 CFR 673.21 by
replacing ‘‘appropriately scaled’’ with
‘‘appropriately scaled by the provider,
or if applicable, the State.’’
One commenter urged FTA to
emphasize in the final rule that SMS
provides flexibility and adaptability,
and it urged FTA to avoid developing
prescriptive and restrictive standards for
transit agencies that may create major
program gaps and limitations. Similarly,
another commenter stated that FTA
should allow for local choice in
implementing SMS plans and programs,
asserting that local flexibility would
lead to greater and more comprehensive
safety plans across individual systems.
Several commenters suggested that
the rule lacks detail, and they indicated
that FTA should add more detail to the
various processes and procedures
required, and that FTA should develop
templates and associated technical
assistance manuals where the
requirements could be presented
differently based on size, mode, and
safety record. One commenter
appreciated FTA’s efforts to create a rule
that considers each transit agency’s
uniqueness; however, this commenter
concluded that the final rule should
include identifiable and clearly
stipulated requirements which can then
be tailored to the individual
characteristics of a transit agency.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding the
need for technical assistance, guidance,
and templates for safety plans.
Concurrent with this final rule, FTA is
issuing a safety plan template for the
industry. FTA is not requiring transit
agencies to use the template, but rather,
FTA is releasing it as a guide to assist
States and transit agencies with the
development of their safety plans.
Ultimately, each operator of a public
transportation system must decide for
itself the processes and procedures
within the SMS framework that are most
appropriate for its unique operating
environment. A small bus operator may
have simpler processes and procedures
than a large rail operator. In situations
where a State is drafting a safety plan on
behalf of a small public transportation
provider, the State and the small public
transportation provider should work
together and collaborate on the
development of processes and
procedures that are most appropriate for
the operator.
FTA appreciates the comments noting
the flexibility and adaptability of SMS,
which FTA has emphasized throughout
this rulemaking. FTA has taken great
efforts to avoid the development of
prescriptive and restrictive standards for
transit agencies that may create major
program gaps and limitations.
Finally, FTA believes that the
requirements in the rule satisfy the
minimum requirements of the statute at
49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and if the
requirements were any more
prescriptive, transit agencies would not
have the flexibility that they need to
tailor their safety plans to their unique
operating environments. If this were the
case, the safety plans would be more
difficult to develop, and ultimately, less
useful in mitigating and preventing
safety events. FTA believes that today’s
rule strikes an appropriate balance in
providing a general framework for safety
plans and for allowing flexibility and
scalability for each individual transit
agency.
6. SMS and Safety Culture
Comments: A few commenters
emphasized the need for
communication between management
and agency staff, and they noted the
need for a healthy safety culture. One
commenter supported the requirement
that transit agencies use SMS principles
to help achieve a high level of safety,
and noted that, to achieve a high level
of safety, management at transit
agencies must listen to and incorporate
the input from their frontline workers
and their unions who have daily,
firsthand experiences and in-depth
knowledge of the transit systems. One
commenter acknowledged that training
and communication are key components
of an effective SMS, but also noted that
listening to employees, seeking their
feedback, and ensuring a positive
culture of safety in their work are also
important components of SMS. Another
commenter stated that local unions may
present administrative challenges in
adopting a positive and healthy safety
culture.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding the
need for a positive and healthy safety
culture, and each of the requirements of
this rule is designed to help ensure a
positive safety culture at each transit
agency. FTA wholeheartedly agrees that
communication between management
and staff, including labor unions, is
critical in achieving a positive and
healthy safety environment and in
reducing safety events. One of the key
requirements in today’s rule is an
employee reporting program, which will
allow the frontline staff who have in-
depth knowledge of the transit system to
report unsafe conditions to management
without fear of reprisal. FTA believes
that these programs will help support a
positive safety culture within transit
organizations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34446 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations J. Safety Plan Documentation and
Recordkeeping
1. Safety Plan Documentation
Comments: Two commenters
recommended that transit agencies
should keep their safety plan documents
for more than three years. One of these
commenters recommended that transit
agencies be required to retain
documentation for a minimum of fifteen
years, or at least five triennial review
cycles. Another commenter asserted that
the data contained in the safety plan
documentation would be valuable in
determining historical trends in a transit
agency’s safety performance over time,
so extending the minimum retention
period would allow for more robust
historical assessments.
Response: FTA recognizes the value
associated with having access to years of
data to assist with assessing historical
trends. However, such a requirement
must be balanced against the costs
associated with maintaining such data
over an extended timeframe as
suggested by the commenter. With that
in mind, FTA believes its proposal that
transit agencies maintain documents
required by this part for a minimum of
three years is reasonable relative to cost
and effort, and also aligns well with the
three year period for Triennial Reviews
and State Management Reviews. This
requirement would not bar those transit
agencies desiring to maintain
documents beyond three years from
doing so, and FTA would encourage this
practice. Accordingly, the proposed
three year minimum requirement is
included in the final rule.
2. Safety Plan Records
Comments: Several commenters asked
which records should be maintained
related to training. One commenter
asserted that employee training records
under the Public Transportation Safety
Training Certification Program are
already stored in FTA’s training portal.
Another commenter stated that its
agency maintains a Learning
Management System to schedule and
track training, and this commenter
questioned whether this existing system
is sufficient or whether the agency will
need to keep additional records. One
commenter urged FTA to require transit
agencies to maintain additional records
beyond what is required in the proposed
rule.
One commenter requested
clarification on whether the
requirements to keep training records
apply to locally operated transit
systems. One commenter stated that it
will maintain records on the SMS
requirements for transit agencies that
utilize a safety plan drafted by a State.
Response: FTA notes that the training
required under the Public
Transportation Safety Certification
Training Program at 49 CFR part 672 is
required of those who are ‘‘directly
responsible for safety oversight’’ of the
public transit system. FTA has
developed a web portal to maintain the
training records for those subject to the
requirements of that rule. Today’s final
PTASP rule requires the development of
a comprehensive staff training program
for operations personnel and personnel
who are ‘‘directly responsible for
safety.’’ Thus, there are two different
types of safety training requirements,
applicable to different employees of a
transit system.
The requirements of today’s final rule
include the completion of a safety
training program and continuing safety
education and training. Such training
may or may not also include training
requirements in accordance with the
Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program Rule at
49 CFR part 672. FTA emphasizes that
each transit agency will have discretion
and flexibility with regard to the
requirements of the safety training
program under this part. FTA
encourages transit agencies to maintain
training records to the maximum extent
practicable, but in today’s final rule,
FTA is not requiring transit agencies to
maintain these records and it has
removed Section 673.33 ‘‘Safety Plan
Records’’ in its entirety for all transit
agencies. Specifically, transit agencies
are not required to maintain records of
safety risk mitigations, results from
safety performance assessments, and
employee training. FTA believes that
this revision from the NPRM to the final
rule responds to the industry’s concerns
regarding recordkeeping and it
significantly will reduce the
administrative and financial burdens for
all transit operators.
3. Other Comments on Documentation
and Recordkeeping
Commenters: Numerous commenters
stated that transit agencies need data
protection for the information in their
safety plans. The commenters argued
that SMS, by its nature, requires full and
open review, evaluation, and
prioritization of risk, and the possibility
that these safety reviews could be
released through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), State sunshine
laws, or obtained through judicial
proceedings serve as a barrier to well-
documented and robust self-
examination. The commenters
encouraged FTA to state its intent to
protect agency analyses to the full
extent possible and pursue full
authority to exempt safety analyses from
discovery and use in judicial
proceedings. One commenter suggested
that FTA incorporate a confidentiality
provision into the rule similar to the
provisions in the old SSO rule at 49 CFR
part 659.
One commenter suggested that the
rule should acknowledge disclosure
laws differ between States and that the
rule should be written so that transit
agencies are not required to disclose
records to plaintiffs or allegedly injured
parties if a State law does not require
them to do so.
Response: When FTA first
promulgated its SSO rule in 1995, FTA
recognized that rail transit agencies
often face litigation arising from
accidents, and that the release of
accident investigation reports can
compromise both the defense of
litigation and the ability of agencies to
obtain comprehensive, confidential
analyses of accidents. Thus, the former
SSO rule at 49 CFR 659.11 provided that
a state ‘‘may withhold an investigation
report that may have been prepared or
adopted by the oversight agency from
being admitted as evidence or used in
a civil action for damages.’’ Courts are
left to determine whether to admit
investigation reports into evidence for
litigation, in accordance with the
relevant State law and the courts’ rules
of evidence.
Unlike NTSB accident reports, which
cannot be admitted into evidence or
used in civil litigation in a suit for
damages arising from an accident, there
is no such protection for data under
FTA’s safety rules (see 49 U.S.C. 1154(b)
regarding NTSB investigations). Rather,
States may enact statutes regarding the
admissibility into evidence of accident
investigation reports or safety data and
analysis conducted in compliance with
FTA requirements. FTA emphasizes that
any protections must be based on State,
not Federal, law and rules of evidence.
With regard to safety records in the
possession of FTA, FTA will maintain
the confidentiality of accident
investigations and incident reports to
the maximum extent permitted under
Federal law, including the various
exemptions under FOIA. Documents
submitted to FTA are subject to FOIA
and are generally releasable to the
public upon request. However, unlike
other Federal safety regulatory agencies
such as FRA and FAA, Congress has yet
to provide FTA with statutory authority
to otherwise exempt safety-related
information from disclosure. Section
3021 of the FAST Act authorized FTA
to undertake a study to determine
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34447 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations whether data protection is necessary.
FTA notes that its confidential
treatment of information would not
preempt State law; therefore, transit
agencies still would be required to
comply with their State’s laws regarding
the treatment of such information and
should exercise their use of this
provision accordingly.
4. Database Systems
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern over integrating existing
database systems and requested
clarification from FTA on how to do so.
The commenter urged FTA to clarify
which data categories FTA expects to
add to existing databases to capture
information, and provide additional
information on how it will support
additional data management systems
that agencies will need to acquire as a
result of the rule.
Response: Each transit agency will
have to determine for itself how it will
integrate databases. FTA supports the
use of data management systems if a
transit agency determines that these
systems are necessary to manage safety
risks. However, FTA does not foresee
transit agencies having to integrate or
create new databases, necessarily, in
order to comply with the requirements
of 49 CFR part 673.
5. Staffing and Resources as a Result of
Documentation and Recordkeeping
Comments: Two commenters
expressed concern that the
documentation and recordkeeping
requirements in the proposed rule will
produce a need for additional staffing
and stretch already limited resources.
The commenters stated that
recordkeeping and documentation must
be scalable.
Response: FTA understands that
agencies will need to expend resources
to comply with the documentation
requirements. FTA has sought to
minimize the rule’s paperwork burdens
and agrees that such requirements for
documentation and recordkeeping must
be scalable. To this end, FTA has
eliminated many of its proposed
recordkeeping requirements in their
entirety. Specifically, transit agencies
are not required to maintain records of
safety risk mitigations, results from
safety performance assessments, and
employee training. FTA believes that
this revision from the NPRM to the final
rule responds to the industry’s concerns
regarding recordkeeping and it
significantly will reduce the
administrative and financial burdens for
all transit operators. FTA reiterates that
service providers within the public
transportation industry can vary greatly
based on size, complexity, and
operating characteristics. Transit
agencies need safety processes,
activities, and tools that scale to the
size, complexity, and uniqueness of
their systems, and SMS provides such
an approach. Therefore, FTA believes
that the documentation that is kept for
a smaller bus agency may be less
voluminous and less complex than
those of large rail or multi-modal transit
agencies. Moreover, FTA is issuing a
safety plan template concurrent with the
issuance of this final rule. This template
will reduce the burden on transit
agencies in developing the
documentation necessary (that is, the
safety plan) to comply with this rule.
K. Funding
Comments: Several commenters
asserted that the proposed rule results
in additional costs relating to, among
other provisions, reviews, training,
software or software upgrades, and the
scalability and implementation of SMS.
The commenters expressed concern that
these additional costs may impact their
limited available resources and
expressed concern that no additional
resources would be provided to support
the costs of achieving compliance.
Several commenters remarked that this
rulemaking seems like an unfunded
mandate. These commenters also asked
whether there would be additional
Federal resources provided to
implement the new safety plans.
Another commenter asserted that costs
related to oversight responsibilities
should be eligible for reimbursement by
States.
Response: FTA recognizes there are
costs associated with implementing the
requirements of this rule; however, this
rule is a requirement of 49 U.S.C.
5329(d). FTA recognizes the need for
increased investments in transit, but
Congress determines the specific levels
of funding available to FTA recipients.
To this extent, FTA disagrees with those
commenters who suggested that these
requirements are an unfunded mandate.
States and operators of public
transportation systems may use Federal
funding provided through the existing
Section 5303, Section 5304, Section
5307, Section 5309, Section 5310,
Section 5337, and Section 5339
programs to comply with the
requirements in this rule, that is,
developing and implementing their
safety plans. Costs related to oversight
by SSOAs are eligible for Federal
reimbursement through the State Safety
Oversight Grant Program created by 49
U.S.C. 5329.
In an effort to further reduce the
administrative, financial, and regulatory
burdens on recipients, FTA will provide
technical assistance in the form of
templates and guidance documents to
assist with the development of safety
plans. FTA also is providing training
courses to assist the industry with
compliance with this rule. FTA has
removed Section 673.33 ‘‘Safety Plan
Records’’ from the final rule in response
to comments from the industry and to
reduce costs for individual transit
systems. FTA is deferring action
regarding the applicability of this rule to
the smaller recipients and subrecipients
that only receive Section 5310 and/or
Section 5311 funds so that it can
evaluate additional information and
safety data to determine the appropriate
level of regulatory burden necessary to
address the safety risk presented by
these operators.
L. Staffing
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concerns about the limited
staff of many transit agencies and
asserted that compliance with the
proposed rule, notably the
administrative requirements, would
require agencies to hire more staff,
including contractors or expert
consultants, thus increasing costs. One
commenter expressed that medium-
sized transit agencies may have
difficulty absorbing the costs that may
be necessary to hire more than one
individual without additional funding.
One commenter expressed concern that
placing increasing requirements on
State Department of Transportation staff
could create unintended consequences,
such as a reduction in work quality or
causing staff to forego other critical
work.
Response: FTA understands the
concerns expressed by some
commenters about the staffing resources
needed to comply with the rule.
Irrespective of the Federal funding
stream, FTA continues to believe the
scalability and flexibility in safety plan
development will not unduly burden
any particular transit agency. Given the
scalability of SMS, transit agencies may
have to reorganize existing staffing
resources instead of hiring additional
ones. Moreover, to reduce staffing
burdens on transit agencies and States,
FTA is issuing a safety plan template
concurrent with this final rule. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA
also is requiring that States draft and
certify plans on behalf of small public
transportation providers which will
further reduce the burden on smaller
agencies. FTA is deferring action
regarding the applicability of this rule to
smaller recipients and subrecipients
that only receive Section 5310 and/or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34448 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Section 5311 funds so that it can
evaluate additional information and
safety data to determine the appropriate
level of regulatory burden necessary to
address the safety risk presented by
these operators.
M. Enforcement and Oversight
1. Triennial Reviews and State
Management Reviews
Comments: A few commenters
preferred FTA’s review of safety plans
as part of the existing Triennial Review
and State Management Review oversight
processes, rather than annual reviews.
One commenter asked FTA to provide
more clarity on the State Management
Review process. One commenter
suggested that FTA could utilize
findings from these oversight reviews
for purposes of informing the transit
industry on safety trends and best
practices.
A few commenters expressed concern
that FTA may conduct oversight and
enforcement of this rule outside of the
traditional Triennial Review and State
Management Review processes, but FTA
did not explain how this additional
oversight may impact transit agencies
and SSOAs. The commenters
recommended that FTA issue guidance
explaining this additional oversight so
that States, SSOAs, and transit agencies
can effectively anticipate and respond to
this process, and so that FTA may
administer it consistently nationwide.
Commenters suggested that FTA should
detail procedures for additional reviews
or audits outside the normal review
schedule, including an advanced notice
process and an identification of roles for
the SSOAs.
One commenter asked whether and to
what extent reviewers could reject
performance targets during the Triennial
Review process. Another commenter
asked about the consequences of a
transit agency’s failure to meet its safety
goals.
Response: As a preliminary matter,
pursuant to the statutory provisions of
49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D), each operator of
a public transportation system is
required to conduct an annual review
and update of its safety plan. This
annual review and update is a process
to be undertaken by each transit agency
independent of the triennial oversight
process conducted by FTA. FTA will
issue future guidance on any changes to
the Triennial Review and State
Management Review processes,
including the role of an SSOA, to the
extent necessary. FTA will not use the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan to inform the industry how it will
conduct the Triennial Review or State
Management Review processes.
FTA will conduct additional oversight
and enforcement of this rule outside of
the Triennial Review and State
Management Review processes as
necessary and appropriate. FTA notes
that its new Public Transportation
Safety Program rule at 49 CFR part 670
outlines its authority to conduct
investigations, inspections, audits, and
examinations on transit systems. FTA
will make oversight and enforcement
determinations on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, FTA Triennial and State
Management reviewers will not ‘‘reject’’
a transit agency’s safety performance
targets; however, they will ensure that
each transit agency has identified safety
performance targets based on the safety
performance measures established in
the National Public Transportation
Safety Plan. To the extent that a transit
agency does not meet its safety goals,
then using its safety plan as guide, the
transit agency must determine for itself
which efforts it must undertake to do so.
2. State Oversight
Comments: One commenter stated
that a State may reasonably be required
to provide oversight in drafting a safety
plans, but for some States with multiple
responsibilities and multiple recipients
and subrecipients of Section 5310 and
Section 5311 funds, the additional
responsibility of oversight of small
Section 5307 operators could be
daunting. One commenter remarked that
incorporating oversight of public transit
systems into the existing SSO program
would require additional trained
personnel.
Response: As discussed above, FTA is
not requiring States to provide oversight
of safety plans. States only are required
to draft and certify the safety plans on
behalf of small Section 5307 operators
(unless the operator decides to draft and
certify its own safety plan). FTA is
responsible for providing oversight and
enforcement of all safety plans, and it
will utilize the existing Triennial
Review and State Management Review
processes to do so (with the exception
of SSOAs, which have primary safety
oversight and enforcement
responsibility over rail transit systems).
To ease the burden on States, FTA is
issuing a safety plan template with this
final rule. Also, as discussed above,
there is no Federal legal authority for an
SSOA to provide safety oversight of a
bus system, and this rule does not
contemplate an SSOA taking on that
role.
3. Other Comments
Comments: One commenter
encouraged FTA to provide standard
thresholds that it would use to
determine the need for a safety audit,
this way, FTA would not appear to be
arbitrary or inconsistent. This
commenter also recommended that FTA
provide each transit agency with the
opportunity to answer questions and
provide additional information to assist
safety oversight reviewers.
One commenter asked if FTA would
analyze the public’s role in collisions
rather than concentrating its oversight
on transit agencies, arguing that,
without addressing the public’s
interaction with the transit system,
transit agencies may risk Federal
funding if they do not meet their safety
performance targets. Additionally, the
commenter asked if FTA would have
funding available for purposes of
education (internal and external to
include educating the public on safety),
engineering (highway and vehicle
designs), and enforcement if a transit
agency fails to meet its safety
performance targets.
Response: Through MAP–21 and the
FAST Act, Congress provided FTA with
significant authority to conduct
oversight, inspections, investigations,
audits, examinations, and testing, as
well as enforcement actions. (49 U.S.C.
5329(f)–(g)). FTA has issued a new
regulation at 49 CFR part 670 entitled
the ‘‘Public Transportation Safety
Program’’ rule. FTA directs readers to
that rulemaking for issues related to
safety audits conducted by FTA.
FTA has identified NTD reporting
thresholds for an ‘‘Incident,’’ and those
thresholds can be found in Appendix A
to FTA’s new SSO rule at 49 CFR part
674 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2016-03-16/pdf/2016-05489.pdf). These
thresholds do not limit FTA’s authority
to conduct a safety audit in the case of
an Incident.
FTA notes that the statutory
framework of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)
authorizes FTA to regulate operators of
public transportation systems, not the
riding public. Nevertheless, through the
SMS framework, each transit operator is
required to develop processes and
procedures for addressing safety risks in
all aspects of their systems, and
therefore, they must consider the
public’s role and interaction with their
systems when identifying hazards and
evaluating risks.
Finally, as discussed throughout this
final rule, FTA does not have control
over its annual funding levels and
appropriations. However, FTA supports
the use of Federal funding for purposes
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34449 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations of education, engineering, and
enforcement activities, and these types
of activities may fall within the scope of
eligibility for various funding programs
under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
N. NTD Reporting
Comments: One commenter
recommended that FTA continue
collecting additional safety reporting
data through existing programs such as
the NTD, which is currently used by
transit agencies to report safety
incidents.
Another commenter remarked that 49
CFR part 673 does not discuss reporting
to FTA through NTD. Additionally, the
commenter asked if FTA intends to
substantially change the NTD reporting
requirements upon the effective date of
the proposed PTASP rule.
Response: During this rulemaking,
FTA issued a ‘‘Notice of Request for
Comments on Updates to National
Transit Database Safety Information
Collection’’ (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2014-08-21/pdf/2014-
19787.pdf). FTA issued a
‘‘Supplemental Notice and Response to
Comments on National Transit
Database’’ (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2015-11-18/pdf/2015-
29384.pdf). FTA issued final reporting
requirements on July 26, 2016, and they
are available here: https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-07-26/pdf/2016-
17075.pdf. Through today’s final rule,
FTA is not requiring any reporting of
any information to any entity.
O. Security
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concerns that the proposed
rule did not address security, including
terrorism, trespassing, vandalism,
assaults, robberies, and cyber threats on
transit systems. One commenter
suggested that FTA address security and
safety of the general public in this rule.
One commenter stated that the TSA is
unable to establish cybersecurity
requirements for transit control systems
due to lack of funding and expertise.
This commenter warned that the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s focus on
transportation safety must include an
emphasis on transportation control
system security to guarantee the safety
of associated transportation systems.
One commenter stated that FTA
should provide direction regarding
security and terrorism preparedness,
noting that these preparations should be
coordinated with TSA.
Response: As a preliminary matter,
TSA has the prerogative and
responsibility for all rulemakings on
security in public transportation.
Specifically, under the Implementing
the Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–
53), the September 2004 Memorandum
of Agreement between DOT and DHS,
and the September 2005 modal annex
between FTA and TSA, DHS is tasked
with the responsibility for carrying out
a national strategy for public
transportation security to minimize
security threats and to maximize the
ability of public transportation agencies
to mitigate damage from terrorist attacks
and other major incidents. While this
legislation and these agreements do not
preclude transit agencies from
implementing measures securing their
assets, FTA is not requiring agencies to
do so through this final rule. FTA
recognizes, of course, that some of the
steps that a transit agency takes to
ensure the personal safety and security
of its riders and employees will overlap
with steps it takes to secure its system
from a terrorist attack; for example, the
steps an agency takes may be part of a
threat and vulnerability assessment.
FTA notes that a transit agency’s
expenses for safety and security will
continue to be eligible for Federal
reimbursement under 49 U.S.C. Chapter
53. P. SSPP–PTASP Crosswalk
Comments: Although not a part of the
PTASP NPRM, several commenters
provided input on FTA’s ‘‘Crosswalk
Matrix: 49 CFR part 659.19 System
Safety Program Plan Requirements with
Proposed Requirements for Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans,’’
which it uploaded onto the docket for
this rule. FTA intended this document
to provide additional guidance to rail
transit systems as to how the 21
elements of an SSPP would fit within
the new regulatory requirements for a
PTASP.
Several commenters expressed
concerns that the crosswalk lumps some
SSPP elements into a few categories for
PTASPs, and these commenters asserted
that the six most complicated SSPP
elements are listed under multiple
pillars of SMS. A few commenters
asserted that some of the 21 elements of
SSPPs fit into other pillars of SMS. One
commenter encouraged FTA to work
with rail transit systems to better align
this matrix and promote a better
understanding of SMS. One commenter
suggested that performance targets
should be listed under Safety
Assurance, rather than Safety
Management Policy. Another
commenter provided several detailed
suggestions for revised mapping of the
SSPP elements with SMS.
Response: FTA agrees that the new
PTASP places the former elements of
SSPPs into fewer categories, and this is
a result of a new statutory framework
under 49 U.S.C. 5329. The statutory
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) provide
specific requirements for PTASPs, and
through the design of the new PTASP
rule, FTA’s intent is to ensure that rail
transit systems will not become less safe
than they were under the former SSO
rule at 49 CFR part 659. Additional,
more comprehensive guidance regarding
the relationship between SSPPs and
PTASPs is forthcoming, and FTA will
post that guidance on its website (see
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-
and-guidance/safety/transit-safety-
oversight-tso).
FTA agrees that some of the SSPP
elements may be listed under multiple
elements of SMS, but FTA believes that
this mapping most appropriately
connects the PTASP requirements to
former SSPP elements. FTA disagrees
that safety performance targets should
be included under Safety Assurance,
rather than Safety Management Policy
because safety performance targets
guide the safety management decisions,
investment decisions, and policy
decisions of a transit agency, all critical
tenets of Safety Management Policy.
Notwithstanding this connection
between the former SSPPs and PTASPs,
FTA only is requiring transit agencies to
set safety performance targets as part of
the ‘‘General Requirements’’ section of
this final rule (49 CFR 673.11(a)((3)); to
avoid redundancy, FTA is not also
establishing this requirement in the
‘‘Safety Management Policy’’ section,
although, transit agencies may include
safety performance targets in their
Safety Management Policies if they so
choose.
Q. Safety Performance Measures
Comments: Several commenters urged
FTA to revise the performance measures
proposed in the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan. Multiple
commenters urged FTA to delete the
proposed ‘‘reliability’’ performance
criterion for the following reasons:
Transit agencies currently do not report
reliability data to NTD; the reliability
performance measure is redundant of
the TAM rule; reliability is a
maintenance-related measure, not a
safety measure; reliability is not easily
quantified; and reliability could vary
considerably between transit agencies.
One commenter sought further
guidance regarding FTA’s four proposed
safety performance measures. This
commenter suggested that without
additional detail, transit agencies would
not be able to determine the standards
by which FTA and SSOAs would
measure and evaluate the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34450 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations appropriateness of the safety
performance targets established by the
agencies.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding
safety performance measures; however,
FTA notes that today’s rule does not
establish safety performance measures—
FTA’s National Public Transportation
Safety Plan establishes the measures.
FTA is addressing comments regarding
the safety performance measures in the
notice and comment process for the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan.
R. Technical Assistance and Guidance
Comments: Numerous commenters
supported FTA’s proposal to issue a
safety plan template and to provide
technical assistance to industry on the
development and implementation of
safety plans, particularly to address the
scalability of SMS to different transit
modes and system sizes.
Some commenters stated that FTA
should allow transit agencies to attach
an appendix to the safety plan template,
which would allow a State to avoid
drafting multiple unique plans and
capture a few unique issues. Several
commenters stated that FTA clearly
should allow a State to draft a template
statewide safety plan or a series of
individual safety plans tailored for each
unique transit agency. One commenter
stated that a transit agency should have
the ability to tailor guidance and
templates to its own needs, as long as
it satisfies the substantive requirements
of the final PTASP rule. Another
commenter stated that it was looking
forward to receiving implementation
and gap analysis checklists.
Several commenters noted that there
is no mandated timeframe for when
FTA will provide technical assistance
tools and urged FTA to provide them in
a timely manner. Several commenters
urged FTA to make PTASP templates
available in advance of any
implementation deadline; some
commenters urged FTA to make PTASP
templates available concurrently with
this final rule. One commenter
suggested that, if FTA is unable to
provide PTASP templates on the day
that the final rule is published, then
FTA should change the implementation
deadline to be one year from the date
that FTA issues PTASP templates.
Another commenter stated that FTA
should refrain from issuing a final rule
until FTA develops guidance and
PTASP templates. One commenter
recommended that FTA provide
technical assistance tools to States upon
request.
Several commenters requested other
forms of technical assistance, including
an FTA-sponsored website featuring
national-level safety performance
measurement data, online training,
safety workshops, examples of industry
best practices, and lessons learned in
implementing SMS.
Response: FTA appreciates the
support from commenters regarding its
development of a safety plan template
and other guidance and technical
assistance. FTA recognizes the
administrative and financial burdens
that this rule may impose on the
industry, and FTA intends to reduce
these burdens through templates,
guidance, and technical assistance.
Ultimately, the safety plan template,
guidance, and technical assistance will
help reduce, mitigate, and eliminate
hazards and risks and will help make
public transportation safer. For these
reasons, today, FTA is issuing a
template for safety plans concurrent
with the issuance of this rule. The safety
plan template is generic, minimalistic,
and addresses each of the requirements
of today’s final rule. States and transit
agencies can tailor the template to meet
the needs of the numerous unique
operating environments across the
nation.
FTA is providing deference to States
in the development of plans on behalf
of operators of public transportation. A
State may draft a single statewide safety
plan, it may draft a unique safety plan
for each individual transit operator, it
may develop a generic statewide safety
plan with a more tailored appendix
outlining various processes and
procedures for each unique transit
operator, or it may develop another
method for complying with the rule, so
long as the statewide plan or the
individualized plans satisfy each of the
elements of this rule and contain each
of the required processes and
procedures for SMS. Transit agencies
are free to tailor guidance and templates
to meet their own needs, so long as their
safety plans satisfy the requirements of
this rule. If a State drafts a statewide
safety plan, then each individual
operator that it covers should keep its
plan on file, and the plan should
include the relevant and unique
information for that particular operator,
such as the names of the Accountable
Executive and Chief Safety Officer and
the operator’s safety performance
targets.
FTA notes that it has been developing
a website through which it has been
providing technical assistance,
including information related to safety
performance, training, examples of
industry best practices, and lessons
learned in implementing SMS. The
website is located at the following link:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-
and-guidance/safety/transit-safety-
oversight-tso. FTA has been uploading
information onto this website, including
guidance and other forms of technical
assistance, as it becomes available. FTA
encourages the transit industry to utilize
the tools on this website with its
development and implementation of
successful safety practices, and it also
encourages the industry to provide
feedback on this website, as it evolves,
through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ tool at the
following link: https://
ftawebprod.fta.dot.gov/ContactUsTool/
Public/NewRequest.aspx.
Finally, as mentioned above, in an
effort to assist the industry with meeting
the requirements of this rule, FTA is
making the effective date one year after
its publication date. As a result, transit
agencies will have a total of two years
from the publication date to certify that
they have safety plans meeting the
requirements of 49 CFR part 673.
S. Coordination With Other Entities
Comments: Two commenters
expressed concern with the potential for
inconsistency and duplication between
FTA and FRA safety regulations. One
commenter urged FTA to coordinate its
NTD with FRA’s Accident/Incident
Report Generator.NET (AIRGNET) to
establish consistent terminology,
reporting requirements, audit
requirements, training requirements,
and safety plan requirements.
One commenter recommended that
FTA adopt safety standards and
methodologies developed by the U.S.
Department of Defense, including
system safety analytical methods to
assess hazards and consequences and
system safety engineering principles
and techniques to develop and design
mitigation. Two commenters
encouraged FTA to establish an
advisory committee of transit operators
to assist with the development of
policies and procedures for smaller
operators.
Response: FTA makes clear through
today’s rule that transit agencies that
operate a rail fixed guideway public
transportation system subject to
regulation by FRA do not have to
develop safety plans for that mode of
service. 49 CFR 673.11(f). FTA does not
intend to issue safety regulations that
conflict or are inconsistent with FRA’s
safety regulations, and to that end, FTA
has coordinated and will continue to
coordinate with FRA on the
development and implementation of
this rule. FTA also has taken great
efforts to ensure that terminology,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34451 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations definitions, reporting requirements,
training requirements, and regulatory
enforcement efforts are consistent with
other Federal safety and reporting
regulations to the maximum extent
possible.
FTA appreciates the suggestion that it
should adopt safety standards and
methodologies developed by the U.S.
Department of Defense, including
system safety analytical methods to
assess hazards and consequences and
system safety engineering principles
and techniques to develop and design
mitigations; FTA is adopting the SMS
approach to addressing safety risk,
which is consistent with the approach
taken by other modes within the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Finally, as FTA develops and issues
guidance and best practices for safety,
FTA intends to consult with the transit
industry, including the Transit Advisory
Committee for Safety, to the maximum
extent practicable.
T. Nexus Between the PTASP Rule and
Other FTA Requirements
Comments: Numerous commenters
suggested that FTA clarify the nexus
between the PTASP rule and other
related FTA requirements, specifically,
the National Public Transportation
Safety Plan, the SSO rule, the Safety
Certification Training Program rule, the
Bus Testing rule, and the Transit Asset
Management rule. These commenters
recommended that FTA clearly define
the link between the PTASP rule and
other FTA requirements, especially the
Transit Asset Management rule, to be
consistent to avoid conflicting
regulations. One commenter
recommended that, to foster a strong
culture of safety, FTA should extend
data protection to asset management
analyses.
One commenter urged FTA to
reinforce the link between the PTASP
rule and the SSO rule, arguing that FTA
should work to strengthen and
streamline the mitigation, reporting, and
notification processes.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments that it received regarding the
connection between the PTASP rule and
other related FTA regulations. With
respect to the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan, FTA
emphasizes that the Plan establishes
safety performance measures to which
each operator of a public transportation
system must set performance targets in
their safety plans, as required in the
PTASP rule.
In the SSO rule, FTA requires each
SSOA to develop a program standard
which, among other things, establishes
minimum safety standards for the safety
of all rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems within its
jurisdiction. FTA also requires each
SSOA to approve the PTASP of every
rail fixed guideway public
transportation system within its
jurisdiction. Each SSOA should review
those safety plans to ensure that they are
compliant with the PTASP rule, the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan, and its own program standard.
FTA notes that the PTASP rule does not
add any additional notification or
reporting requirements; those
requirements are outlined in the SSO
rule and the NTD Reporting Manuals.
In the Safety Certification Training
Program rule, FTA establishes minimum
training requirements for transit agency
employees and contractors who are
directly responsible for safety oversight
of rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems that receive FTA
funds. In the PTASP rule, FTA requires
each operator of a public transportation
system to establish a comprehensive
safety training program for all
employees and contractors directly
responsible for safety. In this section of
the safety plan, a rail transit system also
may include its training program for
employees and contractors who are
directly responsible for safety oversight.
In the Bus Testing rule, FTA requires
recipients of FTA funds to test buses to
ensure that they meet minimum
performance standards, a scoring
system, and a pass/fail threshold if they
are using FTA funds to procure the
buses. This rule exists separate and
apart from the PTASP rule, but transit
agencies may incorporate by reference
into their safety plans any processes and
procedures that they utilize for bus
testing pursuant to the Bus Testing rule.
Finally, in the Transit Asset
Management rule, FTA requires transit
agencies to conduct asset inventories
and then perform condition assessments
on their assets. Those condition
assessments should inform the SMS
activities that a transit agency
undertakes pursuant to its safety plan.
To illustrate how these rules work
together, if a transit agency finds
through a condition assessment that an
asset is not meeting its state of good
repair standards, then the transit agency
may conduct safety hazard
identification and safety risk assessment
analysis on that asset. The transit
agency may mitigate any safety risks, as
necessary, and it may reprioritize its
capital plan in accordance with the FTA
and FHWA Planning rule at 23 CFR part
450. FTA notes that it addressed any
comments related to asset management
in the final Transit Asset Management
rule.
U. Americans With Disabilities Act
Issues
Comments: One commenter stated
that the proposed rule should not
conflict with the Americans with
Disabilities Act laws and regulations,
and vice-versa. The commenter urged
FTA to clarify how it will treat safety
issues and incidents that may conflict
with ADA requirements, remarking that
agencies should not be subject to
inspections, audits, examinations,
investigations, directives, or other
possible sanctions for adhering to ADA
requirements.
Response: FTA does not intend the
PTASP rule to conflict with the ADA
and its implementing regulations, which
are designed to prevent and eliminate
discrimination. Nevertheless, to the
extent that a transit agency is
undertaking action to comply with the
ADA—such as the construction of
capital projects to make facilities ADA-
compliant; the installation of accessible
features on vehicles, platforms, and
other transit facilities; and the provision
of paratransit service—FTA expects that
action to be undertaken safely and in
accordance with this final rule and a
transit agency’s safety plan.
V. Other Comments on the Rule
Comments: One commenter suggested
that all transit agencies should have
safety plans only for maintenance and
training, and that States should review
safety plans only if a transit agency has
safety issues. One commenter
encouraged FTA to incorporate
occupational health issues into the rule,
focusing on driver assault, restroom
breaks, and fatigue management.
Another commenter encouraged FTA to
join a ‘‘Journey to Safety Excellence—a
cycle of improvement that aims for a
continuous reduction of risk with a goal
of zero harm,’’ stating that integrating
the principles of the ‘‘Journey to Safety
Excellence’’ into workplace safety
strategies can make a great difference in
saving lives and preventing injuries.
One commenter remarked that zero is
the only goal that transit agencies
should establish in their performance
targets.
A commenter expressed disapproval
for the guidelines FRA developed for
rail vehicle crashworthiness, citing the
Union International des Chemins de
Fers (UIC), an international rail
regulatory body, as an alternative
example. This commenter urged FTA to
use UIC as an example and expressed
hope that FTA can serve as a role model
for FRA.
Response: FTA disagrees with the
commenter who suggested that all
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34452 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations transit agencies should have safety
plans only for maintenance and
training, and that States should review
safety plans only if a transit agency has
safety issues. FTA’s authorizing statute
at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B) mandates that
each operator of a public transportation
system establish ‘‘methods for
identifying and evaluating safety risks
throughout all elements of the public
transportation system.’’ This
requirement would extend beyond mere
maintenance and training, and in this
final rule, FTA makes clear that transit
agencies should address safety risks in
all aspects of their systems, including
maintenance, training, operations,
construction of new facilities,
rehabilitation of existing facilities, etc.
Moreover, the statutory provisions of 49
U.S.C. 5329(d) require States to ‘‘draft’’
and ‘‘certify’’ safety plans on behalf of
small Section 5307 operators. States
cannot merely review plans if one of
these transit agencies has ‘‘safety
issues.’’
FTA appreciates the comment that it
received regarding occupational health
issues. To the extent that occupational
health issues may be safety hazards and
present safety risks, transit agencies
should be addressing them through the
SMS processes outlined in their safety
plans. FTA will issue rules regarding
operator assault in the future.
Regarding the establishment of ‘‘zero’’
as the only feasible goal in performance
targets, FTA only is creating safety
performance measures by which transit
agencies are to set performance targets.
FTA is not mandating any particular
goal or target; it is deferring to each
transit agency, MPO, and State and to
set targets for each of their unique
systems and geographical areas.
Finally, FTA notes that this final
PTASP rule does not establish
guidelines for rail vehicle
crashworthiness. Please see the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan,
available on FTA’s website, for more
information regarding safety
performance standards for public
transportation vehicles.
W. Regulatory Impact Analyses
1. Costs
Comments: One commenter
concluded that FTA underestimated the
costs associated with the
implementation of the rule. Similarly, a
transit agency estimated cost increases
to ensure compliance with the rule.
Several commenters provided specific
cost estimates related to the proposed
requirements. One commenter remarked
that upgrading its surveillance system
on buses would cost approximately $2
million and that it installed driver
barriers in 30 new buses, at a cost of
$4,202 per barrier, totaling $126,060.
This commenter stated that the
additional recordkeeping could require
the purchase of new equipment and
tracking software and the hiring and
training of additional staff, which would
result in costs of at least $4 million.
This commenter asserted that staffing at
the administrative level would cost
about $85,000 annually and contractor
personnel would cost about $75,000
annually. This commenter asserted that
training for administrative staff would
cost about $30,000 per person, and
training for contractor personnel would
cost about $10,000 per person. One
commenter estimated that it would cost
a State $200,000 annually to adequately
perform any oversight responsibilities.
One commenter estimated that its initial
investment could reach at least $1
million for a risk management
information system, training, and
personnel. One commenter stated that it
could not estimate the cost of
coordination with MPOs on the
establishment of performance targets.
Response: FTA appreciates the
comments on the costs of the proposed
rule. It is a challenge to develop cost
estimates for the rule that can be
representative of any one agency given
the differences in agency size, modes,
location, and level of maturity of safety
programs. The regulatory analysis
acknowledges that mitigation costs of
identified risks are not included in the
estimated cost of the proposed rule. The
cost of onboard surveillance systems
and driver barriers are mitigation costs.
Typically, a transit agency makes these
types of investment decisions with the
understanding that there will be benefits
of the mitigation that exceed the costs
of the mitigation. Today’s rule does not
recommend any specific mitigation, and
does not require agencies to implement
mitigations that have greater costs than
benefits.
The annual personnel costs of
recordkeeping cited by the commenter
are considerably higher than the
estimated cost in the proposed rule.
FTA’s cost estimate for this particular
type of agency is $20,000 for staff;
$15,000 for information technology; and
$4,000 for training, excluding travel
costs. FTA cannot estimate costs for
specific agencies, since FTA does not
know how these costs would vary by
size within each category. The larger the
agency, the greater the amount of data
and records that need to be maintained,
with the possibility of significant
economies of scale for certain
recordkeeping tasks, but increased
complexity in others, possibly requiring
more sophisticated systems than those
of the smaller agencies. It is possible
that a large transit agency may need one
additional full time staff and a
contractor (at a total cost of $160,000
per year) to maintain records. Most
likely, these individuals would be
performing other duties. It also is
possible that the initial set up costs may
be higher for those who may not have
the expertise in this area. FTA does not
anticipate that these costs will be
continual. Therefore, while FTA accepts
that the cost estimates in the NPRM may
be low for some agencies, FTA does not
believe that the costs would be as high
as suggested by the commenter and
continuous into the future.
The commenter’s estimated cost of
$200,000 for ‘‘oversight’’ is significantly
higher than FTA’s estimated total State
cost estimate of $18,000. FTA
emphasizes it is not requiring States to
conduct safety oversight through this
rule; FTA is only requiring States to
draft and certify safety plans on behalf
of particular operators of public
transportation systems. Moreover, with
today’s rule, FTA is providing a safety
plan template which significantly will
reduce costs to States and operators,
particularly for the smaller operators.
Therefore, FTA believes that the
commenter overestimated the costs
significantly.
The commenter’s $1 million estimate
for a risk management information
system and associated staff may not be
unreasonable. FTA estimates annual
costs in the range of $15,000 to $20,000
for information technology systems for
rail transit agencies and for large bus
operators that receive Section 5307
funds. FTA estimates additional staff
costs for risk assessment and assurance
activities of approximately $60,000 per
year for large Section 5307 operators.
These costs would total $1 million over
a span of thirteen years, at which time
information technology systems may
need to be updated. It is possible that
the costs would be higher during the
initial years and significantly reduced in
subsequent years. Also, it is possible
that the information technology system
will be used for multiple tasks, some of
which may not be related to this rule.
2. Benefits
Comments: One commenter
questioned what benefit, if any, would
be achieved from the rule if FTA is
unable to provide evidence to show that
the implementation of the rule would
increase safety and reduce transit
incidents. The commenter asserted that
it seems unreasonable to require an
‘‘economically significant’’ expenditure
of limited transit agency funds when
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34453 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations funds should be used for state of good
repair and transit asset management
needs. Another commenter concluded
that FTA is premature in estimating
economic benefits through the
Regulatory Impact Analysis before this
rulemaking is effective and
implemented.
One commenter stated that a positive
return on investment (ROI) may not be
possible without adequate resources,
and this commenter asserted that the
NPRM does not specify whether an ROI
would exceed a break-even point. The
commenter asked to review actual
results of implementing SMS to help
justify the anticipated level of
investment, suggesting that SMS should
be piloted in a few transit agencies
before being implemented nationally.
Response: As discussed in other
sections of this rule and as discussed in
more detail below, today’s regulatory
provisions are required by statute under
49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and FTA is
implementing SMS in the least
prescriptive way possible.
Safety Management Policy is the
foundation of the organization’s SMS.
The safety management policy
statement clearly states the
organization’s safety objectives and sets
forth the policies, procedures, and
organizational structures necessary to
accomplish the safety objectives. It
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 Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan, an
organization’s safety objectives will be
articulated through the setting of
performance targets based on, at a
minimum, the safety performance
measures established in the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan. See
49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E).
Pursuant to the statutory requirements
of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B) and (C), each
agency’s Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan must 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.’’ Each of these
requirements is consistent with the
second component of SMS—Safety Risk
Management—which requires the
development of processes and activities
to help the organization better identify
hazards associated with its operational
systems. Once identified, a transit
agency must evaluate the safety risk
associated with the potential
consequences of these hazards, and then
institute mitigations, as necessary, to
control the consequences or minimize
the safety risk.
The statutory requirements of 49
U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B), (C), and (D)—
‘‘methods for identifying and evaluating
safety risks throughout all elements of
the public transportation system,’’
‘‘strategies to minimize the exposure of
the public, personnel, and property to
hazards and unsafe conditions,’’ and ‘‘a
process and timeline for conducting an
annual review and update of the safety
plan’’—encompass the requirements of
the third component of SMS: Safety
Assurance. Safety Assurance requires an
organization to monitor its safety
performance, and it is designed to
ensure that the organization meets or
exceeds its safety objectives through the
collection, analysis, and assessment of
data. Through regular reviews and
updates of its safety plan, a transit
agency would evaluate changes to its
operations that might introduce new
safety risks. If a transit agency identifies
safety risks through its safety
performance assessments, then it must
take action to correct any safety
deficiencies. All of these efforts are
intended to minimize the exposure of
the public, personnel, and property to
safety hazards and unsafe conditions.
To minimize administrative, financial,
and regulatory burdens under Safety
Assurance, FTA has reduced
requirements for small public
transportation providers and has
developed a minimal set of Safety
Assurance provisions under 49 CFR
673.27.
The fourth component of SMS—
Safety Promotion—involves the
training, awareness, and communication
that support safety. The training aspect
of SMS is consistent with the statutory
requirement of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(G)
for a comprehensive staff training
program for operations personnel and
personnel directly responsible for
safety.
FTA is intending to implement 49
U.S.C. 5329(d) in the least prescriptive
way possible by designing minimalistic
regulatory requirements that mirror the
relevant statutory provisions. By
utilizing SMS in the regulatory
framework, transit operators of varying
sizes, complexities, and operating
characteristics can build safety plans
that are flexible and scalable to meet
their unique safety needs. Through its
scalability, SMS helps reduce the costs
and burdens associated with developing
and implementing safety plans. Also, as
noted above, FTA eliminated several
significant Safety Assurance
requirements for small public
transportation providers in this final
rule.
While FTA is unable to provide
definitive evidence that the
implementation of this rule would
increase safety by reducing incidence of
safety events, FTA fully anticipates that
safety benefits will be realized if this
rule is implemented. By adopting a
systematic approach to safety through
the development of the safety plan and
the practice of SMS, transit agencies are
expected to reduce the risk and
probability of safety incidents. FTA
expects that a proactive approach to
managing safety risks is more effective
than a reactive approach. The SMS
approach to safety, which involves
collecting data, predicting and
mitigating future safety events, training,
accountability, and open
communication will reduce safety
events and improve safety outcomes in
the future. Indeed, state of good repair
investments could prevent and mitigate
future safety events.
FTA currently is conducting an SMS
pilot program at a large multi-modal
transit agency and is planning to
implement two additional pilot
programs for bus agencies to better
understand how a transit agency would
implement SMS. The results of these
pilot programs will help inform FTA’s
efforts to provide guidance to the
industry on SMS implementation. FTA
notes that the benefits of SMS
implementation may take years to be
realized, and in turn, taking time for the
benefits of SMS to be fully estimated
and quantified.
In light of various public comments,
FTA is deferring regulatory action
regarding the applicability of this rule to
operators of public transportation
systems that only receive Section 5310
and/or Section 5311 funds. FTA is
deferring action pending further
evaluation of additional information
and safety data related to these
operators to determine the appropriate
level of regulatory burden necessary to
address the safety risk presented by
these operators.
Six years after the compliance date for
this rule, FTA plans to prepare a report
evaluating the benefits and effectiveness
of the regulatory framework provided by
this rule. In this report, FTA plans to
utilize the results of the pilot program
and information gathered from oversight
reviews, which will include an
evaluation of the flexibility and
scalability of the SMS framework in
developing and implementing safety
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34454 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations plans. The results in this report will be
made available for public comment to
help inform any future amendments that
may be needed to the regulatory
framework that improves the PTASP
process and furthers the goal of public
transportation safety.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Comments: Several commenters
provided input on the rule’s impact to
small entities. Several commenters
asserted that small to medium sized
transit agencies face budget constraints
and expressed concern that these
agencies may need to hire additional
staff to comply with the rule or reduce
transit service.
Several commenters expressed
concern that FTA crafted the NPRM
with only rail transit systems in mind.
One commenter stated that the excellent
safety record of rural transit systems
warrants a limited approach to Federal
safety regulation regarding rural bus
systems, which would enable operators
to focus scarce resources on safely
delivering transit services, not on
regulatory compliance. The commenter
warned that if FTA does not tailor the
rule to small transit systems, then many
small bus operators would have to shift
funds and personnel from the actual
delivery of service to compliance with
safety rules. The commenter asserted
that MAP–21 reduced the portion of
Section 5311 funds available for
program administration from 15 percent
to 10 percent. The commenter noted
that, in Senate Report 3638, the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs indicated its intent that
FTA take a ‘‘measured approach,’’ and
not a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach, to
safety.
One commenter stated that FTA’s
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is
somewhat misleading, particularly
where tribal governments are
concerned. Due to the modest amount of
funding available to tribes, the
commenter concluded that the cost
associated with developing a safety plan
for tribal governments is much higher
than FTA’s estimate of 0.5 to 1.5
percent; the commenter asserted that the
costs are closer to 5.5 to 15.5 percent.
Response: FTA has taken significant
efforts to reduce the burden on small
transit agencies. For small Section 5307
operators, FTA is requiring States to
draft and certify their safety plans. FTA
designed the requirements of today’s
rule, particularly the SMS requirements,
to be scalable, flexible, and not
prescriptive for small transit operators.
Moreover, FTA developed a safety plan
template for small operators to assist
them with the development of their
plans. FTA is offering live and online
training to small transit operators, and
it is offering any technical assistance
that might be needed. FTA notes that
many small transit agencies already
have processes and procedures in place
that comply with the requirements of
today’s rule, and given the safety record
of many smaller operators, significant
mitigation may not be necessary. FTA
emphasizes that the statutory
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329 make
the rule applicable to any operator of a
public transportation system, and small
operators are not excluded from the
rule.
To accommodate small public
transportation providers and to reduce
their administrative, financial, and
regulatory burdens, FTA made
significant changes to its proposed
regulatory framework in the NPRM.
FTA eliminated a Safety Assurance
requirement for all transit agencies to
monitor their operations to identify
hazards not identified through their
Safety Risk Management processes.
Also, FTA eliminated an entire section
of recordkeeping requirements related to
safety risk mitigation, safety
performance assessments, and employee
safety training. FTA further tailored the
rule for small operators and reduced
their requirements under Safety
Assurance. Small public transportation
providers only need to develop
processes for safety performance
monitoring and measurement; they do
not need to develop processes for
management of change and continuous
improvement. Through the elimination
of these requirements for small public
transportation providers, and through
this tailored approach, FTA believes
that it has reduced their burdens
significantly.
Finally, FTA notes that in light of
various public comments, FTA is
deferring regulatory action regarding the
applicability of this rule to operators of
public transportation systems that only
receive Section 5310 and/or Section
5311 funds. FTA is deferring action
pending further evaluation of
information and safety data related to
these operators to determine the
appropriate level of regulatory burden
necessary to address the safety risk
presented by these operators.
X. Tribal Issues
1. Applicability of the Rule to Tribes
Comments: Several commenters
suggested that some tribes operate
modest public transportation systems
and receive Federal financial assistance
through either the discretionary or
formula tribal transit programs under 49
U.S.C. 5311. One commenter stated that
some tribes receive funds as
subrecipients of States under 49 U.S.C.
5311, and therefore, FTA should
exclude those subrecipients from this
rule. The commenter also requested
FTA to clarify the applicability of this
rule to tribes. Finally, this commenter
recommend that FTA’s final rule
exempt tribes from the definition of
‘‘recipient’’ under the proposed
provisions of 49 CFR 673.1 until FTA
has undertaken additional consultation
with tribes and develops a template
safety plan.
Response: FTA appreciates the
commenter who stated that tribes
operate modest public transportation
systems, and in response, FTA has
designed this rule to be as flexible and
scalable as possible for smaller
operators. In light of various public
comments, FTA is deferring regulatory
action regarding the applicability of this
rule to operators of public
transportation systems that only receive
Section 5310 and/or Section 5311 funds,
including tribal transit operators. FTA is
deferring action pending further
evaluation of additional information
and safety data related to these
operators to determine the appropriate
level of regulatory burden necessary to
address the safety risk presented by
these operators.
FTA has undertaken consultation
with tribes throughout this rulemaking,
and these efforts are described in more
detail below.
2. The State’s Role in Tribal Safety Plans
Comments: A few commenters
recommended that FTA require tribes to
develop their own safety plans, even if
they are a State’s subrecipients under 49
U.S.C. 5311, unless a State voluntarily
agrees to draft and certify a safety plan
for a tribal subrecipient. Some
commenters expressed concerns that a
State’s preparation of safety plans for
tribes could interfere with tribal
sovereignty. One commenter suggested
that a State’s interaction with a tribe in
relation to a safety plan is unwarranted
and inconsistent with the laws and
treaties that govern the status and
protections for tribes. The commenter
asserted that the Tribal Transit Program
funded under 49 U.S.C. 5311(c) is not a
subset of the Section 5311 program; it is
a separate and direct tribal program and
the rules associated with its
administration should be structured
accordingly. Several commenters stated
that there often are positive
relationships between States and tribes,
but FTA should not treat tribes as
subcomponents of State transit systems
given the independent status of tribes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34455 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations One commenter expressed concern that
FTA would be less willing to provide
technical assistance to tribes if States
draft and certify their safety plans.
Response: FTA recognizes the
administrative and financial burdens
that this rule may impose upon smaller
transit operators, such as tribes. In an
effort to relieve this burden, FTA is
deferring regulatory action regarding the
applicability of this rule to operators of
public transportation systems that only
receive Section 5310 and/or Section
5311 funds, including tribal transit
operators. FTA is deferring action
pending further evaluation of
information and safety data to
determine the appropriate level of
regulatory burden necessary to address
the safety risk presented by these
operators.
3. Financial Impact on Tribes
Comments: Several commenters
stated that the proposed rule would
result in administrative costs to tribes,
such as costs for additional staff time
and resources. One commenter stated
that, like many other smaller transit
agencies, tribal transit managers may
have many different roles and shared
duties, so the requirement for an
Accountable Executive may be
problematic because the staff are not
structured in the way the proposed rule
seems to envision. The commenter said
that compliance with the rule may
require consultants or new staff to
handle the extra reporting paperwork
and separation of positions, which
would be difficult with limited
resources. This commenter
recommended that FTA should
incorporate the following language
somewhere into its rule: ‘‘at agencies
where such delineations exist between
administrative positions.’’
Several commenters noted that some
tribes receive limited funding. One
commenter stated that the average
annual apportionment for tribal transit
agencies is almost $220,000 and the
average annual discretionary award is
about $77,000, and some of 100 tribes
participating in the Tribal Transit
Program have apportionments as low as
$4,000 annually. Several commenters
argued that, for a tribe whose only
source of Federal funding for its Tribal
Transit Program is a $25,000 grant, the
compliance costs associated with this
rule (such as personnel time and the
possible need for outside consultants)
could easily consume the entire grant.
The commenter stated that, although
States divide more than $8.6 billion in
Federal transit grants for Federal Fiscal
Year 2016, tribes receive only $30
million under the Tribal Transit
Program and an extra $5 million for the
discretionary Tribal Transit Program
under 49 U.S.C. 5311.
Response: FTA acknowledges that
many smaller transit operators,
including tribes, may experience
substantial costs in complying with this
rule. In light of the potential financial
burden on smaller operators, including
tribes, FTA is deferring regulatory
action regarding the applicability of this
rule to operators of public
transportation systems that only receive
Section 5310 and/or Section 5311 funds.
FTA is deferring action pending further
evaluation of information and safety
data related to determine the
appropriate level of regulatory burden
necessary to address the safety risk
presented by these operators.
4. Tribal Consultation
Comments: Several commenters
expressed concern regarding FTA’s
consultation with tribes. Several
commenters alleged that FTA conducted
no consultation with tribes, including
meetings, conference calls, or webinars.
Several commenters suggested that FTA
conduct additional consultation with
tribes, particularly given their smaller
sizes.
Several commenters disagreed with
FTA’s preliminary determination that
the rule would not have a substantial
direct effect on tribes or impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
tribes, which is the criteria that would
trigger tribal consultation under
Executive Order 13175 and the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s tribal
consultation policy. One commenter
stated that the rule would have direct
effects on tribes by adding regulatory
requirements on them, thus changing
the relationship between tribes and the
Federal government with respect to the
inspection, investigation, audits,
examinations, and testing of transit
infrastructure and rolling stock. This
commenter expressed concern that
courts have emphasized the need for
advance consultation with tribes on
rulemaking efforts that may impact
them, and cited Wyoming v. Department
of the Interior in which the U.S. District
Court for the District of Wyoming issued
a preliminary injunction against Bureau
of Land Management’s hydraulic
fracturing regulations because the
agency failed to adequately consult with
tribes.
Another commenter stated that the
promulgation of this rule may conflict
with the Tribal Self-Governance
Program created by the FAST Act, and
asserted that the Tribal Self-Governance
Program requires a negotiated
rulemaking committee to develop rules
and regulations for all modes of funding
and U.S. Department of Transportation
programs, led by the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs.
One commenter suggested that,
instead of requiring States to draft and
certify safety plans on behalf of tribes,
FTA should work with tribes to develop
a model safety plan specifically for
tribes.
Response: As a preliminary matter,
FTA notes that it conducted extensive
outreach with tribes throughout this
rulemaking. Specifically, on February
12, 2016, FTA conducted public
outreach for tribes and hosted a Tribal
Technical Assistance Workshop
wherein FTA presented its proposed
rule and responded to numerous
technical questions from tribes. FTA
subsequently delivered the same
presentation during a webinar series
open to all members of the public on
February 24, March 1, March 2, and
March 3. On March 7, FTA delivered
the same presentation at an outreach
session hosted by the National Rural
Transit Assistance Program, which also
was open to all members of the public.
During each of these public outreach
sessions and the public webinar series,
FTA received and responded to
numerous technical questions regarding
the NPRM. FTA recorded the
presentations, including the question
and answer sessions, and made
available the following documents on
the public docket for this rulemaking
(Docket FTA–2015–0021): (1) FTA’s
PowerPoint Presentation from the
public outreach sessions and public
webinar series (https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTA-
2015-0021-0012); (2) a written transcript
of FTA’s public webinar of March 1,
2016 (https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0010); (3)
a consolidated list of every Question
and FTA Answer from the public
outreach sessions and public webinar
series (https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0041);
and (4) the results of polling questions
from FTA’s public outreach sessions
(https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0011).
FTA also uploaded onto YouTube an
audiovisual recording of its webinar
from March 1, 2016. The video is
available at the following link: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBj5HRatw
GA&feature=youtu.be.
FTA also notes that, in advance of
publishing an NPRM, FTA sought
comment from the transit industry,
including tribes, on a wide range of
topics pertaining to safety and asset
management through an ANPRM. In the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34456 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations NPRM, FTA asked specific questions
about how today’s rule should apply to
tribal recipients and subrecipients of
Section 5311 funds.
In light of the comments that FTA
received from tribes throughout the
rulemaking process, FTA is deferring
regulatory action regarding applicability
of this rule to operators of public
transportation systems that only receive
Section 5310 and/or Section 5311 funds,
including tribal transit operators. FTA is
deferring action pending further
evaluation of additional information
and safety data to determine the
appropriate level of regulatory burden
necessary to address the safety risk
presented by these operators.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Subpart A—General
673.1 Applicability
This section explains that this
regulation applies to all States, local
governmental authorities, and other
operators of public transportation
systems that are recipients and
subrecipients of Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
At this time, the regulation does not
apply to an operator of a public
transportation system that only receives
Federal financial assistance under 49
U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49
U.S.C. 5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), a
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan is required of all operators of
public transportation systems, whereas
in the past, a ‘‘system safety program
plan’’ only was required of rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems,
in accordance with the former
regulatory provisions at 49 CFR 659.17.
Each operator of a public transportation
system must comply with today’s rule
within one calendar year of this rule’s
effective date.
673.3 Policy
This section explains that FTA is
utilizing the principles and methods of
SMS as the basis for this regulation and
all other regulations and policies FTA
has issued and will issue under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329, to the
extent practicable and consistent with
law and other applicable requirements
(such as those for regulatory review).
FTA’s standards for SMS are flexible
and scalable and may be tailored to the
size and operating complexity of the
transit operator.
673.5 Definitions
This section sets forth a number
definitions, many of which are based on
the principles and methods of SMS.
Most notably, readers should refer to
‘‘Accountable Executive,’’ ‘‘Hazard,’’
‘‘Operator of a Public Transportation
System,’’ ‘‘Safety Assurance,’’ ‘‘Safety
Management System,’’ ‘‘Safety
Management Policy,’’ ‘‘Safety
Promotion,’’ ‘‘Safety Risk Management,’’
and ‘‘Small Public Transportation
Provider.’’ In recent years, SMS has
emerged as the preferable practice for
enhancing safety in all modes of
transportation, and the Secretary of
Transportation instructed each of the
Department’s operating administrations
to develop rules, plans, and programs to
apply SMS to their grant recipients and
regulated communities. Many of the
SMS-related definitions in § 673.5 are
similar to those set forth in FAA’s SMS
regulation, entitled ‘‘Safety Management
Systems for Domestic, Flag, and
Supplemental Operations Certificate
Holders,’’ 14 CFR parts 5 and 119, 80 FR
1308, Jan. 8, 2015.
Additionally, a set of frequently asked
questions about SMS are available on
FTA’s website at http://www.fta.dot.gov/
tso_15177.html. FTA is incorporating
these same definitions for SMS in its
related rulemakings for the Public
Transportation Safety Program and the
Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program, and FTA
is incorporating these same definitions
into the National Public Transportation
Safety Plan.
FTA includes a definition for
‘‘Accountable Executive’’ that identifies
the person at a transit agency that has
the responsibility and accountability for
the implementation of SMS and control
and direction of the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan and
the Transit Asset Management Plan.
FTA includes definitions for ‘‘Safety
Risk Management,’’ ‘‘Risk,’’ ‘‘Safety
Assurance,’’ and ‘‘Safety Management
Policy,’’ all key terms to the
implementation of SMS.
This section also defines a number of
terms used repeatedly throughout the
other safety programs authorized by 49
U.S.C. 5329. Some of these terms are
included in FTA’s new State Safety
Oversight Rule at 49 CFR part 674,
which was issued prior to today’s final
rule. FTA intends to have the same
definitions for all terms utilized in its
safety programs. Readers should refer,
specifically, to the definitions of
‘‘Accident,’’ ‘‘Event,’’ ‘‘Hazard,’’
‘‘Incident,’’ ‘‘Investigation,’’
‘‘Occurrence,’’ ‘‘Transit Agency,’’ and
‘‘Rail Transit Agency.’’ FTA has
updated its definitions of ‘‘Accountable
Executive,’’ ‘‘Safety Risk Assessment,’’
‘‘Safety Risk Management,’’ and
‘‘Transit Asset Management Plan’’ to
make them consistent with definitions
of these terms utilized in the SSO rule
and the Transit Asset Management rule
which were issued prior to today’s final
rule. FTA also added a definition of
‘‘Rail Fixed Guideway Public
Transportation System,’’ which it
defined in its SSO rule.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B),
FTA must issue a rule that designates
which 49 U.S.C. 5307 small public
transportation providers may have
States draft Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans on their behalf.
This section defines ‘‘Small Public
Transportation Provider’’ (in accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B)) as ‘‘a
recipient or subrecipient of Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5307 that has one hundred (100) or
fewer vehicles in peak revenue service
and does not operate a rail fixed
guideway public transportation
system.’’
FTA includes definitions for the terms
‘‘National Public Transportation Safety
Plan,’’ ‘‘Transit Asset Management
Plan,’’ and ‘‘Equivalent Authority,’’ all
of which are consistent with the use of
those terms in the statutes and FTA’s
related rulemakings on safety and
transit asset management.
Subpart B—Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans
673.11 General Requirements
This section outlines the minimum
elements to be included in a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), this
section requires each operator of public
transportation subject to this rule to
develop and certify that it has a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan
consistent with this part. In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B), § 673.11(d)
requires each State to draft the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for
small transportation providers as
defined in today’s final rule. A State is
not required to develop a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a
small public transportation provider if
that agency notifies the State that it will
develop its own plan.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(A), § 673.11(a)(1) requires
that each Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan, and any updates thereto,
must be signed by the transit agency’s
designated Accountable Executive and
approved by the transit agency’s Board
of Directors, or an Equivalent Authority.
In today’s final rule, the accountability
for the contents of a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan is
formally elevated to the Accountable
Executive and Board of Directors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34457 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G),
a transit agency must establish: Methods
for identifying and evaluating safety
risks throughout all elements of its
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 its safety plan;
safety performance targets; a Chief
Safety Officer who reports directly to
the general manager, president, or
equivalent officer; and a comprehensive
staff training program for the operations
personnel and personnel directly
responsible for safety. These statutory
requirements fit into the four key pillars
of SMS: Safety Management Policy,
Safety Risk Management, Safety
Assurance, and Safety Promotion.
Consequently, FTA is requiring each
transit agency to develop and
implement an SMS under § 673.11(a)(2);
this SMS will satisfy the statutory
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G). FTA recognizes
that a Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan for a large, multi-modal,
complex public transportation system
most likely will be more complex than
that of a very small bus operator. The
scalability of SMS will allow transit
agencies to develop safety plans that
will meet the unique needs of their
operating environments. FTA
established a minimal set of Safety
Assurance requirements for small public
transportation providers to minimize
their administrative, financial, and
regulatory burdens.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(E), § 673.11(a)(3) requires
that each Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan must include safety
performance targets based on the safety
performance measures established by
FTA in the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan. In the
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan, FTA is adopting four initial safety
performance measures: (1) Fatalities, (2)
Injuries, (3) Safety Events, and (4)
System Reliability. These safety
performance measures are intended to
reduce safety events, fatalities, and
injuries. These measures are broad so
that they will be relevant to all public
transportation modes, and they are
intended to focus transit agencies on the
development of specific and
measureable targets, as well as the
actions each agency would implement
to improve their own safety outcomes.
Through the SMS process, FTA expects
transit agencies to develop their own
performance indicators and regularly
monitor the performance of their
systems to ensure that they are meeting
their targets and improving safety
outcomes. FTA expects transit agencies
to evaluate their safety performances
and determine whether they should
change their safety performance targets
at least annually when the transit
agencies are reviewing and updating
their Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plans. A State or transit agency
must make its safety performance targets
available to States and Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO) to aid
States and MPOs in the selection of
their own performance targets.
Pursuant to § 673.11(a)(4), each Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan must
address any standards or requirements,
as applicable, set forth in FTA’s Public
Transportation Safety Program and
FTA’s National Public Transportation
Safety Plan.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(D), § 673.11(a)(5) requires
that each transit agency must establish
a process and timeline for conducting
an annual review and update of its
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan.
Pursuant to § 673.11(a)(6), each rail
transit agency must include, or
incorporate by reference, in its Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan an
emergency preparedness and response
plan. Each emergency preparedness and
response plan should address, at a
minimum: The assignment of employee
responsibilities, as necessary and
appropriate, during an emergency; the
integration of responses to all hazards,
as appropriate; and processes for
coordination with Federal, State,
regional, and local officials with roles
and responsibilities for emergency
preparedness and response in the transit
agency’s service area. FTA understands
that a transit agency may have
developed an emergency preparedness
and response plan that addresses these
minimum requirements in accordance
with regulations from other Federal and
State agencies. Historically, FTA has
required rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems to have
emergency preparedness plans through
the former State Safety Oversight rule at
49 CFR 659.19(k). FTA intends to
require rail transit systems to continue
to implement the twenty-one elements
of their SSPPs as required under the
former provisions of 49 CFR part 659;
FTA has repackaged the elements of
SSPPs into the four elements of SMS
required in today’s rule. FTA is
establishing the requirement for
emergency preparedness and response
plans in today’s rule under
§ 673.11(a)(6), and the elements of SMS
in Subpart C cover remaining
requirements. FTA has developed a
crosswalk between each of the twenty-
one elements of system safety program
plans and each of the elements of SMS.
FTA added this crosswalk to the docket
and made the crosswalk available on its
website as a guidance document at
http://fta.dot.gov/tso.html. Additional,
more comprehensive guidance regarding
the relationship between SSPPs and
PTASPs is forthcoming, and FTA will
post that guidance on its website (see
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-
and-guidance/safety/transit-safety-
oversight-tso).
FTA notes that there are safety models
that include emergency preparedness as
a key element. For example, FAA
requires certain air carriers to have
emergency preparedness plans. See 14
CFR 5.27. Additionally, FRA recently
issued a final System Safety Program
rule under 49 CFR part 270 which
requires railroads to have emergency
preparedness plans (see http://
www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18294).
Recent safety-related events have
demonstrated the need for emergency
preparedness plans in improving safety
outcomes nationally.
In addition to the above general
requirements, FTA expects a transit
agency to comply with all other
applicable Federal, State, and local
requirements, laws, regulations, and
codes as they may relate to safety.
Pursuant to § 673.11(b), a transit
agency may develop one Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for
all modes of transit service, or it may
develop separate Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans for each mode of
service not subject to safety regulation
by another Federal entity. If a transit
agency has a safety plan for its
commuter rail service, passenger ferry
service, or aviation service, then the
transit agency may not use that plan for
purposes of satisfying 49 CFR part 673;
the transit agency must develop a
separate Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan consistent with this part.
Pursuant to § 673.11(c), each transit
agency must maintain its Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan in
accordance with the recordkeeping
requirements of Subpart D.
Pursuant to § 673.11(d), each State
must draft and certify a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan on
behalf of any small public
transportation provider located inside of
that particular State. A State is not
required to draft a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan if a small public
transportation provider notifies the
State that it will draft its own plan. In
either instance, the transit agency must
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34458 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 3 NTSB issued Safety Recommendation R–10/02
for the WMATA Metrorail train collision accident
on June 22, 2009, found at: http://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/
RAR1002.pdf. Through this report, NTSB
recommends that ‘‘FTA facilitate the development
of non-punitive safety reporting programs at all
transit agencies [in order] to collect reports from
employees in all divisions within their agencies.’’
4 See the NTSB’s hearing materials at http://
www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2015_WMATA_
Washington_DC_IHG_Agenda.aspx. and http://
dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/
document.cfm?docID=432379&docketID=
57383&mkey=90596.
ultimately implement and carry out its
safety plan.
If a State drafts and certifies a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan on
behalf of a transit agency, and the transit
agency later opts to draft and certify its
own Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan, then the transit agency
must notify the State, and the transit
agency would have one year from the
date of the notification to draft and
certify a Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan that is compliant with this
part.
Pursuant to § 673.11(e), any rail fixed
guideway public transportation system
that had an SSPP, in accordance with
the former SSO rule at 49 CFR part 659
as of October 1, 2012, may keep that
plan in effect until one year after the
effective date of this final rule.
Pursuant to § 673.11(f), agencies that
operate passenger ferries regulated by
USCG or rail fixed guideway public
transportation service regulated by FRA
are not required to develop safety plans
for those modes of service.
673.13 Certification of Compliance
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1), § 673.13(a) provides that not
later than one year after the effective
date of the final rule, each transit agency
must certify its compliance with the
requirements of this part. For small
public transportation providers, a State
must certify compliance unless the
provider opts to draft and certify its own
safety plan. In those cases where a State
certifies compliance for a small public
transportation provider, this
certification also must occur within one
year after the effective date of this final
rule.
In addition to certification, and
consistent with the new SSO rule at 49
CFR part 674, each SSOA must review
and approve each Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan for every rail transit
system within its jurisdiction. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(e)(4)(iv), an SSOA must have the
authority to review, approve, oversee,
and enforce the implementation of the
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans of transit agencies operating rail
fixed guideway public transportation
systems.
Section 673.13(b) requires that each
transit agency or State certify
compliance with part 673 on an annual
basis.
673.15 Coordination With
Metropolitan, Statewide, and Non-
Metropolitan Planning Processes
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5303(h)(2)(B) and 5304(d)(2)(B), each
State and transit agency must make its
safety performance targets available to
States and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations to aid in the planning
process. Section 673.15(b) requires, to
the maximum extent practicable, a State
or transit agency to coordinate with
States and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in the selection of State
and MPO safety performance targets.
Subpart C—Safety Management
Systems
673.21 General Requirements
This section outlines the SMS
elements that each transit agency must
establish in its Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan. Under today’s final,
each transit agency must implement an
SMS, and each transit agency should
scale the SMS to the size, scope, and
complexity of the transit agency’s
operations. Each transit agency must
establish processes and procedures
which include the four main pillars of
SMS: (1) Safety Management Policy; (2)
Safety Risk Management; (3) Safety
Assurance; and (4) Safety Promotion.
FTA expects that the scope and detail
for each activity will vary based on the
size and complexity of the system. FTA
anticipates that activities, and
documentation of those activities, for a
small bus transit agency will be
substantially less than those of a large
multi-modal system. FTA has developed
a minimal set of requirements under
Safety Assurance for all small public
transportation providers. To help clarify
SMS development and implementation,
FTA is issuing guidance and a safety
plan template to the industry concurrent
with today’s final rule, and FTA
designed these documents to
accommodate the variance in transit
system mode, size, and complexity.
673.23 Safety Management Policy
Pursuant to § 673.23(a), a transit
agency must establish the organizational
accountabilities and responsibilities
necessary for implementing SMS and
capture these under the first component
of SMS, Safety Management Policy. The
success of a transit agency’s SMS is
dependent upon the commitment of the
entire organization and begins with the
highest levels of transit agency
management. The level of detail for
organizational accountabilities and
responsibilities should be
commensurate with the size and
complexity of the transit agency.
The Safety Management Policy
statement must contain the transit
agency’s safety objectives. These
objectives should include a broad
description of the agency’s overarching
safety goals, which would be based
upon that agency’s unique needs.
Pursuant to § 673.23(b), a transit
agency must include in its Safety
Management Policy statement a process
that allows employees to report safety
conditions to senior management. This
process must provide protections for
employees who report safety conditions
to senior management and a description
of behaviors that are unacceptable and
that would not be exempt from
disciplinary actions. These procedures
are critical for ensuring safety. A
reporting program allows employees
who identify safety hazards and risks in
the day-to-day duties to directly notify
senior personnel, without fear of
reprisal, so that the hazards and risks
can be mitigated or eliminated. NTSB
has emphasized the need for transit
agencies to have non-punitive employee
safety reporting programs,
3 and this
need was discussed at length in NTSB’s
Investigative Hearing on the WMATA
Smoke and Electrical Arcing Incident in
Washington, DC on June 23 and 24,
2015.
4 Pursuant to § 673.23(c), the Safety
Management Policy statement must be
communicated throughout the transit
agency, including the Board of Directors
(or equivalent authority), and each
transit agency must make its Safety
Management Policy statement readily
available to all of its employees and
contractors.
Pursuant to § 673.23(d), each transit
agency must establish its
accountabilities, responsibilities, and
organizational structure necessary to
meet its safety objectives, particularly as
they relate to the development and
management of the transit agency’s
SMS. The level of detail in this section
of the safety plan should be
commensurate with the size and
complexity of a transit agency’s
operations. At a minimum, a transit
agency must identify an Accountable
Executive, a Chief Safety Officer or SMS
Executive, and agency leadership,
executive management, and key staff
who would be responsible for the
implementation of a transit agency’s
safety plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34459 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 5 See FTA’s former State Safety Oversight rule at
49 CFR 659.19(u).
6 The United States Department of Transportation
is administering a bicycle and pedestrian safety
initiative, and FTA encourages transit agencies to
consider that initiative when developing their
safety plans (see https://www.transportation.gov/
safer-people-safer-streets).
673.25 Safety Risk Management
Pursuant to § 673.25(a), each transit
agency must establish and implement
its process for managing safety risk,
including the following three steps: (1)
Safety hazard identification, (2) safety
risk assessment, and (3) safety risk
mitigation, for all elements of its public
transportation system, including
changes to its public transportation
system that may impact safety
performance. At a minimum, FTA
expects each transit agency to apply its
safety risk management process to its
existing operations and maintenance
procedures, the design of a new public
transportation system and other capital
projects, changes to its existing public
transportation system, new operations
of service to the public, new operations
or maintenance procedures,
organizational changes, and changes to
operations or maintenance procedures.
Additionally, FTA expects each transit
agency to develop measures to ensure
that safety principles, requirements, and
representatives are included in the
transit agency’s procurement process.
5 Pursuant to § 673.25(b)(1), each transit
agency must establish a process for
safety hazard identification, including
the identification of the sources, both
proactive and reactive, for identifying
hazards and their associated
consequences. Activities for hazard
identification could include formalized
processes where a transit agency
identifies hazards throughout its entire
system, logs them into a database,
performs risk analyses, and identifies
mitigation measures. These activities
also could include safety focus groups,
reviews of safety reporting trends, and
for smaller bus systems, it could mean
holding a meeting with a few bus
drivers, discussing hazards on the
system, deciding which ones pose the
greatest risk, and then developing
mitigation.
A transit agency must apply its
process for safety hazard identification
to all elements of its system, including
but not limited to its operational
activities, system expansions, and state
of good repair activities. FTA
encourages transit agencies to take into
account bicycle and pedestrian safety
concerns, along with other factors, as
agencies are conducting Safety Risk
Management.
6 A transit agency should
consider the results of its asset
condition assessments when performing
safety hazard identification activities
within its SMS. The results of the
condition assessments, and subsequent
SMS analysis, will inform a transit
agency’s determination as to whether an
asset meets the state of good repair
standards under 49 CFR part 625.
Pursuant to § 673.25(b)(2), each transit
agency must include, as a source for
safety hazard identification, data and
information provided by an oversight
authority and FTA.
Safety hazard identification activities
should be commensurate with the size
of the transit agency’s operations. For
example, the number of identified
hazards for a small rural bus system
may be less than the number of hazards
identified for a large multi-modal
system.
Pursuant to § 673.25(c), each transit
agency must establish procedures for
assessing and prioritizing safety risks
related to the potential consequences of
hazards identified and analyzed in
§ 673.25(b). Each transit agency must
assess safety risks in terms of
probability (the likelihood of the hazard
producing the potential consequences)
and severity (the damage, or the
potential consequences of a hazard, that
may be caused if the hazard is not
eliminated or its consequences are not
successfully mitigated).
Pursuant to § 673.25(d), each transit
agency also must establish criteria for
the development of safety risk
mitigations that are necessary based on
the results of the agency’s safety risk
assessments. For example, a transit
agency may decide that the criteria for
developing safety risk mitigations could
be the identification of a safety risk,
benefit-cost analysis, a system level
change (such as the addition of new
technology on a vehicle), a change to
operational procedures, or the
expansion of service. To further
illustrate these examples, a transit
agency may color code different levels
of safety risk (‘‘red’’ as high, ‘‘yellow’’
as medium, and ‘‘green’’ as minor) and
develop different types of safety risk
mitigations to correspond to those
levels.
673.27 Safety Assurance
Pursuant to § 673.27(a), each transit
agency must develop and implement a
process for Safety Assurance. Rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems
and recipients and subrecipients of
Federal financial assistance under 49
U.S.C. Chapter 53 that operate more
than one hundred vehicles in peak
revenue service must develop processes
for (1) safety performance monitoring
and measurement, (2) management of
change, and (3) continuous
improvement. Small public
transportation providers only need to
develop a process for safety
performance monitoring and
measurement. Each transit agency’s
safety assurance activities should be
scaled to the size and complexity of its
operations. Through these activities,
each transit agency should accurately
determine whether it is meeting its
safety objectives and safety performance
targets, as well as the extent to which it
is effectively implementing its SMS.
Each transit agency must conduct an
annual review of the effectiveness of its
safety risk mitigations.
Pursuant to § 673.27(b), each transit
agency must identify the data and
information that it will collect from its
operations, maintenance, and public
transportation services so that it may
monitor the agency’s safety performance
as well as the effectiveness of its SMS.
Each transit agency must monitor its
operations and maintenance protocols
and procedures, and any safety risk
mitigations, to ensure that it is
implementing them as planned.
Each transit agency must investigate
safety events (as defined in this final
rule) and any reports of non-compliance
with applicable regulations, standards,
and legal authority. Finally, each transit
agency must continually monitor
information reported to it through any
internal safety reporting programs,
including the employee safety reporting
program.
Pursuant to § 673.27(c), rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems
and recipients and subrecipients that
are subject to this rule and operate more
than one hundred vehicles in peak
revenue service must manage changes in
their systems. These transit agencies
must develop processes for identifying
and assessing changes that may
introduce new hazards or impact safety
performance. If a transit agency
determines that a change might impact
safety, then the transit agency would
need to evaluate the change using Safety
Risk Management activities established
under § 673.25. These changes would
include changes to operations or
maintenance procedures, changes to
service, the design and construction of
major capital projects (such as New
Starts and Small Starts projects and
associated certifications), organizational
changes, and any other changes to a
transit agency’s system that may impact
safety performance. Each rail transit
agency should include a description of
the safety certification process that it
uses to ensure that safety concerns and
hazards are adequately addressed prior
to the initiation of passenger operations
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34460 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations for News Starts and other major capital
projects to extend, rehabilitate, or
modify an existing system, or to replace
vehicles and equipment.
Pursuant to § 673.27(d), rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems
and recipients and subrecipients that
are subject to this rule and operate more
than one hundred vehicles in peak
revenue service must regularly assess
their safety performance. If a transit
agency identifies any deficiencies
during a safety performance assessment,
then it must develop and carry out,
under the direction of the Accountable
Executive, a plan to address the
identified safety deficiencies. FTA
expect each transit agency to conduct a
safety performance assessment at least
annually, and the safety performance
assessment can be completed in
conjunction with the annual review and
update to its overall safety plan as
required by 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D) and
49 CFR 673.11(a)(5).
673.29 Safety Promotion
This section requires each transit
agency to establish competencies and
training for all agency employees
directly responsible for safety, and to
establish and maintain the means for
communicating safety performance and
SMS information. Pursuant to
§ 673.29(a), each transit agency must
establish a comprehensive safety
training program. Through the safety
training program, each transit agency
must require each employee, as
applicable, to complete training to
enable the individual to meet his or her
role and responsibilities for safety, and
to complete refresher training, as
necessary, to stay current with the
agency’s safety practices and
procedures.
Pursuant to § 673.29(b), each transit
agency must ensure that all employees
are aware of any policies, activities, and
procedures that are related to their
safety-related roles and responsibilities.
Safety communications may include
information on hazards and safety risks
that are relevant to the employee’s role
and responsibilities; explain reasons
that a transit agency introduces or
changes policies, activities, or
procedures; and explain to an employee
when actions are taken in response to
reports submitted by the employee
through the employee safety reporting
program. FTA expects that each transit
agency would define the means and
mechanisms for effective safety
communication based on its
organization, structure, and size of
operations.
Subpart D—Safety Plan Documentation
and Recordkeeping
673.31 Safety Plan Documentation
This section requires each transit
agency to keep records of its documents
that are developed in accordance with
this part. FTA expects a transit agency
to maintain documents that set forth its
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan, including those related to the
implementation of its SMS such as the
results from SMS processes and
activities. For the purpose of reviews,
investigations, audits, or other purposes,
this section requires each transit agency
to make these documents available to
FTA, SSOAs in the case of rail transit
systems, and other Federal agencies as
appropriate. A transit agency must
maintain these documents for a
minimum of three years.
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), and USDOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify); tailor
its regulations to impose the least
burden on society; assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives; and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximizes net
benefits—including potential economic,
environmental, public health, and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity.
Executive Order 13563 also emphasizes
the importance of harmonizing rules
and promoting flexibility.
FTA drafted this final rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
FTA has determined that this final rule
is a significant regulatory action due to
significant public interest in the area of
transit safety. However, this rule is not
estimated to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866.
As discussed in greater detail below,
FTA was able to estimate some, but not
all, of the rule’s costs. FTA was able to
estimate the costs for transit agencies to
develop and implement Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans
which are approximately $41 million in
the first year, and $30 million in each
subsequent year, with annualized costs
of $31 million discounted at 7 percent.
These costs result from developing and
certifying safety plans, documenting the
SMS approach, implementing SMS, and
associated recordkeeping. FTA was not
able to estimate the costs of actions that
transit agencies would be required to
take to mitigate risk as a result of
implementing this rule, such as vehicle
modifications, additional training,
technology investments, or changes to
operating procedures and practices.
FTA has placed in the docket a final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that
analyzes the benefits and costs of the
regulatory changes in accordance with
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and
United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) policy.
Through this final rule, FTA requires
all operators of public transportation
systems that receive Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to
develop and implement Public
Transportation Safety Plans in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329, using
the SMS approach. As discussed above,
FTA is deferring regulatory action at
this time regarding recipients of FTA
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5310 and/or 49 U.S.C. 5311.
SMS is a flexible, scalable approach to
safety that has been widely adopted
across multiple modes of transportation
in both the public and private sectors
and overlaps significantly with the
requirements included in 49 U.S.C.
5329. It employs a systematic, data-
driven approach in which risks to safety
are identified, then controlled or
mitigated to acceptable levels. SMS
brings business-like methods and
principles to safety, similar to the ways
in which an organization manages its
finances, through safety plans, with
targets and performance indicators, and
continuous monitoring of safety
performance throughout an
organization.
In addition to responding to the
specific statutory mandate, this final
rule responds to National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendations regarding an
expansion of SMS to reduce the risks of
transit crashes. From 2004 to 2016,
NTSB reported on eleven transit
accidents that, collectively, resulted in
16 fatalities, 386 injuries, and over $30
million in property damages. Although
transit systems have historically been
among the safest means of surface
transportation, the transit industry is
facing increased pressures at a time
when ridership has grown,
infrastructure is aging, and large
numbers of the workforce are retiring.
During that same 2004–2016 time
period, transit agencies reported over
290,000 incidents and other events,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34461 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations more than 2,600 fatalities, and over
301,000 injuries to the NTD.
This RIA provides quantitative
estimates of the expected compliance
costs associated with the rule. Costs for
transit agencies were estimated based on
the staff labor hours, information
technology systems, and travel costs
associated with implementing the
requirements of the proposed rule, with
adjustments for agency size and for
agencies’ existing level of maturity with
SMS approaches. FTA estimated three
main cost areas: (1) Developing and
certifying safety plans; (2) implementing
and documenting the SMS approach;
and (3) associated recordkeeping. Staff
time was monetized using data on wage
rates and benefits in the transit industry.
Over the 20-year analysis period, total
costs are estimated at $324 million in
present value (using a 7% discount
rate), or the equivalent of $31 million
per year.
As previously noted, FTA was unable
to estimate the cost of actions that
agencies would take to mitigate or
eliminate safety problems identified
through implementation of their safety
plans. FTA is unaware of information
sources or methods to predict with
sufficient confidence the number or
type of safety problems agencies will
identify through implementation of
their safety plans, or the number, type,
and cost of actions that agencies will
take to address such problems. For
similar reasons, FTA also is unable to
quantify the rule’s benefits. FTA sought
information from the public through the
NPRM for this rulemaking that would
assist FTA with analyzing the benefits
and costs of actions by agencies to
mitigate or eliminate safety problems
such as the number, types, benefits, and
costs of such actions, but FTA did not
receive adequate data from the public to
assist with this effort.
FTA calculated potential safety
benefits that could be realized by bus
and rail modes if safety management
practices outlined in the rule are
followed to identify and implement
investment strategies to reduce safety
risk. FTA monetized benefits using
information on transit crash costs,
including direct costs and USDOT-
standard statistical values for fatality
and injury prevention. Although many
other sectors report reductions in safety
incidents after adopting SMS, it is not
possible to transfer that experience to
the transit industry due to the
differences in organizational structures
and practices.
FTA was unable to quantify the rule’s
benefits. To estimate safety benefits, one
would need information regarding the
causes of safety events and the factors
that may cause future events. This
information is generally unavailable in
the public transportation sector, given
the infrequency and diversity of the
type of safety events that occur. In
addition, one would need information
about the safety problems that agencies
are likely to find through
implementation of their safety plans and
the actions agencies are likely to take to
address those problems. Instead of
quantifying benefits, FTA estimated the
potential safety benefits if additional
unquantified mitigation investments
occur. The potential safety benefits are
an estimate of the cost of bus and rail
safety events over a future 20-year
period. FTA extrapolated the estimate
based on the cost of bus and rail
incidents that occurred from 2010 to
2016, assuming no growth in the
number of incidents in the future.
The benefits of SMS primarily will
result from mitigating actions. As
previously stated, FTA could not
account for the benefits and costs of
such actions in this analysis. FTA has
not estimated the benefits of
implementing SMS without mitigating
actions, but expects such benefits are
unlikely to be large. Estimated costs for
the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans include certain activities that
likely will yield safety improvements,
such as improved communication,
identification of hazards, and greater
employee awareness. It is plausible that
these changes alone could produce
reductions in safety events that surpass
estimated costs.
Under the performance management
framework established by MAP–21,
States, MPOs, and transit providers
must establish targets in key national
performance areas to document
expectations for future performance.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(ii)
and 5304(d)(2)(B)(ii), States and MPOs
must coordinate the selection of their
performance targets, to the maximum
extent practicable, with performance
targets set by transit providers under 49
U.S.C. 5326 (transit asset management)
and 49 U.S.C. 5329 (safety), to ensure
consistency.
In the joint FTA and FHWA Planning
Rule, both agencies indicate that their
performance-related rules would
implement the basic elements of a
performance management framework,
including the establishment of measures
and associated target setting. Because
the performance-related rules
implement these elements and the
difficulty in estimating costs of target
setting associated with unknown
measures, the joint FTA and FHWA
Planning Rule did not assess these costs.
Rather, FTA and FHWA proposed that
the costs associated with target setting at
every level would be captured in each
agency’s respective ‘‘performance
management’’ rules. For example, in its
second performance management rule
NPRM, FHWA assumes that the
incremental costs to States and MPOs
for establishing performance targets
reflect the incremental wage costs for an
operations manager and a statistician to
analyze performance-related data.
The RIA accompanying the joint FTA
and FHWA Planning Rule captures the
costs of the effort by States, MPOs, and
transit providers to coordinate in the
setting of State and MPO transit
performance targets for state of good
repair and safety. FTA believes that the
cost to MPOs and States to set transit
performance targets is included within
the costs of coordination. FTA requested
comments on this issue through this
rulemaking, and it received none.
A summary of the potential benefits
and costs of this rule is provided in
Table 2 below.
TABLE 2—S UMMARY OF THE COSTS AND THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS IF ADDITIONAL UNQUANTIFIED MITIGATION
INVESTMENTS OCCUR
Current dollar value 7% Discounted value 3% Discounted value Bus Events (20-Year Estimate) ................................................... $78,698,984,508 $38,413,831,624 $56,680,780,091 Rail Events (20-Year Estimate) ................................................... 45,019,196,393 21,974,360,164 32,423,838,587 Total Potential Benefits (20-Year Estimate) ................................ 123,718,180,901 60,388,191,787 89,104,618,678 Qualitative Benefits ...................................................................... • Reduced safety incidents with mitigation actions. • Reduced delays in operations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34462 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2—S UMMARY OF THE COSTS AND THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS IF ADDITIONAL UNQUANTIFIED MITIGATION INVESTMENTS OCCUR—Continued
Current dollar value 7% Discounted value 3% Discounted value Estimated Costs (20-Year Estimate) ........................................... 602,485,710 323,732,747 450,749,898 Unquantified Costs ...................................................................... • Investments associated with mitigating safety risks (such as additional training, vehicle modification, operational changes, maintenance, and information dissemination).
Estimated Cost (Annualized) ....................................................... ........................................ 30,558,081 30,297,473 Executive Order 13771 (Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs)
Executive Order 13771 applies to any
action considered ‘‘significant’’ under
Executive Order 12866 that imposes
total costs greater than zero. Actions
subject to Executive Order 13771 must
be offset by the elimination of existing
costs associated with at least two prior
regulations. This final rule is an action
under Executive Order 13771 because it
is considered a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C.
601–612), FTA has evaluated the effects
of this rule on small entities and has
determined that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The rule will affect approximately 625
small entities, most of which are small
government entities and small non-
profit organizations that operate public
transportation systems in small-
urbanized areas. Compliance costs will
vary according to agency size and
complexity, the extent of current SMS
practices, and the extent of current asset
management practices. Costs are
illustrated by an example calculation for
a small operator (less than one hundred
non-rail vehicles in maximum revenue
service) of a public transportation
system that receives Formula Grants for
Urbanized Areas under 49 U.S.C. 5307,
for which compliance costs are
approximately $20,600 per agency (this
estimate excludes the cost of mitigating
actions). For the sake of comparison,
while transit agency operations budgets
vary significantly, the average for small
Section 5307 agencies is around $6.3
million per year. Thus, the estimated
costs of the rule are around 0.3% of
agency budgets for small Section 5307
agencies. FTA is minimizing the costs
for smaller operators of public
transportation systems by requiring the
States in which they are located to draft
and certify Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans on their behalf,
unless the operator chooses to develop
and certify its own plan. Additionally,
to lower the costs for smaller operators
of public transportation systems, FTA is
adopting the SMS approach to safety,
which is scalable for the specific needs
of a particular transit agency. To further
reduce the burdens of this final rule,
FTA tailored it by eliminating a series
of Safety Assurance requirements
specifically for small public
transportation providers. As discussed
in other sections of this document,
small public transportation providers
only need to develop Safety Assurance
procedures for performance monitoring
and measurement; they would not need
to develop Safety Assurances
procedures for management of change
and continuous improvement. FTA also
eliminated certain Safety Assurance and
recordkeeping requirements for all
transit operators, including small public
transportation providers, to minimize
the rule’s costs. Concurrent with today’s
final rule, FTA is issuing a safety plan
template with instructions and
considerations to assist transit agencies
with the development of their plans and
to help reduce the overall costs
associated with that effort.
Overall, while the rule may affect a
substantial number of small entities,
these impacts would not be significant
due to the low magnitude of the costs.
Moreover, FTA has designed the rule to
allow flexibility for small entities. FTA
is providing additional analysis of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act’s application
to this rule in Regulatory Impact
Analysis posted to the docket.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not impose unfunded
mandates as defined by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48;
codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1501(8), one of
the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act is to consider ‘‘the effect of
. . . Federal statutes and regulations
that impose Federal intergovernmental
mandates.’’ The term ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandate’’ is defined
at 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i) to mean ‘‘any
provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, except . . . a
condition of Federal assistance.’’
Given the fact that FTA’s authorizing
statute at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) makes the
development and implementation of
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans a condition of FTA Federal
financial assistance, and given that FTA
is proposing to require transit agencies
to annually certify that they have safety
plans consistent with this rule as a
condition of that Federal financial
assistance, this rule will not impose
unfunded mandates.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This final rule has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria established by Executive Order
13132, and FTA has determined that
this rule will not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism assessment.
FTA has also determined that this rule
will not preempt any State law or State
regulation or affect the States’ abilities
to discharge traditional State
governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations effectuating Executive
Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to
this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. et seq.)
(PRA), and the White House Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB)
implementing regulation at 5 CFR
1320.8(d), FTA is seeking approval from
OMB for the Information Collection
Request abstracted below. FTA
acknowledges that this rule entails the
collection of information to implement
the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
Specifically, an operator of a public
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34463 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations transportation system must do the
following: (1) Develop and certify a
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan; (2) implement and document the
SMS approach; and (3) associated
recordkeeping. As discussed above, FTA
is deferring regulatory action at this
time regarding recipients of FTA
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5310 and/or 49 U.S.C. 5311.
FTA sought public comments to
evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of FTA’s
functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
whether the estimation of the burden of
the proposed information collection is
accurate, including the validity of the
methodologies and assumptions used;
ways in which the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information can be
enhanced; and whether the burden can
be minimized, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology. FTA received no public
comments on these issues.
Readers should note that the
information collection would be specific
to each operator of a public
transportation system in an effort to
facilitate and record the operator’s
safety responsibilities and activities.
The paperwork burden for each operator
of a public transportation system will be
proportionate to the size and complexity
of its operations. For example, an
operator of a rail fixed guideway system
and a bus system may need to generate
more documentation than an operator of
a bus system only.
Also, readers should note that FTA
has required rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems to develop
System Safety Program Plans and
System Security Plans in accordance
with the former regulatory requirements
at 49 CFR part 659. FTA has collected
information from States and State Safety
Oversight Agencies regarding these
plans, and FTA anticipates that
operators of rail fixed guideway systems
will utilize some of this documentation
for purposes of developing Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans.
Please see FTA’s currently approved
collection, 2132–0558, available at
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain.
Type of Collection: Operators of
public transportation systems.
Type of Review: OMB Clearance. New
Information Collection Request.
Summary of the Collection: The
information collection includes (1) The
development and certification of a
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan; (2) the implementation and
documentation of the SMS approach;
and (3) associated recordkeeping.
Need for and Expected Use of the
Information to be Collected: Collection
of information for this program is
necessary to ensure that operators of
public transportation systems are
performing their safety responsibilities
and activities required by law at 49
U.S.C. 5329(d). Without the creation of
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans, FTA would be unable to
determine each State’s compliance with
49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
Respondents: Respondents include
operators of public transportation as
defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302(14). FTA
is deferring regulatory action at this
time on recipients of FTA financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310 and/or
49 U.S.C. 5311. The total number of
respondents is 336. This figure includes
242 respondents that are States, direct
recipients, rail fixed guideway systems
that receive Urbanized Area Formula
Program funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307, or
large bus systems that receive Urbanized
Area Formula Program funds under 49
U.S.C. 5307. This figure also includes 94
respondents that receive Urbanized
Area Formula Program funds under 49
U.S.C. 5307, operate one hundred or
fewer vehicles in revenue service, and
do not operate rail fixed guideway
service that may draft and certify their
own safety plans.
Frequency: Annual.
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS ON RESPONDENTS
Total
responses
Burden hours
per response
Total annual
burden
Rail:
Development/Certification ..................................................................................................... 60 48 2,862 Implement/Document ............................................................................................................ 60 1,114 66,869 Recordkeeping ...................................................................................................................... 60 43 2,562 Large 5307:
Development/Certification ..................................................................................................... 127 48 6,123 Implement/Document ............................................................................................................ 127 760 96,581 Recordkeeping ...................................................................................................................... 127 42 5,298 Small 5307:
Development/Certification ..................................................................................................... 94 19 1,773 Implement/Document ............................................................................................................ 625 270 168,622 Recordkeeping ...................................................................................................................... 625 38 23,647 States/Direct Recipients:
Development/Certification ..................................................................................................... 55 40 2,206 Implement/Document ............................................................................................................ 55 0 0 Recordkeeping ...................................................................................................................... 55 0 0 Grand Total ................................................................................................................... 336 2,422 376,543 FTA calculated costs using the same
methodology that it used for the
Regulatory Impact Analysis. FTA
summarized the PRA costs in the table
below. The total PRA cost of the rule is
approximately $33 million per year
averaged over the first three years,
which is an average of $98,791 per
respondent per year, or $38,256 per
response per year.
PRA costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
Rail:
Development/Certification ......................................................................... $733,863 $86,858 $86,858 $907 ,579 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34464 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations PRA costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
Implement/Document ................................................................................ 9,366,439 6,651,817 6,651,817 22,670,072 Recordkeeping .......................................................................................... 1,179,917 1,179,917 1,179,917 3,539,750 Large 5307:
Development/Certification ......................................................................... 1,624,085 137,866 137,866 1,899,818 Implement/Document ................................................................................ 9,235,788 6,593,697 6,593,697 22,423,182 Recordkeeping .......................................................................................... 1,830,066 1,830,066 1,830,066 5,490,199 Small 5307:
Development/Certification ......................................................................... 436,058 48,929 48,929 533,917 Implement/Document ................................................................................ 12,166,099 9,118,251 9,118,251 30,402,601 Recordkeeping .......................................................................................... 3,565,974 3,565,974 3,565,974 10,697,922 States/Direct Recipients:
Development/Certification ......................................................................... 425,782 20,045 20,045 465,871 Implement/Document ................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 Recordkeeping .......................................................................................... 183,333 183,333 183,333 550,000 National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
requires Federal agencies to analyze the
potential environmental effects of their
proposed actions either through a
Categorical Exclusion, an
Environmental Assessment, or an
Environmental Impact Statement. This
rule is categorically excluded under
FTA’s NEPA implementing regulations
at 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), which covers
planning and administrative activities
that do not involve or lead directly to
construction, such as the promulgation
of rules, regulations, directives, and
program guidance. FTA has determined
that no unusual circumstances exist and
that this Categorical Exclusion is
applicable.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations)
Executive Order 12898 directs every
Federal agency to make environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying
and addressing the effects of all
programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income
populations. The DOT’s environmental
justice initiatives accomplish this goal
by involving the potentially affected
public in developing transportation
projects that fit harmoniously within
their communities without sacrificing
safety or mobility. FTA has developed a
program circular addressing
environmental justice in transit projects,
Circular 4703.1, Environmental Justice
Policy Guidance for Federal Transit
Administration Recipients. The Circular
is designed to provide a framework to
assist recipients as they integrate
principles of environmental justice into
their transit decision-making process.
The Circular contains recommendations
for State DOTs, MPOs, and transit
providers on (1) how to fully engage
environmental justice populations in
the transportation decision-making
process; (2) how to determine whether
environmental justice populations
would be subjected to
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
of a public transportation project,
policy, or activity; and (3) how to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate these effects. This
rule will not cause adverse
environmental impacts, and as a result,
minority populations and low-income
populations will not be
disproportionately impacted.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
This rule will not affect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
FTA has analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies
that this rule will not cause an
environmental risk to health or safety
that may disproportionately affect
children.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
FTA has analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000),
and has determined that it will not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes; will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments; and will not
preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not
required.
Notwithstanding the above, FTA
notes that it conducted extensive
outreach with tribes throughout this
rulemaking. Specifically, on February
12, 2016, FTA conducted public
outreach for tribes and hosted a Tribal
Technical Assistance Workshop
wherein FTA presented its proposed
rule and responded to numerous
technical questions from tribes. FTA
subsequently delivered the same
presentation during a webinar series
open to all members of the public on
February 24, March 1, March 2, and
March 3. On March 7, FTA delivered
the same presentation at an outreach
session hosted by the National Rural
Transit Assistance Program, which also
was open to all members of the public.
During each of these public outreach
sessions and the public webinar series,
FTA received and responded to
numerous technical questions regarding
the NPRM. FTA recorded the
presentations, including the question
and answer sessions, and made
available the following documents on
the public docket for this rulemaking
(Docket FTA–2015–0021): (1) FTA’s
PowerPoint Presentation from the
public outreach sessions and public
webinar series (https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTA-
2015-0021-0012); (2) a written transcript
of FTA’s public webinar of March 1,
2016 (https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0010); (3)
a consolidated list of every Question
and FTA Answer from the public
outreach sessions and public webinar
series (https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0041);
and (4) the results of polling questions
from FTA’s public outreach sessions
(https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=FTA-2015-0021-0011).
FTA also uploaded onto YouTube an
audiovisual recording of its webinar
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34465 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations from March 1, 2016. The video is
available at the following link: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBj5HRa
twGA&feature=youtu.be.
FTA also notes that, in advance of
publishing an NPRM, FTA sought
comment from the transit industry,
including tribes, on a wide range of
topics pertaining to safety and asset
management through an ANPRM. In the
NPRM, FTA asked specific questions
about how today’s rule should apply to
tribal recipients and subrecipients of
Section 5311 funds.
In light of the comments that FTA
received from tribes in response to the
NPRM, and in an effort to further reduce
the burdens of this final rule, FTA is
deferring regulatory action regarding the
applicability of this rule to operators of
public transportation systems that only
receive Section 5310 and/or Section
5311 funds, including tribal transit
operators. FTA is deferring action
pending further evaluation of
information and safety data to
determine the appropriate level of
regulatory burden necessary to address
the safety risk presented by these
operators.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FTA has analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001).
FTA has determined that this rule is not
a significant energy action under that
Executive Order because it is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.
Privacy Act
Any individual is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received on any FTA docket by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, or other entity).
You may review USDOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477).
Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
FTA is issuing this final rule under
the authority of section 20021 of MAP–
21, which requires public transportation
agencies to develop and implement
comprehensive safety plans. This
authority was reauthorized under the
FAST Act. The authority is codified at
49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
Regulation Identification Number
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory
Information Service Center publishes
the Unified Agenda in April and
October of each year. The RIN set forth
in the heading of this document can be
used to cross-reference this action with
the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 673
Mass transportation, Safety.
K. Jane Williams,
Acting Administrator.
■ For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, and under the authority of 49
U.S.C. 5329(d) and 5334, and the
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.91,
FTA hereby amends Chapter VI of Title
49, Code of Federal Regulations by
adding part 673 to read as follows:
PART 673—PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SAFETY
PLANS
Subpart A—General
673.1 Applicability.
673.3 Policy.
673.5 Definitions.
Subpart B—Safety Plans
673.11 General requirements.
673.13 Certification of compliance.
673.15 Coordination with metropolitan,
statewide, and non-metropolitan
planning processes.
Subpart C—Safety Management Systems
673.21 General requirements.
673.23 Safety management policy.
673.25 Safety risk management.
673.27 Safety assurance.
673.29 Safety promotion.
Subpart D—Safety Plan Documentation and
Recordkeeping
673.31 Safety plan documentation.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and 5334; 49
CFR 1.91.
Subpart A—General
§ 673.1 Applicability.
(a) This part applies to any State, local
governmental authority, and any other
operator of a public transportation
system that receives Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
(b) This part does not apply to an
operator of a public transportation
system that only receives Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C.
5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311.
§ 673.3 Policy.
The Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) has adopted the principles and
methods of Safety Management Systems
(SMS) as the basis for enhancing the
safety of public transportation in the
United States. FTA will follow the
principles and methods of SMS in its
development of rules, regulations,
policies, guidance, best practices, and
technical assistance administered under
the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329. This
part sets standards for the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan,
which will be responsive to FTA’s
Public Transportation Safety Program,
and reflect the specific safety objectives,
standards, and priorities of each transit
agency. Each Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan will incorporate
SMS principles and methods tailored to
the size, complexity, and scope of the
public transportation system and the
environment in which it operates.
§ 673.5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Accident means an Event that
involves any of the following: A loss of
life; a report of a serious injury to a
person; a collision of public
transportation vehicles; a runaway train;
an evacuation for life safety reasons; or
any derailment of a rail transit vehicle,
at any location, at any time, whatever
the cause.
Accountable Executive means a
single, identifiable person who has
ultimate responsibility for carrying out
the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan of a public transportation agency;
responsibility for carrying out the
agency’s Transit Asset Management
Plan; and control or direction over the
human and capital resources needed to
develop and maintain both the agency’s
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan, in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(d), and the agency’s Transit Asset
Management Plan in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 5326.
Chief Safety Officer means an
adequately trained individual who has
responsibility for safety and reports
directly to a transit agency’s chief
executive officer, general manager,
president, or equivalent officer. A Chief
Safety Officer may not serve in other
operational or maintenance capacities,
unless the Chief Safety Officer is
employed by a transit agency that is a
small public transportation provider as
defined in this part, or a public
transportation provider that does not
operate a rail fixed guideway public
transportation system.
Equivalent Authority means an entity
that carries out duties similar to that of
a Board of Directors, for a recipient or
subrecipient of FTA funds under 49
U.S.C. Chapter 53, including sufficient
authority to review and approve a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34466 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations recipient or subrecipient’s Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
Event means any Accident, Incident,
or Occurrence.
FTA means the Federal Transit
Administration, an operating
administration within the United States
Department of Transportation.
Hazard means any real or potential
condition that can cause injury, illness,
or death; damage to or loss of the
facilities, equipment, rolling stock, or
infrastructure of a public transportation
system; or damage to the environment.
Incident means an event that involves
any of the following: A personal injury
that is not a serious injury; one or more
injuries requiring medical transport; or
damage to facilities, equipment, rolling
stock, or infrastructure that disrupts the
operations of a transit agency.
Investigation means the process of
determining the causal and contributing
factors of an accident, incident, or
hazard, for the purpose of preventing
recurrence and mitigating risk.
National Public Transportation Safety
Plan means the plan to improve the
safety of all public transportation
systems that receive Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Occurrence means an Event without
any personal injury in which any
damage to facilities, equipment, rolling
stock, or infrastructure does not disrupt
the operations of a transit agency.
Operator of a public transportation
system means a provider of public
transportation as defined under 49
U.S.C. 5302(14).
Performance measure means an
expression based on a quantifiable
indicator of performance or condition
that is used to establish targets and to
assess progress toward meeting the
established targets.
Performance target means a
quantifiable level of performance or
condition, expressed as a value for the
measure, to be achieved within a time
period required by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan means the documented
comprehensive agency safety plan for a
transit agency that is required by 49
U.S.C. 5329 and this part.
Rail fixed guideway public
transportation system means any fixed
guideway system that uses rail, is
operated for public transportation, is
within the jurisdiction of a State, and is
not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Federal Railroad Administration, or any
such system in engineering or
construction. Rail fixed guideway
public transportation systems include
but are not limited to rapid rail, heavy
rail, light rail, monorail, trolley,
inclined plane, funicular, and
automated guideway.
Rail transit agency means any entity
that provides services on a rail fixed
guideway public transportation system.
Risk means the composite of
predicted severity and likelihood of the
potential effect of a hazard.
Risk mitigation means a method or
methods to eliminate or reduce the
effects of hazards.
Safety Assurance means processes
within a transit agency’s Safety
Management System that functions to
ensure the implementation and
effectiveness of safety risk mitigation,
and to ensure that the transit agency
meets or exceeds its safety objectives
through the collection, analysis, and
assessment of information.
Safety Management Policy means a
transit agency’s documented
commitment to safety, which defines
the transit agency’s safety objectives and
the accountabilities and responsibilities
of its employees in regard to safety.
Safety Management System (SMS)
means the formal, top-down,
organization-wide approach to
managing safety risk and assuring the
effectiveness of a transit agency’s safety
risk mitigation. SMS includes
systematic procedures, practices, and
policies for managing risks and hazards.
Safety Management System (SMS)
Executive means a Chief Safety Officer
or an equivalent.
Safety performance target means a
Performance Target related to safety
management activities.
Safety Promotion means a
combination of training and
communication of safety information to
support SMS as applied to the transit
agency’s public transportation system.
Safety risk assessment means the
formal activity whereby a transit agency
determines Safety Risk Management
priorities by establishing the
significance or value of its safety risks.
Safety Risk Management means a
process within a transit agency’s Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for
identifying hazards and analyzing,
assessing, and mitigating safety risk.
Serious injury means any injury
which:
(1) Requires hospitalization for more
than 48 hours, commencing within 7
days from the date of the injury was
received;
(2) Results in a fracture of any bone
(except simple fractures of fingers, toes,
or noses);
(3) Causes severe hemorrhages, nerve,
muscle, or tendon damage;
(4) Involves any internal organ; or
(5) Involves second- or third-degree
burns, or any burns affecting more than
5 percent of the body surface.
Small public transportation provider
means a recipient or subrecipient of
Federal financial assistance under 49
U.S.C. 5307 that has one hundred (100)
or fewer vehicles in peak revenue
service and does not operate a rail fixed
guideway public transportation system.
State means a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin
Islands.
State of good repair means the
condition in which a capital asset is
able to operate at a full level of
performance.
State Safety Oversight Agency means
an agency established by a State that
meets the requirements and performs
the functions specified by 49 U.S.C.
5329(e) and the regulations set forth in
49 CFR part 674.
Transit agency means an operator of
a public transportation system.
Transit Asset Management Plan
means the strategic and systematic
practice of procuring, operating,
inspecting, maintaining, rehabilitating,
and replacing transit capital assets to
manage their performance, risks, and
costs over their life cycles, for the
purpose of providing safe, cost-effective,
and reliable public transportation, as
required by 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 CFR
part 625.
Subpart B—Safety Plans
§ 673.11 General requirements.
(a) A transit agency must, within one
calendar year after July 19, 2019,
establish a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan that meets the
requirements of this part and, at a
minimum, consists of the following
elements:
(1) The Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan, and subsequent updates,
must be signed by the Accountable
Executive and approved by the agency’s
Board of Directors, or an Equivalent
Authority.
(2) The Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan must document the
processes and activities related to Safety
Management System (SMS)
implementation, as required under
subpart C of this part.
(3) The Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan must include performance
targets based on the safety performance
measures established under the National
Public Transportation Safety Plan.
(4) The Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan must address all applicable
requirements and standards as set forth
in FTA’s Public Transportation Safety
Program and the National Public
Transportation Safety Plan. Compliance
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34467 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations with the minimum safety performance
standards authorized under 49 U.S.C.
5329(b)(2)(C) is not required until
standards have been established through
the public notice and comment process.
(5) Each transit agency must establish
a process and timeline for conducting
an annual review and update of the
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan.
(6) A rail transit agency must include
or incorporate by reference in its Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan an
emergency preparedness and response
plan or procedures that addresses, at a
minimum, the assignment of employee
responsibilities during an emergency;
and coordination with Federal, State,
regional, and local officials with roles
and responsibilities for emergency
preparedness and response in the transit
agency’s service area.
(b) A transit agency may develop one
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan for all modes of service, or may
develop a Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan for each mode of service not
subject to safety regulation by another
Federal entity.
(c) A transit agency must maintain its
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan in accordance with the
recordkeeping requirements in subpart
D of this part.
(d) A State must draft and certify a
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan on behalf of any small public
transportation provider that is located in
that State. A State is not required to
draft a Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan for a small public
transportation provider if that agency
notifies the State that it will draft its
own plan. In each instance, the transit
agency must carry out the plan. If a
State drafts and certifies a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan on
behalf of a transit agency, and the transit
agency later opts to draft and certify its
own Public Transportation Agency
Safety Plan, then the transit agency
must notify the State. The transit agency
has one year from the date of the
notification to draft and certify a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan that
is compliant with this part. The Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan
drafted by the State will remain in effect
until the transit agency drafts its own
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan.
(e) Any rail fixed guideway public
transportation system that had a System
Safety Program Plan compliant with 49
CFR part 659 as of October 1, 2012, may
keep that plan in effect until one year
after July 19, 2019.
(f) Agencies that operate passenger
ferries regulated by the United States
Coast Guard (USCG) or rail fixed
guideway public transportation service
regulated by the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) are not required
to develop agency safety plans for those
modes of service.
§ 673.13 Certification of compliance.
(a) Each transit agency, or State as
authorized in § 673.11(d), must certify
that it has established a Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan
meeting the requirements of this part
one year after July 19, 2019. A State
Safety Oversight Agency must review
and approve a Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan developed by rail
fixed guideway system, as authorized in
49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and its implementing
regulations at 49 CFR part 674.
(b) On an annual basis, a transit
agency, direct recipient, or State must
certify its compliance with this part.
§ 673.15 Coordination with metropolitan,
statewide, and non-metropolitan planning
processes.
(a) A State or transit agency must
make its safety performance targets
available to States and Metropolitan
Planning Organizations to aid in the
planning process.
(b) To the maximum extent
practicable, a State or transit agency
must coordinate with States and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in
the selection of State and MPO safety
performance targets.
Subpart C—Safety Management
Systems
§ 673.21 General requirements.
Each transit agency must establish
and implement a Safety Management
System under this part. A transit agency
Safety Management System must be
appropriately scaled to the size, scope
and complexity of the transit agency
and include the following elements:
(a) Safety Management Policy as
described in § 673.23;
(b) Safety Risk Management as
described in § 673.25;
(c) Safety Assurance as described in
§ 673.27; and
(d) Safety Promotion as described in
§ 673.29.
§ 673.23 Safety management policy.
(a) A transit agency must establish its
organizational accountabilities and
responsibilities and have a written
statement of safety management policy
that includes the agency’s safety
objectives.
(b) A transit agency must establish
and implement a process that allows
employees to report safety conditions to
senior management, protections for
employees who report safety conditions
to senior management, and a description
of employee behaviors that may result
in disciplinary action.
(c) The safety management policy
must be communicated throughout the
agency’s organization.
(d) The transit agency must establish
the necessary authorities,
accountabilities, and responsibilities for
the management of safety amongst the
following individuals within its
organization, as they relate to the
development and management of the
transit agency’s Safety Management
System (SMS):
(1) Accountable Executive. The transit
agency must identify an Accountable
Executive. The Accountable Executive
is accountable for ensuring that the
agency’s SMS is effectively
implemented, throughout the agency’s
public transportation system. The
Accountable Executive is accountable
for ensuring action is taken, as
necessary, to address substandard
performance in the agency’s SMS. The
Accountable Executive may delegate
specific responsibilities, but the
ultimate accountability for the transit
agency’s safety performance cannot be
delegated and always rests with the
Accountable Executive.
(2) Chief Safety Officer or Safety
Management System (SMS) Executive.
The Accountable Executive must
designate a Chief Safety Officer or SMS
Executive who has the authority and
responsibility for day-to-day
implementation and operation of an
agency’s SMS. The Chief Safety Officer
or SMS Executive must hold a direct
line of reporting to the Accountable
Executive. A transit agency may allow
the Accountable Executive to also serve
as the Chief Safety Officer or SMS
Executive.
(3) Agency leadership and executive
management. A transit agency must
identify those members of its leadership
or executive management, other than an
Accountable Executive, Chief Safety
Officer, or SMS Executive, who have
authorities or responsibilities for day-to-
day implementation and operation of an
agency’s SMS.
(4) Key staff. A transit agency may
designate key staff, groups of staff, or
committees to support the Accountable
Executive, Chief Safety Officer, or SMS
Executive in developing, implementing,
and operating the agency’s SMS.
§ 673.25 Safety risk management.
(a) Safety Risk Management process.
A transit agency must develop and
implement a Safety Risk Management
process for all elements of its public
transportation system. The Safety Risk
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2 34468 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Management process must be comprised
of the following activities: Safety hazard
identification, safety risk assessment,
and safety risk mitigation.
(b) Safety hazard identification. (1) A
transit agency must establish methods
or processes to identify hazards and
consequences of the hazards.
(2) A transit agency must consider, as
a source for hazard identification, data
and information provided by an
oversight authority and the FTA.
(c) Safety risk assessment. (1) A
transit agency must establish methods
or processes to assess the safety risks
associated with identified safety
hazards.
(2) A safety risk assessment includes
an assessment of the likelihood and
severity of the consequences of the
hazards, including existing mitigations,
and prioritization of the hazards based
on the safety risk.
(d) Safety risk mitigation. A transit
agency must establish methods or
processes to identify mitigations or
strategies necessary as a result of the
agency’s safety risk assessment to
reduce the likelihood and severity of the
consequences.
§ 673.27 Safety assurance.
(a) Safety assurance process. A transit
agency must develop and implement a
safety assurance process, consistent
with this subpart. A rail fixed guideway
public transportation system, and a
recipient or subrecipient of Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 53 that operates more than one
hundred vehicles in peak revenue
service, must include in its safety
assurance process each of the
requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d) of this section. A small public
transportation provider only must
include in its safety assurance process
the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Safety performance monitoring
and measurement. A transit agency
must establish activities to:
(1) Monitor its system for compliance
with, and sufficiency of, the agency’s
procedures for operations and
maintenance;
(2) Monitor its operations to identify
any safety risk mitigations that may be
ineffective, inappropriate, or were not
implemented as intended;
(3) Conduct investigations of safety
events to identify causal factors; and
(4) Monitor information reported
through any internal safety reporting
programs.
(c) Management of change. (1) A
transit agency must establish a process
for identifying and assessing changes
that may introduce new hazards or
impact the transit agency’s safety
performance.
(2) If a transit agency determines that
a change may impact its safety
performance, then the transit agency
must evaluate the proposed change
through its Safety Risk Management
process.
(d) Continuous improvement. (1) A
transit agency must establish a process
to assess its safety performance.
(2) If a transit agency identifies any
deficiencies as part of its safety
performance assessment, then the
transit agency must develop and carry
out, under the direction of the
Accountable Executive, a plan to
address the identified safety
deficiencies.
§ 673.29 Safety promotion.
(a) Competencies and training. A
transit agency must establish and
implement a comprehensive safety
training program for all agency
employees and contractors directly
responsible for safety in the agency’s
public transportation system. The
training program must include refresher
training, as necessary.
(b) Safety communication. A transit
agency must communicate safety and
safety performance information
throughout the agency’s organization
that, at a minimum, conveys
information on hazards and safety risks
relevant to employees’ roles and
responsibilities and informs employees
of safety actions taken in response to
reports submitted through an employee
safety reporting program.
Subpart D—Safety Plan
Documentation and Recordkeeping
§ 673.31 Safety plan documentation.
At all times, a transit agency must
maintain documents that set forth its
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan, including those related to the
implementation of its Safety
Management System (SMS), and results
from SMS processes and activities. A
transit agency must maintain documents
that are included in whole, or by
reference, that describe the programs,
policies, and procedures that the agency
uses to carry out its Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
These documents must be made
available upon request by the Federal
Transit Administration or other Federal
entity, or a State Safety Oversight
Agency having jurisdiction. A transit
agency must maintain these documents
for a minimum of three years after they
are created.
[FR Doc. 2018–15167 Filed 7–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jul 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19JYR2.SGM 19JYR2sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2