[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61251-61273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23921]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket No. FTA-2013-0030]
RIN 2132-AB20; 2132-AB07


The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety 
Certification Training Program; Transit Asset Management

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing this 
consolidated advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to request 
public comments on a wide range of topics pertaining to the new Public 
Transportation Safety Program (National Safety Program) and the 
requirements of the new transit asset management provisions (National 
TAM System) authorized by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act. Together, the requirements of the National Safety Program 
and the National TAM System are intended to improve the safety of the 
Nation's public transportation systems, ensure that those systems are 
in a state of good repair, and provide increased transparency into 
agencies' budgetary decision-making process.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 2, 2014. Any comments filed 
after this deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Please submit your comments by only one of the following 
methods, identifying your submission by Docket Number (FTA-2013-0030) 
or RIN number (2123-AB20, 2132-AB07).

[[Page 61252]]

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Submit electronic comments and 
other data to http://www.regulations.gov.
     U.S. Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building, Ground Floor, at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, at (202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit 
Administration) and Docket Number (FTA-2013-0030) for this notice or 
RIN (2132-AB20, 2132-AB07), at the beginning of your comments. If sent 
by mail, submit two copies of your comments. Due to security procedures 
in effect since October 2001, mail received through the U.S. Postal 
Service may be subject to delays. Parties submitting comments should 
consider using an express mail firm to ensure their prompt filing of 
any submissions not filed electronically or by hand. If you wish to 
receive confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include 
a self-addressed stamped postcard. All comments received will be posted 
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. You may review U.S. DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 
19477-8 or http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Safety. For program matters, Richard Gerhart, Office of Safety, 
(202) 366-8970 or [email protected]. For legal matters, contact 
Candace Key, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4011 or 
[email protected].
    Transit Asset Management. For program matters, John Giorgis, Office 
of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-5430 or [email protected]. For legal 
matters, Scott Biehl, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4011 or 
[email protected].
    Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction
    A. The National Public Transportation Safety Program
    B. The Safety Management System Approach
    C. Transit Asset Management
II. The Relationship Between Safety, the Safety Management System 
Approach, Transit Asset Management and State of Good Repair
III. Background
    A. The Need for a Comprehensive National Safety Program
    B. The Need for a National Transit Asset Management System
IV. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan
    A. Performance Criteria
    B. State of Good Repair
    C. Minimum Safety Performance Standards for Vehicles
V. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
    A. Plan Requirements
    B. The State's Role
VI. The Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program
VII. The National Transit Asset Management System
    A. Overview and Considerations for Small Operators
    B. Defining State of Good Repair
    (1) Asset Age
    (2) Asset Condition
    (3) Asset Performance
    (4) Comprehensive Assessment of Assets
    C. Transit Asset Management Plans
    (1) Plan Requirements
    (2) Investment Prioritization
    D. Performance Measures
    (1) Defining Performance Measures
    (2) Performance Targets
    E. Technical Assistance and Tools
VIII. Certification of Transit Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset 
Management Plans
IX. Coordination of Targets and Plans With Metropolitan, Statewide 
and Non-Metropolitan Planning
X. Next Steps and Public Participation

I. Introduction

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141. MAP-21 
made a number of fundamental changes to the statutes that authorize the 
Federal transit programs at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Under discussion in 
this ANPRM are several provisions within the Public Transportation 
Safety Program (National Safety Program) authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5329 
and the transit asset management requirements (National TAM System) 
authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5326.
    Many of the requirements of the National Safety Program and the 
National TAM System apply equally to all modes of public 
transportation.\1\ However, FTA intends to focus its initial oversight 
and enforcement efforts on rail transit systems' implementation of and 
compliance with these requirements. FTA believes that the increased 
potential for catastrophic accidents, loss of life, and property damage 
associated with rail transit warrants the most immediate attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GAO, Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety 
Oversight Program, GAO-06-997T (Washington, DC: July 19, 2006), 
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123829.pdf, and Rail 
Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State 
Safety Oversight Program, GAO-06-821 (Washington, DC: July 26, 
2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/250860.pdf. GAO 
also testified to these issues before the Subcommittee on Highways, 
Transit, and Pipelines, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, House of Representatives in July 2006 (http://gao.gov/products/GAO-06-997T) and in December 2009 before the 
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on 
Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate (http://gao.gov/products/GAO-10-293T; http://gao.gov/products/GAO-10-314T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that another Federal agency already regulates the 
safety of a particular mode of public transportation, FTA does not 
intend to promulgate duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicting 
regulations. For example, FTA does not intend to promulgate safety 
regulations that will apply to either commuter rail systems that are 
regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration or to ferry systems 
that are regulated by the United States Coast Guard. However, unlike 
the requirements for the National Safety Program, the requirements of 
the National Transit Asset Management System apply to all modes of 
public transportation, including commuter rail and ferry systems, 
regardless of whether those modes are required to comply with asset 
management regulations by other Federal agencies. However, FTA does not 
intend to promulgate duplicative, inconsistent, or conflicting National 
TAM System regulations.
    Through this ANPRM, FTA is seeking comments from the entire transit 
industry on the topics addressed in this ANPRM. Specifically, FTA is 
seeking public comment on its initial interpretations, proposals it is 
considering, and questions regarding the following: (1) The 
requirements of the National Safety Program relating to the National 
Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification 
Training Program; (2) the requirements of the National TAM System, 
including four proposed options under consideration for defining and 
measuring state of good repair; and (3) the relationship between 
safety, transit asset management and state of good.
    FTA is also seeking comment on its intent to propose adoption of 
the Safety Management System (SMS) approach to guide the development 
and implementation of the National Safety

[[Page 61253]]

Program. SMS offers a proactive method for managing safety which 
enables agencies to identify and resolve safety concerns and challenges 
before they result in incidents. SMS combines established system safety 
engineering principles with advanced organizational management 
techniques, and supports continuous improvement in safety performance 
through a positive safety culture founded on four key priorities: 
safety policy, safety risk management, safety assurance, and safety 
promotion.
    In addition, several requirements for both safety and transit asset 
management directly impact the Metropolitan, and the Statewide and Non-
metropolitan planning processes. See 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304. 
Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and States must consider, and 
integrate recipients' TAM Plans and targets, as well as Transit Agency 
Safety Plans and targets, into the planning process. Because all of 
these provisions have broad impacts on FTA recipients and other 
stakeholders, this ANRPM also poses questions on the relationship of 
the safety and transit asset management requirements to the planning 
process.
    The public comments in response to this ANPRM will help inform 
future notices of proposed rulemakings (NPRM) for the National Public 
Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plan, the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program, 
and the National Transit Asset Management System.

A. The National Public Transportation Safety Program

    Section 20021 of MAP-21 authorizes the new Public Transportation 
Safety Program codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329. The codification of section 
5329 marks the culmination of efforts that began in December 2009 when 
the Administration transmitted a legislative proposal to Congress which 
requested the authority to establish and enforce minimum Federal safety 
standards for rail transit systems. In a historic move, not only did 
MAP-21 adopt many of the Administrations' proposals regarding the 
safety of rail transit, but it also provided FTA with the authority to 
regulate safety for all modes of public transportation.
    The National Safety Program is comprised of the following four 
components--(1) the National Public Transportation Safety Plan 
(National Safety Plan), 49 U.S.C. 5329(b); (2) the Public 
Transportation Agency Plan (Transit Agency Safety Plan), 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d); (3) the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training 
Program (Safety Certification Training Program), 49 U.S.C. 
5329(b)(1)(D) and 5329(c); and (4) the State Safety Oversight (SSO) 
Program. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e). Each of the four components will contribute 
to the establishment of a comprehensive framework that will ensure safe 
public transportation for all. FTA intends to publish separate NPRMs on 
each of these four components.
    In most instances, the requirements of the National Safety Program 
will apply to each recipient of FTA funding, regardless of mode of 
transit provided. However, FTA's regulatory jurisdiction is limited by 
two provisions. First, FTA is prohibited from promulgating safety 
performance standards for rolling stock that is already regulated by 
another Federal agency. 49 U.S.C. 5329(2)(C)(i). Second, the 
requirements of the State Safety Oversight Program will not apply to 
rail transit systems that are subject to regulation by the Federal 
Railroad Administration. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(1) and (e)(2). 
Notwithstanding these two explicit statutory prohibitions, as 
previously mentioned, to the extent that any other Federal agency 
already regulates the safety of a particular mode of transportation, 
FTA does not intend to promulgate any duplicative, inconsistent, or 
conflicting regulations.
    This ANPRM addresses and seeks public comment only on the first 
three components, which directly apply to FTA's regulated community. In 
the near future, FTA will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on the 
SSO Program. That rule will propose requirements for States that must 
oversee rail transit systems within the regulated community.
The National Public Transportation Safety Plan
    FTA will ``create and implement'' a National Safety Plan to 
``improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive 
FTA funding.'' 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(1). At minimum, the National Safety 
Plan will include: (1) Safety performance criteria for all modes of 
public transportation; (2) the definition of state of good repair 
developed through the implementation of the National TAM System; (3) a 
public transportation safety certification training program; and (4) 
minimum safety performance standards for transit vehicles used in 
revenue service that are not regulated by other U.S. DOT modes or any 
other Federal agency. The minimum safety performance standards, must, 
to the extent practicable, take into consideration recommendations and 
best practices of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and 
the transit industry. 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C).
The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
    Within one year after FTA issues a final rule to carry out section 
5329(d), each State or recipient of section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula 
Grants Program (section 5307) funds or section 5311 Rural Area Formula 
Program (section 5311) funds, must develop, implement, and certify a 
Public Transit Agency Safety Plan. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1). Generally, 
large transit providers that are direct recipients of section 5307 
funds must develop their own plans, have the plans approved by their 
board of directors, and certify those plans to FTA. However, small 
transit providers that are recipients under section 5307 or section 
5311 may have their plans drafted or certified by their State. 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d)(3). FTA seeks comment on how to define small transit 
providers and the States' role in the drafting and certification 
process in section V, below.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), each Transit Agency Safety Plan 
must include, at minimum:
     A requirement that the board of directors, or equivalent 
entity, approve the plan and any updates;
     Methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks 
throughout all elements of the recipient's public transportation 
system;
     Strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, 
personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions;
     A process and timeline for conducting an annual review and 
update of the plan;
     Performance targets based on the safety performance 
criteria and SGR standards set out in the National Safety Plan;
     Assignment of an adequately trained safety officer who 
reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent 
officer of the recipient; and
     A comprehensive staff training program for operations 
personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety.
    Regulations to implement the requirements of the Transit Agency 
Safety Plan will take into account the size and operating environments 
of applicable recipients. Until FTA issues a final rule to carry out 
section 5329(d), existing safety and security plans required of rail 
transit agencies under 49 CFR part 659 will remain in effect. 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(2). Once FTA issues a final rule, all recipients, including 
those that provide rail transit service, will

[[Page 61254]]

only be required to have one Transit Agency Safety Plan.
The Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program
    FTA is required to establish a Public Transportation Safety 
Certification Training Program for the certification and training of 
Federal and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct 
safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems, and 
employees of public transportation agencies directly responsible for 
safety oversight. 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1). Until a final rule is 
promulgated to establish and implement the Safety Certification 
Training Program, FTA is required to issue Interim Provisions for the 
certification and training of those persons that will be subject to the 
final rule. 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2).
    FTA envisions that the Public Transportation Safety Certification 
Training Program (Safety Certification Training Program) authorized at 
49 U.S.C. 5329(c), will establish minimum expertise requirements for 
Federal, State, transit agency and other designated personnel who are 
directly responsible for safety oversight. This program responds to 
findings identified in a 2006 report, ``Rail Transit: Additional 
Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State Safety Oversight 
Program,'' issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which 
indicated a lack of expertise among safety oversight personnel.
    This ANPRM seeks public comments on the Safety Certification 
Training Program. FTA will publish proposed Interim Provisions for the 
certification and training of employees responsible for safety 
oversight in a subsequent Federal Register notice. The public will have 
an opportunity to comment on the proposed Interim Provisions at that 
time. We ask that the public direct any comments on the Interim 
Provisions to that docket when it is available.
    FTA will implement the requirements of the National Safety Program 
in consultation with the public, States, the transit industry, and the 
U.S. DOT's Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS). FTA will 
use the comments received through this ANPRM to help develop the 
requirements of the National Safety Plan, Transit Agency Safety Plan, 
and Safety Certification Training Program. Depending upon the 
applicable statutory direction and relevant circumstances, FTA will 
implement the National Safety Program through a combination of 
regulations, statements of policy, guidance materials, technical 
assistance and training.

B. The Safety Management System Approach

    Transit is one of the safest ways to travel. According to the 
National Safety Council,\2\ the lifetime odds of dying as an occupant 
of a rail car are approximately 1 in 178,000, and the lifetime odds of 
dying as an occupant of a bus are also about 1 in 178,000. By contrast, 
the lifetime odds of dying as an occupant of a passenger car are just 1 
in 415, the lifetime odds of dying as a pedestrian are 1 in 749, and 
the lifetime odds of dying as a bicyclist are nearly 1 in 5,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ National Safety Council (2013) Injury Facts[supreg], 2013 
Edition. Itasca, IL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, serious incidents do occur, and the potential for 
catastrophic events remains. As discussed in section IIIA, below, in 
recent years, there have been several major transit accidents that 
resulted in fatalities, injuries, and significant property damage. 
Since 2004, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has 
reported on nine transit accidents that, collectively, resulted in 15 
fatalities, 297 injuries, and over $30 million in property damages.\3\ 
The NTSB has investigated a number of these accidents and has issued 
reports identifying the probable causes and contributing factors, 
including deficiencies in the training and supervision of employees; 
deficiencies in the maintenance of equipment and infrastructure; and 
deficiencies in safety management and oversight, such as weaknesses in 
transit agencies' safety rules and procedures, lack of a safety culture 
within the transit agency, and lack of adequate oversight by the state 
and Federal agencies. The deficiencies identified by the NTSB will 
continue to plague the transit industry as infrastructure ages, skilled 
employees retire, and transit agencies continue to endure financial 
stresses. FTA's goal is to address these deficiencies and improve 
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section IIIA ``The Need for a Comprehensive National Safety 
Program,'' discusses several of these accidents and provides links 
to the NTSB's reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to advance a comprehensive approach to safety decision-
making, FTA is considering a Safety Management System (SMS) approach to 
developing and implementing the National Safety Program. Following a 
recommendation from FTA's Federal Advisory Committee--TRACS,\4\ on May 
13, 2013, the FTA Administrator issued a Dear Colleague Letter \5\ and 
FAQs \6\ to the transit industry setting forth FTA's intention to adopt 
the SMS approach to guide the advancement of FTA's safety rulemakings 
and other initiatives to improve the safety of public transportation. 
This ANPRM seeks comment on this proposed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Implementing Safety Management System Principles in Rail 
Transit Agencies, available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TRACS_Ltr_Rpt_SMS_fnl.pdf.
    \5\ The Dear Colleague Letter is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/newsroom/12910_15391.html.
    \6\ The SMS FAQ's are available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/tso_15177.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Safety management is based on the fact that safety is not an 
absolute condition--there will always be hazards and risks in public 
transportation. However, the traditional approach of primarily reacting 
to accidents by prescribing measures to prevent recurrence alone will 
not contribute to sustaining and improving public transportation 
safety. The need for a new approach to addressing public transportation 
safety has become especially urgent in light of high[hyphen]profile 
rail transit accidents discussed in section IIIA, below.
    Modern safety management practices that systematically and 
proactively identify the factors that contribute to unsafe events and 
prevent or minimize the likelihood of their occurrence have proven 
effective in addressing similar concerns in other transportation 
industries. Such practices call for setting safety goals and 
objectives, defining clear levels of accountability and responsibility 
for safety, establishing proactive approaches to managing risks and 
hazards in the day[hyphen]to[hyphen]day activities, risk[hyphen]based 
resource allocation, monitoring and evaluating performance towards 
goals, and continuous learning and improvement.
    SMS offers a means to prevent public transportation accidents by 
integrating safety into all aspects of a transit system's activities, 
from planning to design, to construction, to operations, to 
maintenance. SMS builds on the public transportation industry's three 
decades of experience with system safety by bringing management 
processes, integrated data analysis, and organizational culture more 
squarely into the industry's overall risk management framework. SMS is 
a management approach that provides processes that ensure each public 
transportation agency, no matter its size or service environment, has 
the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, and policies 
and procedures in place to direct and control resources to optimally 
manage safety. When systematically applied, the SMS approach provides a 
set of

[[Page 61255]]

decision-making tools that allow transit agencies to prioritize safety 
and sound transit asset management when making informed operating and 
capital investment decisions. These decision-making processes and 
investment prioritization decisions are discussed in more detail in 
Section II.
    Following this ANPRM, FTA may issue an NPRM to implement SMS. In 
addition to FTA's general authority to issue rules to carry out section 
5329, the statutorily-required components of the National Safety 
Program provide FTA with the legal authority and foundation necessary 
to implement the SMS approach within the transit industry. 49 U.S.C. 
5329(f)(7).
    There are four essential pillars of an SMS approach--(1) Safety 
policy, (2) safety risk-management, (3) safety assurance, and (4) 
safety promotion. The safety policy is the foundation of the 
organization's SMS. It clearly states the organization's safety 
objectives and sets forth the policies, procedures, and organizational 
structures necessary to accomplish the safety objectives. The safety 
policy clearly delineates management and employee responsibilities for 
safety throughout the organization. It also ensures that management is 
actively engaged in the oversight of the organization's safety 
performance by requiring regular review of the safety policy by a 
designated accountable executive (general manager, president, or other 
person with similar authority). Within the context of the Transit 
Agency Safety Plan, an organization's safety objectives will be 
articulated, at a minimum, through the setting of performance targets 
based on the safety performance criteria established in the National 
Safety Plan, and state of good repair standards based on the definition 
of that term established under the National TAM System. See 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(1)(E).
    Pursuant to 5329(d)(1)(B) and (C), the Transit Agency Safety Plan 
must also include ``methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks 
throughout all elements of the public transportation system,'' and 
``strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, personnel, and 
property to hazards and unsafe conditions,'' respectively. Each of 
these requirements is consistent with the second pillar of SMS--safety 
risk management, which requires the development of processes and 
procedures to help the organization better understand its operational 
systems and identify hazards associated with those systems. Once 
hazards are identified, other procedures must be developed to analyze 
and assess the risk resulting from these hazards, as well as to 
institute controls to mitigate or eliminate the risks.
    Sections 5329(d)(1)(B) and (C) also encompass the requirements of 
the third pillar of SMS--safety assurance. Safety assurance requires an 
organization to monitor the effectiveness of safety risk controls 
established under safety risk management. Safety assurance is also 
designed to ensure that the organization meets or exceeds its safety 
objectives through the collection, analysis, and assessment of data 
about the organization's performance.
    The fourth pillar of SMS--safety promotion--involves training, 
awareness, and communication that support safety. The training aspect 
is consistent with the Transit Agency Safety Plan requirement for a 
comprehensive staff training program for operations personnel and 
personnel directly responsible for safety. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(G).
    FTA is considering incorporating these four pillars into its safety 
related activities. Under the SMS approach, FTA's safety oversight 
reviews would focus on the overall safety performance of an entire 
organization and effective implementation of the methods for 
identifying and evaluating safety risks and to mitigate exposure to 
those risks, instead of relying solely on strict compliance with 
regulatory requirements or technical standards. Moreover, the 
principles of SMS will guide the establishment of national safety 
priorities set out in the National Safety Plan. Through data analysis 
FTA will identify national trends that suggest gaps in safety 
performance, common hazards and leading practices for risk control. FTA 
will then set national performance criteria and standards based on 
those safety hazards that pose the most significant risks.
    Many of the system safety, risk management, and safety 
communications procedures and practices currently being used by both 
rail transit systems and bus transit systems are essential building 
blocks of a successful SMS. For example, some agencies already have 
vision and mission statements that include safety. In addition, some 
agencies already use quantitative measures to measure and evaluate 
safety performance. Types of data that some agencies currently collect 
to measure safety performance include accident investigation reports, 
customer complaints, and vehicle defect reports. Some agencies are 
already using data management systems such as Microsoft Excel or 
customized software to manage and analyze the data that is collected.
    For those agencies that do not use an SMS, the adoption of the SMS 
approach would be an organizational shift that can be integrated into 
the existing operational environment. FTA does not intend to prescribe 
exactly what processes a transit agency must have in place to implement 
SMS. FTA envisions that it would be up to each transit agency to 
develop processes to effectively implement SMS.

C. Transit Asset Management

    Pursuant to the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5326, FTA must establish 
a National TAM System that includes the following five elements: (1) 
FTA is to define the term, state of good repair, including objective 
standards for measuring asset conditions; (2) FTA must establish 
performance measures based on these state of good repair (SGR) 
standards, and each FTA grant recipient must annually set targets based 
on these measures; (3) each FTA recipient and subrecipient must develop 
an asset management plan that includes an asset inventory and 
investment prioritization; (4) asset inventories, condition 
assessments, and performance targets must be reported to FTA; and (5) 
FTA must provide technical assistance to recipients, including an 
analytical process or decision support tool that allows recipients to 
estimate capital investment needs over time and assists recipients with 
asset investment prioritization.
    Each transit agency's investment priorities will become essential 
components of the long-range transportation plan and the transportation 
improvement program (TIP) in large metropolitan areas and essential 
components of the statewide transportation plan and the statewide 
transportation improvement program (STIP) in other areas. 49 U.S.C. 
5303 and 5304. In all cases, the process of planning for the investment 
of Federal transportation dollars must consider the needs for transit 
state of good repair and safety alongside the comparable needs of the 
rest of the transportation network.

II. The Relationship Between Safety, the Safety Management System 
Approach, Transit Asset Management and State of Good Repair

    Each transit agency has a process by which they budget, allocate 
funds, and plan for the future. In most cases, this decision-making 
process is led by a general manager or CEO who formulates the capital 
and operating budgets. In the SMS approach, this individual is called 
the accountable executive. This accountable executive is responsible 
for making decisions and balancing competing needs.

[[Page 61256]]

    Ultimately, the decisions made by the accountable executive 
regarding the proposed capital and operating budgets are presented for 
approval to the transit agency's board of directors (board) or 
equivalent entity. Executives and boards must make strategic decisions 
regarding operational and service demands, capital investments, and the 
safety needs of the system. Accountable executives and boards often 
wrestle with these decisions because there is never enough money to do 
everything. Ensuring the appropriate consideration of safety and 
transit asset management as part of budgetary decisions related to 
capital and operating expenses has always been a balancing act. The 
implementation of the Transit Agency Safety Plan using the SMS approach 
would equip accountable executives and their boards with the 
information required to understand the hazards and associated risks 
within their own unique transit system. This knowledge encourages 
informed, deliberate, and transparent investments in controls and other 
measures to mitigate recognized risks. Instead of just having a capital 
plan and an operational plan, accountable executives and boards would 
now consider the needs identified in the Transit Agency Safety Plan and 
the TAM Plan, with other service needs, such as expansion, 
concurrently.
    A key challenge in connecting transit asset management to safety 
planning is that even when assets are not in a state of good repair, 
they can be operated safely. Likewise, assets in a state of good repair 
can present a safety risk. That is not to say, however, that achieving 
a state of good repair is sufficient for safe transit operations. 
Similarly, safety is not the only reason for implementing TAM Plans. 
Still, FTA believes that there is a nexus between achieving a state of 
good repair and the safety of a transit system. The following 
discussion is intended to illustrate the linkage of transit asset 
management and state of good repair under the SMS approach.
    FTA believes that, in the context of transit asset management, 
safety assessment begins with the statutorily required condition 
assessment. See 49 U.S.C. 5326(a)(2)(A). The condition assessment would 
identify those assets that fall below the SGR standards to be 
established by the National TAM System and the definition of state of 
good repair. If an asset is not in a state of good repair, it would be 
subsequently subject to a review under the SMS processes. The safety 
process would look at the condition of the asset and identify existing 
hazards and the associated level of risk. Many times there will be no 
significant risk at all because the asset was either well maintained or 
simply does not pose a significant safety threat. The asset may still 
be a high-priority replacement for other reasons, but the safety 
process is not going to raise a red flag. Accordingly, any residual 
risk would be accepted and the agency would focus on those assets that 
do pose significant identified safety threats.
    Sometimes, however, an asset will pose a risk that the accountable 
executive determines is unacceptable. This still may not mean that the 
asset should be immediately taken out of service, but it would require 
a control to be set in place to mitigate the risk to an acceptable 
level. This control would not always require the transit agency to 
either purchase an entirely brand new asset or spend any capital at 
all. Instead, it could mean that the transit agency, for example, would 
need to either purchase new shunting, or establish new procedures for 
track workers where there is concern about signaling, or institute a 
speed zone where track condition has become an issue, or implement a 
requirement to go to manual train control. The transit agency should 
ensure that proper safety assurance practices are in place and are 
utilized to monitor each control and determine whether or not it is 
sufficiently mitigating the risk.
    Some controls will cost money to implement. They may involve 
training, overtime, and special equipment investments. Controls also 
can have operational consequences. A speed restriction in a big system 
may cause increased crowding or slower travel times that slow down 
service enough to impact the operating schedule. System impacts of this 
magnitude may already be considered in the agency budget process. The 
safety risk management and TAM processes highlight them.
    Many transit agencies are faced with tough decisions about how to 
direct their investments. With a transparent process to manage safety, 
these tough decisions will be more deliberate and less likely to be 
inadequate or deferred. Ultimately, outputs from the TAM process and 
SMS will help shape the transit agency's strategic planning and budget 
process by contributing to informed decision-making.
    FTA has placed a visual depiction of the aforementioned 
relationships and processes in the docket to this ANPRM.

III. Background

A. The Need for a Comprehensive National Safety Program

    FTA's predecessor agency, the Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration (UMTA), originated under the Urban Mass Transportation 
Act of (UMT Act) of 1964--a Great Society initiative under the Kennedy 
and Johnson Administrations, designed to assist State and local 
governments in financing publicly and privately operated urban mass 
transportation systems ``to be operated by public or private mass 
transportation companies as determined by local needs.'' (Pub. L. 88-
365; quoting Section 2(b)(3) of the UMT Act, 49 U.S.C. app. 
1602(b)(3)). UMTA's mission, at that time, was strictly limited to 
providing Federal financial assistance to develop and maintain 
municipal transit systems.
    From the inception of the program for Federal financial assistance 
to state and local agencies FTA and its predecessor agency, UMTA, were 
prohibited from regulating any aspect of the day-to-day operations of 
grant recipients. Prior to MAP-21, this prohibition was codified at 49 
U.S.C. 5334(b)(l), which stated in pertinent part:

    . . . [E)xcept for purposes of national defense or in the event 
of a national or regional emergency, the Secretary may not regulate 
the operation, routes, or schedules of a public transportation 
system for which a grant is made under this chapter, nor may the 
Secretary regulate the rates, fares, tolls, rentals, or other 
charges prescribed by any provider of public transportation. 
(Emphasis added)

    The Congress deliberately chose not to give UMTA any ability to 
establish national standards for safety in urban mass transportation. 
See, e.g., Amalgamated Transit Union v. Skinner, 894 F.2d 1362, 1364 
(D.C. Cir. 1990). Moreover, both UMTA's and FTA's authority to regulate 
safety during the past 45 years was limited to investigation of safety 
hazards (added in 1974), testing buses for durability (added in 1987), 
and requiring recipients to have a drug and alcohol program (added in 
1991).
    Specifically, in Section 107 of the National Mass Transportation 
Assistance Act of 1974, Congress instructed the agency to ``investigate 
unsafe conditions in any facility, equipment, or manner of operation 
financed under this Act which the Secretary believes creates a serious 
hazard of death or injury.'' The statute further directed UMTA to 
determine the nature and extent of the hazardous conditions; determine 
the means that might best correct or eliminate those

[[Page 61257]]

hazardous conditions; and compel the grant recipient to submit a plan 
for correcting or eliminating those conditions to UMTA's satisfaction. 
Also, the statute allowed the Secretary to ``withhold further financial 
assistance'' to the grant recipient until that plan was ``approved or 
implemented.'' Nonetheless, the grant recipient was free to adopt, 
reject, or modify UMTA's recommendations.
    Prior to MAP-21, FTA's investigative authority was codified at 49 
U.S.C. 5329, and pursuant to Section 3028 of the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. 
L. 109-59 (2005); SAFETEA-LU), was broadened to allow FTA to ``conduct 
investigations into safety hazards and security risks associated with a 
condition in equipment, a facility, or an operation financed under this 
chapter to establish the nature and extent of the condition and how to 
eliminate, mitigate, or correct it.'' Over the years, on several 
occasions, FTA has invoked this statute to audit individual transit 
agencies in instances where FTA believed there may have been 
unacceptable hazards or risks. Still, FTA has never interpreted Section 
5329 as giving the agency authority to conduct a nationwide 
investigation into transit facilities or equipment or regulate those 
facilities or equipment through uniform standards for the entire 
transit industry.
    Through Section 317 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform 
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, the Congress directed UMTA to 
establish a program for testing new models of buses for 
maintainability, reliability, safety, performance, structural 
durability, fuel economy, and noise. The safety component of the bus 
testing program consists of a test for handling and stability. However, 
the purpose of the bus testing is simply to report the raw data for 
evaluation by transit agencies that seek to purchase new buses with 
Federal funding. Until the passage of MAP-21, FTA was not authorized to 
establish pass-fail criteria for safety or any of the other qualities 
for which the buses are tested.
    Moreover, prior to MAP-21, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5330 and 
consistent with principles of federalism, it is the States--not FTA--
that are responsible to require, review, approve, and monitor each rail 
transit agency's safety plan; investigate hazardous conditions and 
accidents at rail transit systems; and require action to correct or 
eliminate those conditions. FTA's role and responsibility is solely one 
of monitoring the many State agencies that exercise hands-on oversight 
of rail transit operations, and providing technical assistance to those 
State agencies.
    This very limited Federal authority for safety did not prove 
satisfactory in the view of the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB or ``Board''). In August 1991, following a number of accidents in 
the industry--including very serious accidents on rail transit systems 
in Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York City--the Board published a 
study titled, ``Oversight of Rail Rapid Transit Safety'' (NTSB/SS-91/
02) \7\ in which it urged all States to develop or revise safety 
programs to ensure comprehensive and effective oversight over rail 
transit systems in their jurisdictions. The NTSB believed that States 
should have primary authority for oversight of rail transit safety, but 
it urged UMTA to evaluate the effectiveness of States' oversight of 
rail transit, develop guidelines, and require States and transit 
operators to use their UMTA grant funds to improve the safety of rail 
transit systems. Also, the NTSB encouraged UMTA to withhold Federal 
financial assistance, as necessary, pending corrective action by the 
States and transit agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Oversight of Rail Rapid Transit Safety (NTSB/SS-91/02) is 
available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/1991/R91_33_36.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NTSB recommendations, the Congress created a 
State Safety Oversight (SSO) program for rail fixed guideway transit 
safety in Section 3029 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), enacted in December 1991. Public Law 102-240. 
ISTEA renamed UMTA as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and 
directed FTA to compel States with rail transit systems within their 
borders not otherwise subject to regulation by the Federal Railroad 
Administration (e.g., commuter rail systems, or light rail systems 
connecting to the ``general railroad system'' of the United States, as 
described in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209) to establish and carry out 
safety program plans for each of those rail transit systems. The 
statute also required safety program plans to include, at minimum, core 
requirements for safety, lines of authority, levels of responsibility, 
and methods of documentation for those subjects. Further, Section 3029 
of ISTEA granted FTA explicit authority to withhold funding from any 
State that did not comply with the statutory mandates, and directed FTA 
to promulgate rules for that purpose. This new authority for FTA made 
no provision for oversight of bus operations--possibly because the 1991 
NTSB report was focused on rail transit.
    The regulations implemented at 49 CFR part 659 to carry out the 
authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 5330 have been criticized for their 
lack of rigor and inconsistent application among States. Moreover, the 
State SSO programs developed to comply with the regulations in part 659 
have been appropriately criticized for lack of authority, resources, 
and expertise. Most notably, in July 2006, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) identified some fundamental weaknesses in 
SSO agencies (SSOAs) in a report, ``Rail Transit: Additional Federal 
Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State Safety Oversight Program.'' \8\ 
The GAO report found that the staffing levels and expertise varied 
greatly across SSOAs, and many of the SSOAs lacked enough qualified 
staff and adequate levels of training to meet their responsibilities. 
Lack of funding was also found to be a serious impediment. The GAO 
noted that the SSO regulations provided no enforcement power to the 
SSOAs, and very little enforcement power to FTA. Additionally, the GAO 
report faulted FTA for having failed to set goals and performance 
measures for State Safety Oversight, and having failed to audit SSOAs 
as often as originally planned. GAO urged FTA to set both short and 
long-term goals for State Safety Oversight, with measures of progress 
toward each of those goals; to audit each of the SSOAs at least once 
every three years; and to develop an appropriate training curriculum 
for SSOAs that would include courses on how to conduct oversight of 
rail transit systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rail Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance 
FTA's State Safety Oversight Program is available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five major incidents following GAO's report highlighted increasing 
challenges for rail transit safety. On November 30, 2006, a Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Blue Line train struck and 
killed two employees inspecting rail transit track in Alexandria, 
Virginia.\9\ On January 7, 2007, a WMATA Green Line train derailed near 
the Mt. Vernon station in Washington, DC, injuring 23 people and 
causing $3.8 million in damage.\10\ On May 28, 2008, two Massachusetts 
Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) light rail trains collided with one 
another on the Green Line in Newton,

[[Page 61258]]

Massachusetts--a suburb of Boston--killing the operator of the second 
train, injuring another eight persons, and causing $8 million in 
damage.\11\ On May 8, 2009, the MBTA suffered another accident on its 
Green Line light rail system in which one train rear-ended another in 
the tunnel near the Government Center station in downtown Boston; 68 
people were injured, with more than $9 million in damage.\12\ On June 
22, 2009, two WMATA trains collided with one another near the Fort 
Totten station on the Red Line, killing the operator of the second 
train and eight passengers, injuring another 52 passengers, and causing 
$12 million in damage. \13\ On July 18, 2009, two San Francisco 
Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) light rail trains collided with 
one another at the West Portal station in downtown San Francisco, 
injuring the operators of both trains and 46 other persons and causing 
$4.5 million in damage.\14\ And, in August and September, 2009, two 
WMATA maintenance employees lost their lives while working on the rail 
transit system; one was struck by a train on the Blue Line, the other 
by a maintenance vehicle on the Orange Line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NTSB's Railroad Accident Brief for the WMATA Blue Line 
accident is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2008/RAB0802.pdf.
    \10\ The NTSB's accident report for the Mt Vernon Square 
accident is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/RAR0703.pdf.
    \11\ The NTSB's final report for the collision between two MBTA 
Green Line trains in Newton, Massachusetts is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2009/RAR0902.pdf.
    \12\ The NTSB's accident brief for the MBTA Green Line accident 
in Boston is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/RAB1106.pdf.
    \13\ The NTSB's final report for the Fort Totten accident is 
available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/RAR1002.pdf.
    \14\ The NTSB's accident brief for the San Francisco MUNI 
accident is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/RAB1104.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its investigations, the NTSB found a variety of probable causes 
for these accidents including: equipment malfunctions; equipment in 
poor or marginal condition including equipment that can pose particular 
risks to safety, such as signal systems; lack of vehicle 
crashworthiness; and employee error--such as inattentiveness, or 
failure to follow a rail transit system's operating procedure. The NTSB 
found the lack of a strong safety culture to be a contributing factor 
in the WMATA accidents. Also, the NTSB found a lack of adequate 
oversight both by SSOAs and FTA.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The NTSB's final report for the Fort Totten accident is 
available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/RAR1002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NTSB has also found similar issues in the bus transit industry. 
After conducting several accident investigations involving transit 
buses (Normandy, Missouri; Cosmopolis, Washington; New York, New York; 
and Nashville, Tennessee) and holding a public hearing on transit bus 
safety in March 1998, it found that substantial safety deficiencies and 
little Federal or State government safety oversight impacted the safety 
performance of the transit bus industry. As a result, the NTSB issued a 
Special Investigation Report in 1998 \16\ which highlighted several 
deficiencies with Federal oversight of bus transit safety. The report 
noted that FTA was unable to ``to identify situations that may lead to 
unsafe conditions on buses for the traveling public or to resolve any 
unsafe conditions because of a lack of effective safety oversight and 
enforcement.'' In addition, NTSB questioned the utility of the safety 
data that was being collected on transit bus safety. Finally, the NTSB 
was concerned that, at the time, a comprehensive bus safety program was 
not available to transit agencies outside of APTA's membership program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Special Investigation Report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/1998/SIR9803.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its findings, the NTSB issued the following safety 
recommendations to the United State Department of Transportation:
     Develop and implement an oversight program to assess and 
ensure the safety of transit bus operations that receive Federal 
funding;
     Collect accurate, timely, and sufficient data so that 
thorough assessments can be made relating to transit bus safety;
     Evaluate the collected data, as part of the oversight 
program, to identify the underlying causes of transit bus accidents 
that could lead to the identification of safety deficiencies at transit 
agencies; and
     In cooperation with the American Public Transit 
Association, the Community Transportation Association of America, and 
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
develop a model comprehensive safety program(s) and provide it to all 
transit agencies.
    In response to these recommendations, between 2000 and 2002, FTA 
sponsored outreach and research to develop a model program for Transit 
Bus Safety and Security. During this time, FTA worked with APTA, CTAA, 
and AASHTO to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was 
formally adopted by all parties in 2003.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Memorandum of Understanding is available at http://bussafety.fta.dot.gov/uploads/resource/3949_filename.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the more recent transit bus accidents reported in the news 
have occurred with motor coach vehicles. Most notably:
     On August 4, 2013 a North County Transit District bus 
struck three bicyclists in Camp Pendleton, CA, fatally injuring one and 
wounding two others. The bus had attempted to pass the cyclists by 
veering into the opposite lane of traffic and when the bus returned to 
its normal traffic lane it struck the cyclists.
     In May 2013 a Sound Transit bus in Kirkland, WA collided 
with another vehicle at an interstate exit ramp intersection causing 2 
fatalities, 1 injury, and approximately $40,000 in property damage.
     A Jacksonville Transportation Authority operator lost 
control of her vehicle in October 2011 while pulling away from a bus 
stop and struck and killed a patron who had just exited the vehicle. 
The operator stated that she applied the brakes, yet the bus kept 
moving and she could not turn the wheel. An investigation into the 
accident concluded that the operator, who had four previous accidents 
with JTA before the incident, did not straighten the bus's wheels 
before accelerating causing the bus to run over the curb, hit two 
signs, a fence, the victim, and an oak tree.
     In September 2010 a Southwest Ohio Regional Transit 
Authority bus operator pulled the bus to a curb and left her seat to 
check on an issue in the rear of the vehicle. The bus rolled 
approximately 150 feet down an incline and struck a pedestrian and a 
parked ambulance, resulting in 3 injuries and 1 fatality.
     In April 2010 the operator of a TriMet bus in Portland, OR 
made a left turn and struck five pedestrians in the crosswalk who had 
the lighted ``walk'' signal and the right-of-way. Two pedestrians died 
at the scene, one was seriously injured after he was pinned under the 
transit vehicle, and two more sustained injuries that required hospital 
treatment.
     On September 26, 2008 a WMATA Metrobus ran a red light and 
struck a taxi cab in Washington, DC, resulting in a fatality and five 
injuries. The accident investigation uncovered several prior arrests 
for the Metro operator including drug and gun charges. Another 
Washington Metro fatal accident occurred in October 2009 when a 
passenger disembarked from one Metrobus and when she crossed the street 
in front of the bus she was struck and killed by a second bus traveling 
in the second westbound lane of Mount Olivet Road in NE Washington. FTA 
could neither locate NTSB

[[Page 61259]]

recommendations nor GAO reports to cite that document the accidents.
    Currently, FTA has developed a well-received bus safety program, 
which includes a heavily trafficked resource Web site, onsite reviews 
and state DOT orientation seminars. However, the program remains 
completely voluntary and, therefore, FTA is unable to ensure that all 
bus transit agencies are positively affected. As highlighted in NTSB's 
2013 Most Wanted List,\18\ there are significant more improvements that 
need to be made to ensure the safety of bus operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Most Wanted List is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl2_2012.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2009, the Administration formally submitted a 
legislative proposal to the Congress calling for a more comprehensive 
approach to public transportation safety.\19\ In testimony before both 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Secretary of 
Transportation Ray LaHood and Federal Transit Administrator Peter 
Rogoff presented the details of this legislative proposal, which was 
introduced in both houses in February 2010 as the Public Transportation 
Safety Program Act of 2010. H.R. 4643, S. 3015, 111th Cong. (2010). 
Citing the warning signs of increasing collisions, derailments, and 
casualties, the Secretary and the Administrator emphasized that rail 
transit always carries the potential for catastrophic accidents and 
damage--notwithstanding its record of being a very safe means of 
travel--and that the State Safety Oversight program, as it then 
existed, suffered from a number of fundamental weaknesses:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The letters to Congress and the proposed bill to establish 
a Public Transportation Safety Program are available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_11117.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Under the existing SSO framework, each rail transit system 
was free to determine its own safety practices and was not compelled to 
address action items found in audits or accident investigations. An 
SSOA would simply review those rail transit agency practices and report 
on the progress of corrective actions;
     Each SSOA had only so much regulatory, oversight, and 
enforcement authority as had been given by the State government. In 
many instances, the SSOA lacked authority to enforce any standards or 
compel compliance by the rail transit system it oversaw;
     Many States viewed the SSO program as an unfunded mandate. 
Thus, many States devoted insufficient resources to the program, which 
compromised the abilities of SSOAs to recruit, train and develop staff 
with adequate technical, audit and oversight skills; and
     In many instances, an SSOA was dependent upon financial 
resources from the same entities it was obliged to oversee--the rail 
transit systems--thus creating a conflict of interest.
    The Administration's bill would have required FTA to develop 
uniform, national standards for rail transit safety; given FTA 
authority to inspect rail transit systems for compliance with those 
standards; established a certification program for State Safety 
Oversight; authorized grants of 100 percent Federal funding for SSO 
programs, once certified; and required the SSO programs to be 
financially independent from the rail transit systems they oversaw. 
Further, the Administration's bill would have given States the option 
to decline participation in the SSO program, without penalty, in which 
instance, FTA would have been required to perform the oversight 
function. Also, the Administration's bill would have given FTA 
authority to issue civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The proposed bill is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/about_FTA_11117.html. See also, Examining the Federal Role in 
Overseeing the Safety of Public Transportation Systems: Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. On Hous., Transp. & Cmty. Dev. of the S. Comm. 
On Banking, Hous. & Urban Affairs, 111th Cong. 89-97 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in December 2009, the Secretary chartered an advisory 
committee for safety in rail transit systems, titled the Transit Rail 
Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS). In accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, Oct. 6, 1972), TRACS was 
established to evaluate economic, technological, and institutional 
developments in the rail transit industry, and to make recommendations 
to the Secretary and FTA for Federal programs and policies in subjects 
of transit safety.
    The TRACS is comprised of approximately 25 persons from transit 
agencies, academia, labor, and other transit professionals who provide 
a range of perspectives on how to enhance public transportation safety. 
Soon after its formation, TRACS provided FTA with input from 
knowledgeable stakeholders as the agency awaited the delegation of 
safety authority from Congress.
    In July 2010, after both the House and Senate versions of the 
Administration's bill were referred to committees, the Senate Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs reported the Public 
Transportation Safety Act of 2010 (S. 3638, 111th Cong. (2010)), which 
laid the foundation for the general safety and State Safety Oversight 
provisions eventually enacted under MAP-21. The Senate Banking bill 
embodied most of the fundamental goals of the Administration's 
legislation but differed from the Administration's bill in that it did 
not allow a State to decline participation in the SSO program; the 
grants of Federal funds for an SSO program would require a 20 percent 
local match; and States could be allowed as much as three years after 
the effective date of a final rule to develop an SSO program adequate 
for certification--after which, in the event of an inadequate SSO 
program, FTA would be authorized to withhold all Federal grant funds 
for all public transportation operators in that State, not just the 
rail transit systems. See generally, the Senate Banking, Housing and 
Urban Affairs Committee Report accompanying the Senate bill. S. Rept. 
111-232; 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2010). The 111th Congress adjourned 
before the Senate could act on the Senate Banking bill, and the House 
did not consider any similar bill.
    In the 112th Congress, the text of the Public Transportation Safety 
Act of 2010 became section 20021 of the larger bill for reauthorization 
of surface transportation--the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) (S. 1813, 112th Cong. (2012--that passed the 
Senate on March 14, 2012. The Senate and House conferenced with the 
Senate-passed MAP-21 and the House reauthorization bill (H.R. 4348), 
making some amendments to the safety provisions of section 20021. On 
July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; MAP-21), which 
authorized a new comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329 (section 5329). Moreover, the statutory 
provision that had previously prohibited FTA from regulating the 
operations of its recipients has been amended. Now there is an 
exception to the general prohibition on regulating operations for 
``purposes of establishing and enforcing a program to improve the 
safety of public transportation'' under Section 5329. 49 U.S.C. 
5336(b).

B. The Need for a National Transit Asset Management System

    Transit provides more than 10 billion passenger trips each year, 
which represents more trips each month than all of the Nation's 
airlines combined will make in a year. When transit assets are not in a 
state of good repair (SGR), the consequences often include increased 
safety risks, decreased

[[Page 61260]]

reliability, higher maintenance costs, and an overall lower quality of 
service to customers. Through the requirements of section 5326 and the 
new needs-based State of Good Repair Formula Program authorized at 49 
U.S.C. 5337, renewed emphasis will be placed on restoring and replacing 
the Nation's aging public transportation infrastructure.
    FTA has focused attention on the growing problem of the Nation's 
transit SGR backlog, particularly at large transit systems, in a series 
of reports, including: the 2008 Report, ``State of Good Repair: 
Beginning the Dialogue''; the ``2009 Rail Modernization Study Report to 
Congress''; the ``2010 National State of Good Repair Assessment''; and, 
the ``2010 Department of Transportation Conditions & Performance 
Report.'' \21\ In the most recent of these reports, FTA estimated that 
the Nation's transit systems collectively have an SGR backlog that 
exceeds $78 billion. This backlog continues to grow in spite of 
existing efforts to address the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Each of these reports is available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/sgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2009 Rail Modernization Study Report to Congress, FTA 
identified four principles of sound transit asset management: (1) 
Taking a strategic, rather than a tactical, approach that moves beyond 
traditional worst first prioritization; (2) balancing the competing 
needs of operations, maintenance, reinvestment, and system expansion; 
(3) integrating the perspectives of the whole organization, including 
operations, safety, planning, engineering, budget, and information 
technology; and (4) making informed and prioritized choices based on 
sound data and clear organization objectives regarding the use of 
scarce resources. These principles will naturally also form a 
foundation for FTA and the transit industry to use in addressing the 
SGR backlog and implementing requirements for transit asset management 
planning.
    MAP-21 fundamentally shifted the focus of Federal formula 
investments in transit to emphasize the need to maintain, rehabilitate, 
and replace existing transit assets. The ability of FTA recipients, 
along with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations, both to set 
meaningful transit SGR performance targets and to achieve those 
targets, is critically dependent on the ability of all parties to work 
together to prioritize the funding of SGR projects from all funding 
sources. The new SGR Formula Grant Program for rail transit systems and 
for bus transit systems operating on dedicated lanes with access for 
high-occupancy vehicles will also be an essential component of this 
process. However, these grants alone will not be enough to address the 
backlog. Due to overall limited availability of all sources of funding, 
transit agencies will need to be strategic in the use of all available 
funds from all sources--Federal, State, local, and system-generated--to 
make the best investments each year. The various components of this new 
National TAM System will work to emphasize state of good repair as a 
top priority at FTA and within the public transportation industry. 
Together, these elements will assist FTA and the transit industry in 
making the case for SGR investments and securing additional funding 
from all levels of government, but also for prioritizing SGR 
investments with existing funding sources.
    In December 2012, FTA started the conversation on transit asset 
management with stakeholders through an Online Dialogue. This Online 
Dialogue attracted 739 registered users, almost 150 total comments, and 
nearly 1,500 votes on the ideas and comments submitted. Additionally, 
FTA has heard from industry stakeholders at numerous industry 
conferences and through a regular series of SGR Roundtables, which 
began in 2009.
    This ANPRM continues that conversation and requests written 
comments on issues involving transit asset management and state of good 
repair. FTA wants to take a common-sense approach in carrying out the 
many requirements related to transit asset management and, to the 
extent possible, minimize the costs and burdens on all public 
transportation operators, particularly small operators with a limited 
number of assets. Below, this ANPRM raises a number of possibilities 
for the approach FTA might take in implementing the requirements of 
section 5326.
    Not included in this ANPRM are detailed questions related to 
collecting asset inventory and condition assessment information in the 
National Transit Database (NTD). FTA previously began its efforts to 
implement this requirement based on earlier direction from Congress in 
2010. FTA will be requesting comments from affected recipients and 
other stakeholders on proposed changes to its NTD Report Manual to 
include asset inventory and condition assessment information in a 
subsequent notice in the Federal Register.

IV. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(1), FTA must ``create and implement a 
national public transportation plan to improve the safety of all public 
transportation systems'' that receive FTA financial assistance. The 
National Safety Plan must include: (1) Safety performance criteria; (2) 
the definition of state of good repair; (3) a safety certification 
training program; and (4) vehicle performance standards. The National 
Safety Plan will be applicable to each FTA recipient.
    FTA envisions that the National Safety Plan will serve as a tool to 
establish and communicate national safety priorities based on analysis 
of available safety information. FTA will set national priorities based 
on those issues that are identified and which pose the highest level of 
safety risk. When such risks are observed, FTA will use the National 
Safety Plan to both set national criteria for specified safety 
performance and communicate mitigation strategies to the public 
transportation community. Accordingly, the performance criteria and 
standards, SGR measures, and training requirements will be adjusted in 
response to new information and the identification of emerging 
industry-wide or sector-wide gaps in safety. Each transit agency will 
address these requirements through their own required Transit Agency 
Safety Plan.

A. Performance Criteria

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(A), FTA is required to set 
``safety performance criteria for all modes of public transportation.'' 
FTA envisions that the safety performance criteria will consist of 
desired outcomes, established controls to mitigate risks, and 
indicators for identifying and tracking safety-related issues. Each of 
these components relies heavily on the collection and analysis of 
safety information. The ability to use safety information to measure 
safety-related outcomes is a critical and necessary step forward in 
managing and mitigating risks. Through sound data collection, analysis, 
and mandatory reporting, the safety performance criteria established by 
rulemaking will help transit providers in the early detection and 
control of safety vulnerabilities, and will help FTA to better assess 
the effectiveness of its own program and initiatives. Eventually, FTA 
envisions that transit agencies will be able to use safety information 
to progress from a reactive safety risk management response, to a 
proactive or predictive

[[Page 61261]]

response. That transition will allow transit agencies to direct 
resources towards effective safety risk management and safety 
assurance.
    Although transit agencies will have primary responsibility for 
collecting and analyzing their own safety information, FTA is 
considering proposing data collection processes and analyses that will 
allow FTA to collect and roll up results to the national level. To this 
end, FTA intends to lead and support the transit industry and the 
States in developing or clarifying definitions of key terms, 
determining the industry's most pressing safety issues, developing 
standardized data collection and analysis methods, and establishing 
baselines to benchmark selected safety concerns. Transit systems would 
then set targets based on these measures. These targets will be part of 
the Transit Agency Safety Plan and incorporated into the metropolitan 
and statewide planning processes.
    FTA understands that submitting certain sensitive safety data to 
FTA may cause some concern within the industry regarding the public 
availability of that information. However, FTA will need to collect 
some safety information regarding hazards and mitigation measures that 
are used across the industry. By reviewing this information, FTA will 
be able to add value to the industry by targeting research towards 
common hazards and by identifying and sharing leading best practices 
across the industry.
    FTA seeks comments on the following questions:
    1. What types of safety performance criteria do transit agencies 
already use?
    2. What types of performance criteria should FTA consider?
    3. Although FTA is not proposing specific performance criteria at 
this time, TRACS has suggested the following categories for which 
performance criteria should be set: (1) Casualties; (2) Operations; (3) 
Systems and Equipment; and 4) Organizational Culture and Human 
Performance. TRACS chose these categories because it believed that each 
was clearly associated with safety, and could be effectively integrated 
into decision making at the three levels of public transportation 
safety responsibility (Federal, State, and operating agency). Moreover, 
TRACS felt that initially, it may be necessary to limit safety 
performance measures to those for which adequate national-scale data 
exists, which tend to concern casualties and crashes. However, the plan 
should also define categories for leading indicators of safety risk, 
which the industry is encouraged to measure, and which FTA will work 
towards measuring at the national level as part of its overall SMS 
approach to transit safety. To what extent do these performance 
criteria categories sufficiently address the relevant safety 
information pertaining to public transportation agencies? Are there 
other safety performance categories that should be included?
    4. What experience can transit agencies share on establishing 
desired outcomes, controls, and indicators to identify and track 
casualties, as well as safety issues related to operations, systems and 
equipment, and organizational culture and performance?
    5. Are there specific performance criteria that FTA should consider 
establishing and tracking within each of those four categories listed 
in question 2, above?
    6. Because transit agencies typically have very low collision 
rates, should FTA consider establishing measures of near-collisions (or 
``close calls'') to help identify circumstances that pose an increased 
risk of collisions? If so, how?
    7. How should FTA streamline or improve existing reporting of 
safety information to the NTD?

B. State of Good Repair

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(B), the National Safety Plan must 
include the definition of state of good repair. This definition must 
also be reflected in each Transit Agency Safety Plan through the 
setting of performance targets based on the definition and SGR 
standards set out in the National Safety Plan. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E). 
FTA envisions, the definition of state of good repair, and the 
condition of assets relative to that definition, will impact when a 
safety risk analysis is undertaken.
    The definition of state of good repair will be established through 
the rulemaking to establish the National TAM System. The definition 
must include ``objective standards for measuring the condition of 
capital assets of recipients, including equipment, rolling stock, 
infrastructure, and facilities.'' 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1). In section VII 
of this ANPRM, FTA describes four methods for defining and measuring 
state of good repair based on the following: (1) Asset age, (2) asset 
condition, (3) asset performance, and (4) a comprehensive assessment of 
assets.
    In addition to the discussion on the National TAM System below, FTA 
seeks comment on the following questions specifically related to how to 
integrate the definition of SGR into the National Public Transportation 
Safety Plan:
    8. How should the requirement for a definition of state of good 
repair and SGR performance measures be integrated into the new National 
Safety Plan?
    9. How should safety considerations be addressed in the SGR 
performance measures and targets?
    10. Should the safety SGR performance targets be the same as the 
SGR performance targets that will be required under the National TAM 
System?

C. Minimum Safety Performance Standards for Vehicles

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C), FTA is required to issue 
``minimum safety performance standards for public transportation 
vehicles used in revenue operations'' other than rolling stock 
otherwise regulated by the DOT or another Federal agency. Those 
standards, ``to the extent practicable,'' must ``take into 
consideration: (1) relevant recommendations of the National 
Transportation Safety Board; and (2) recommendations of, and best 
practices standards developed by, the public transportation industry.''
    FTA is aware of existing voluntary consensus based standards for 
transit vehicles put forward by organizations such as the American 
Public Transportation Association (APTA).\22\ However, FTA understands 
that many of the standards are prescriptive standards or design 
standards rather than performance standards. Prescriptive standards and 
design standards define exactly how to do something--like a recipe. 
Prescriptive standards and design standards allow little or no 
flexibility. An example of a prescriptive standard would be: Grade 
crossing signals shall have 100 amp-hour battery back-up. Performance 
standards define an end result, but allow total flexibility on how that 
result is achieved. An example of a performance standard would be: 
Grade crossing signals shall have back-up power for a minimum of 12 
hours of operation. MAP-21 explicitly calls for the development of 
minimum safety performance standards for vehicles. In fact, Congress 
stated in the report accompanying the Public Transportation Act of 
2010, that they

[[Page 61262]]

did not intend for FTA to replicate the FRA regulatory model, with 
highly specific and prescriptive regulations related to public 
transportation safety.\23\ Thus, many of the existing standards that 
apply to vehicles within FRA's jurisdiction would not meet the MAP-21 
requirement that FTA create minimum safety performance standards for 
vehicles. However, FTA still seeks the public's comments on several 
questions regarding vehicle standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ APTA's rail transit standards may be found at http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Pages/Rail-Standards.aspx. APTA's 
bus transit standards may be found at http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-BTS-BC-RP-001-05.pdf. An example of an APTA 
performance based standard is the Recommended Practice for Transit 
Bus In-Service Brake system Performance Testing available at http://www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA-BTS-BC-RP-001-05.pdf.
    \23\ S. Rep. No. 111-132, at 4 (2010). Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(sr232).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, however, FTA's priority with respect to vehicles is 
issuing a proposed rule \24\ to establish a bus testing pass/fail 
standard as required by 49 U.S.C. 5318(e)(2). After FTA publishes a 
final bus testing rule, buses may only be purchased with FTA funds if 
the vehicles were tested and received a passing score that will be 
established by rule. In addition, once FTA establishes minimum vehicle 
performance standards for buses, FTA-funded buses must also meet those 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ RIN 2132-AB11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA will work with the transit industry to identify appropriate 
performance-based vehicle standards for both rail and bus vehicles, and 
develop an appropriate implementation schedule based on objective data. 
In addition, FTA will take into consideration NTSB recommendations and 
leading industry practices.
    FTA seeks comments on the following questions:
    11. In addition to APTA's voluntary consensus standards, what other 
sources of safety performance standards for transit vehicles are 
available that FTA should consider?
    12. What criteria should be used to identify, prioritize and 
develop performance-based vehicle standards?
    13. To what degree should existing voluntary consensus standards be 
considered or used in developing and implementing a performance-based 
vehicle standards regime?
    14. Specific to rail vehicle standards, what areas or categories of 
standards would yield the greatest safety improvement if required as a 
minimum safety performance standard for the public transportation 
industry? What areas or categories of standards would yield the most 
cost effective safety improvements?
    15. Specific to bus vehicle standards, what areas or categories of 
standards would yield the greatest safety improvement if required as 
minimum safety performance standards for the public transportation 
industry? What areas or categories of vehicle standards would yield the 
most cost effective safety improvements?
    16. What NTSB recommendations or industry leading practices should 
FTA consider most urgently? To date, the NTSB has only issued 
recommendations to FTA for rail transit vehicles, including the 
following:
    R-02-19: Require that new or rehabilitated vehicles funded by 
Federal Transit Administration grants be equipped with event recorders 
meeting Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 
Standard 1482.1 for rail transit vehicle event recorders. IEEE 1482.1-
1999 Standard for Rail Transit Vehicle Event Recorders or equivalent.
    R-06-05: Develop transit railcar design standards to provide 
adequate means for safe and rapid emergency responder entry and 
passenger evacuation.

--RT-S-VIM-20-10 Standard for Emergency Lighting System Design for Rail 
Transit Vehicles or equivalent,
--RT-S-VIM-021-10 Standard for Emergency Signage for Rail Transit 
Vehicles or equivalent, and
--RT-S-VIM-022-10 Standard for Low-Location Emergency Path Marking for 
Rail Transit Vehicles or equivalent.
    R-06-06: Develop minimum crashworthiness standards to prevent the 
telescoping of transit railcars in collisions and establish a timetable 
for removing equipment that cannot be modified to meet the new 
standards.

--ASME RT-2 2008 Safety Standard for Structural Requirements for Heavy 
Rail Vehicles or equivalent, and
--ASME RT-1 2009 Safety Standard for Structural Requirements for Light 
Rail Vehicles or equivalent.

V. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan

    Section 5329(d)(1) of title 49, U.S.C., requires each recipient of 
section 53907 Urbanized Area Formula funds or section 5311 Rural Area 
Formula funds to certify that it has established a comprehensive 
Transit Agency Safety Plan. States may also draft and certify plans for 
rural areas or for small public transportation providers in urban 
areas. FTA envisions the Transit Agency Safety Plan as the mechanism 
through which recipients demonstrate their compliance with the National 
Safety Plan, by, among other things, setting targets based on the 
safety performance criteria and standards set out in the National 
Safety Plan.
    The Transit Agency Safety Plan is also where FTA envisions each 
transit agency to illustrate its practice of SMS. Ultimately, FTA 
envisions that the Transit Agency Safety Plan will reflect each transit 
agency's ongoing processes related to answering the following four 
fundamental SMS questions:
     What will likely be the cause of the transit agency's next 
accident? Is the transit agency doing risk monitoring to discover and 
address those potential causes?
     How does the transit agency know the likely cause of the 
next accident? Does the transit agency have internal auditing, required 
and voluntary reporting, data collection and analyses, and tracking to 
indicate that personnel are accurately informed about the biggest 
risks?
     What is the transit agency doing about to mitigate the 
risk? Does it have a viable strategy or action plan, along with 
appropriate budgetary and staff resources, in place to control or 
mitigate the risks?
     Is the strategy or action working? Does the agency have 
measures in place that will tell agency staff if the strategy or action 
plan is working to control or mitigate the identified risks?
    FTA seeks comments on the SMS approach in general, and on the 
following questions:
    17. Are there barriers or challenges to adopting SMS principles by 
recipients for any particular mode of transit? If so, which mode, and 
what are the barriers or challenges?
    18. What type of information and technical assistance would the 
public transportation industry nee from FTA in order to facilitate the 
adoption and implementation of SMS practices?
    19. If SMS or elements of SMS are currently being practiced within 
your agency, how is it being carried out? What are the most effective 
means to implement SMS and how should it be scaled to accommodate both 
large and small public transportation systems? FTA also seeks examples 
and ideas from smaller agencies using SMS.
    20. Are there alternative safety management approaches that FTA 
should consider?

A. Plan Requirements

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), each Transit Agency Safety Plan must 
include, at minimum, the following:
     A requirement that the board of directors, or equivalent 
entity, approve the Transit Agency Safety Plan and any updates to the 
plan;
     Methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks 
throughout all elements of the recipient's public transportation system

[[Page 61263]]

     Strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, 
personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions;
     A process and timeline for conducting an annual review and 
update of the plan;
     Performance targets based on the safety performance 
criteria and state of good repair standards set out in the National 
Safety Plan;
     Assignment of an adequately trained safety officer who 
reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent 
officer of the recipient; and
     A comprehensive staff training program for the operations 
personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety.
    For the last three decades the public transportation industry has 
implemented plans and programs based on the system safety principles 
outlined in the Military Standard 882 \25\ series. This approach 
focuses on the application of engineering and management principles, 
criteria, and techniques to achieve an acceptable level of safety 
throughout all phases of a system lifecycle. Currently, under 49 CFR 
part 659, rail fixed guideway public transportation providers are 
required to develop and carry out System Safety Program Plans (SSPP) 
and System Security Plans (SSP). There is no comparable requirement for 
bus transit providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Military Standard 882 is available at http://www.system-safety.org/Documents/MIL-STD-882E.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the components of the SSPPs and SSPs are responsive to the 
new requirements in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). For example, SSPPs and SSPs must 
address ``methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks'' by 
including sections devoted to hazard analysis and management, threat 
and vulnerability assessment, safety data acquisition and analysis, 
internal audits and reviews, accident and incident investigation and 
reporting, and emergency planning and preparedness. Despite the 
similarities in the components of these plans, implementation of the 
existing requirements for the SSPPs and SSPs has been inadequate and 
inefficient.\26\ Major accidents often have underlying organizational 
antecedents with multiple causes involving people operating across many 
levels or functions in an organization. It follows that predicting and 
preventing major accidents requires addressing the root causes based in 
organizational practices, management systems, and culture. As such, 
implementing the Transit Agency Safety Plan through the SMS approach 
will allow the transit industry to build on its experience with system 
safety by bringing management processes and organizational culture more 
squarely into the system safety engineering and hazard management 
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ GAO, Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety 
Oversight Program, GAO-06-997T (Washington, DC: July 19, 2006), 
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123829.pdf and Rail 
Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance FTA's State 
Safety Oversight Program, GAO-06-821 (Washington, DC: July 26, 
2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/250860.pdf, and 
``Oversight of Rail Rapid Transit Safety'' available at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/1991/R91_33_36.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until FTA promulgates regulations for both the Transit Agency 
Safety Plans under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and a new regulation for the SSO 
Program under 49 U.S.C. 5329(e), the existing 49 CFR part 659 SSPPs and 
SSPs will remain in effect and serve as interim rail Transit Agency 
Safety Plans. Until a final rule is issued, there will be no comparable 
requirement for bus transit providers. However, FTA encourages both 
rail and bus transit providers to begin implementing the statutory 
requirements of the Transit Agency Safety Plan into their daily 
operations now, even as they await issuance of final rules since any 
final rules will be consistent with the statutory requirements.
    FTA plans to conduct pilot programs and provide technical 
assistance to aid in this transitional process. Through pilot projects, 
FTA and the industry will test, update and continuously improve 
proposed public transportation safety concepts. Evaluations of pilot 
projects will help inform FTA's development and provision of technical 
assistance.
    With respect to the implementation of the Transit Agency Safety 
Plan, FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
    21. Risk-based analysis can be applied in analyzing human factors 
such as employee fitness for duty (e.g. being physically and mentally 
qualified, not suffering from acute or cumulative fatigue, not being 
impaired by use of alcohol and controlled substances, etc). Agencies 
should also consider how to address situations where medical 
intervention may be appropriate (such as screening for sleep disorders 
and providing treatment for persons with sleep disorder diagnoses), as 
well as situations where progressive remedial interventions, up to and 
including termination, might be needed for certain safety-sensitive 
positions. Do agencies currently apply a risk based-approach in 
managing safety risks related to human factors? If so, how? What are 
the challenges associated with adopting a risk-based approach to these 
management functions?
    22. Many rail transit agencies also operate bus systems. FTA seeks 
comment from those rail transit agencies that already include bus or 
other public transportation mode operations in one agency plan. Has 
inclusion improved safety of the non-rail modes? What are the benefits 
and costs to including all transit mode operations into one Transit 
Agency Safety Plan?
    23. What attributes, functions, and authorities should FTA require 
of an ``equivalent entity'' when there is no board of directors? If a 
transit agency is not governed by a board of directors, what additional 
authorities would an ``equivalent entity'' need to properly review and 
approve a Transit Agency Safety Plan?
    24. How should performance milestones, targeted safety risks, and 
costs be considered in developing and evaluating risk mitigation 
strategies? FTA seeks examples of how public transportation agencies 
have engaged in such activities.
    25. Public transportation agencies must establish a process and 
timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the transit 
agency safety plan. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D). These plans will be self-
certified, allowing the public transportation provider's board of 
directors (or equivalent entity) to determine whether the public 
transportation provider's agency safety plan is adequate. FTA intends 
to maintain the authority to review transit agency safety plans during 
triennial reviews or in the event that FTA identifies circumstances 
posing a significant risk. FTA seeks comment regarding the appropriate 
role, if any, for States and FTA in the Transit Agency Safety Plan 
annual review process.
    26. For those public transportation providers that are currently 
required to have safety plans pursuant to 49 CFR part 659, how is the 
effectiveness of the safety plan measured?
    27. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), public transportation 
agencies will develop a comprehensive safety training program for 
operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety. 
What essential core competencies are needed to adequately train public 
transportation agency operations personnel and personnel responsible 
for safety of the agency? Should a transit agency's personnel training 
requirements be scaled based on the size of the agency? In what ways 
can FTA minimize the costs of implementation (e.g. allowing for shared 
development of curricula)?

[[Page 61264]]

    28. What training do transit agency operations personnel and 
personnel directly responsible for safety currently receive? What is 
the curriculum? How long does it take to complete? When and where is it 
completed? Who provides the training? How is the effectiveness of these 
training programs evaluated?
    29. Each public transportation provider must identify a chief 
safety officer who is responsible for operational safety and who 
reports directly to the general manager or equivalent officer. FTA 
seeks comment on what other responsibilities might be combined with 
this role, particularly in smaller operations where the same individual 
may function as the provider's general manager, operations manager and 
safety officer? FTA also seeks comment on how the combination of such 
roles causes any conflict between safety and any other interest in the 
transit system's operation?
    30. What strategies could reduce the burden of producing and 
updating the Transit Agency Safety Plan, as well as transmitting key 
safety information to FTA and the States?
    31. While the statute sets minimum plan requirements, FTA seeks 
comment on whether to establish less stringent regulatory requirements 
for small public transit providers, and what specific areas may be most 
conducive to different requirements based on the transit agency's size. 
For example, should regulations permit smaller transit providers to 
employ less expensive methods for identifying and evaluating safety 
risks than larger entities? Should FTA's regulations establish 
different safety performance criteria for smaller transit providers? 
Should the training requirements be different for smaller transit 
providers? If so, how?
    32. FTA is required to notify the DOT Crisis Management Center 
(CMC) of significant newsworthy events affecting public transportation 
(such as transit collisions that include casualties, rail transit 
derailments, emergency evacuations, major crimes, significant revenue 
service disruptions and other related transit events). Currently, rail 
transit agencies are required to provide such notifications (within two 
hours of the incident) to their State Safety Oversight Agency, per 49 
CFR 659.33. However, bus transit agencies provide incident 
notifications to FTA on a voluntary basis, typically as requested from 
FTA regional offices. FTA seeks to implement a requirement that all 
modes of transit agencies provide FTA with near real-time event 
notifications (within the two-hour timeframe). For rail transit 
agencies this could be accomplished by copying FTA on their required 
notifications to their SSOAs. For bus and other non-rail modes of 
public transportation, this may require using a new template or form 
for notifying FTA. What methods might transit agencies best use to 
comply with such a requirement? Are there more effective or efficient 
methods or processes to report these incidents in real time? Should FTA 
consider alternative requirements for small transit providers?

B. The State's Role

    Unlike 49 U.S.C. 5329(e), which establishes a clear role for States 
in overseeing the safety of rail fixed transit systems through the SSO 
program, the statute does not articulate a similar role for States with 
regard to the oversight of non-rail public transportation providers. 
States may, however, draft or certify transit agency safety plans for 
small section 5307 recipients and section 5311 recipients, including 
tribal transit recipients.
    FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
    33. How should FTA define small 5307 provider? Should the 
definition be based on the size of the agency (e.g., number of 
vehicles, annual passenger counts, annual revenue miles, annual budget, 
etc.)? Please provide the basis for your suggestion.
    34. How might States draft a single state-wide Transit Agency 
Safety Plan that reflects implementation of SMS at the individual 
transit agency level? How would compliance with a single State plan 
work? Given the need for the plan to reflect individual agency 
processes, what technical assistance might FTA provided to States or 
agencies drafting and certifying plans? Can the number of transit 
providers seeking either option be predicted or quantified?
    35. Do some States lack sufficient technical expertise or resources 
to draft or certify individual Transit Agency Safety Plans for small 
section 5307 and section 5311 public transit providers? If so, please 
explain?
    36. How many plans would each State be expected to prepare?
    37. If the State's role was limited to the certification of 
individual Transit Agency Safety Plans, what administrative burden 
would be imposed upon the State?
    38. Would it reduce the overall administrative burden if each State 
prepared a standard Transit Agency Safety Plan template or model plan 
that could be used by each small urban and rural transit provider 
within its jurisdiction?
    39. Is it practicable to create a multi-state or nation-wide model 
plan that could be shared between States?
    40. If a State were to implement a standardized plan for small 
transit providers within its jurisdiction, would any safety factors be 
risked by adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, or must each plan be 
customized for each transit provider?
    41. Should States that write and certify Transit Agency Safety 
Plans provide oversight of those agencies?
    42. Should FTA require State DOT's to maintain a list of certified 
subrecipients that have established safety plans or that are covered by 
the statewide plan? If so, how should this list of certified 
subrecipients be maintained and updated?
    43. How should FTA apply the safety plan provisions to recipients 
of the section 5307 Tribal Transit Formula Program and Tribal Transit 
Discretionary Program?
    44. What resources will States need to carry out the drafting or 
certification functions?
    45. Should States have a role in providing oversight of non-rail 
transit systems within their jurisdiction and, if so, what would be an 
estimate of the time required to perform such a role?
    46. How are States that are currently performing this function 
carrying out their oversight responsibility for non-rail modes? Could 
this role be streamlined by combining the bus oversight duties into 
each State's existing rail oversight program?
    47. If States did have a role in providing oversight of bus-only 
systems, how would States without rail fixed guideway systems (and 
therefore no established SSO Program) provide that oversight?

VI. The Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), FTA is required to establish a 
Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (Safety 
Certification Training Program) applicable to Federal and State 
employees, contractors who conduct oversight, and those employees at 
transit systems who are responsible for safety oversight.
    Currently, FTA funds and supports a wide variety of safety training 
for the transit industry. FTA-sponsored training is developed in 
collaboration with transit industry professionals, industry experts, 
and professional training institutes. Courses are conducted nationally, 
primarily by the National Transit Institute, Transportation Safety 
Institute, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Johns Hopkins

[[Page 61265]]

University, and the Transportation Cooperative Research Program. 
Although the current training regime presents recommendations and 
current thinking about effective safety, security, and emergency 
preparedness strategies, it is strictly voluntary.
    FTA is developing proposed Interim Provisions for safety 
certification and training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2). Soon, FTA 
will publish the proposed Interim Provisions in the Federal Register 
for public notice and comment and will provide the final Interim 
Provisions as quickly as possible thereafter. The specific goal of the 
Interim Provisions is to enhance the technical qualifications of 
Federal and State personnel, and their designated contractors 
responsible for public transportation safety oversight, as well as 
public transit agency personnel who are directly responsible for safety 
oversight in advance of a final rule for the Safety Certification 
Training Program. These Interim Provisions will remain in effect until 
FTA issues a final rule for the Safety Certification Training Program. 
Please direct your comments about the Interim Provisions to that 
docket, and any comments regarding the final Safety Certification 
Training Program to the docket for this ANPRM.
    FTA intends for the Safety Certification Training Program to build 
upon the Interim Provisions. As a first-step toward a final regulation, 
FTA is organizing its training approach around a series of competencies 
and basic skills that Federal, State, and transit employees and 
contractors charged with overseeing transit safety need in order to 
perform their oversight duties. Developing the Safety Certification 
Training Program on a foundation that focuses on competencies and 
training outcomes, rather than static requirements, allows for greater 
flexibility and positions FTA to be more responsive when addressing 
emerging safety trends.
    The competencies are based on SMS principles and the technical 
capabilities required for examining and overseeing implementation of 
safety program elements in the transit industry. The competencies and 
technical training are also designed to address gaps in safety 
oversight of public transportation systems identified in NTSB accident 
investigations, FTA's SSO audits and program, triennial reviews and 
annual reports submitted by SSO agencies, and NTD assessments and 
special studies. A list of proposed competency areas and accompanying 
learning objectives are in the docket for this ANPRM.
Applicability
    As required by law, the Interim Provisions will apply to State 
employees, contractors who conduct oversight, and recipients of 
sections 5307 and 5311 funds for purposes of training transit agency 
personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight. FTA 
intends for the requirements of the final Safety Certification Training 
Program to be more explicit than the Interim Provisions. For instance, 
under the proposed Interim Provisions, recipients will identify those 
personnel with direct safety oversight responsibilities, but the final 
rule for the Safety Certification Training Program may lead to 
regulations that identify specific positions that have direct 
responsibility for safety oversight. Thus, the individuals holding 
those positions may be covered by the final regulation.
Eligible Activities
    Recipients of section 5307 or section 5311 funds may use up to 0.5 
percent of apportioned formula funds to pay for up to 80 percent of the 
costs of an applicable transit agency employee's participation in the 
Safety Certification Training Program. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(6)(C)(iv).
The Training Certification Process
    The safety oversight functions and responsibilities of each 
position will be different and will require discrete skill-sets. For 
instance, at the Federal level, FTA's oversight responsibilities 
include ensuring that SSOA personnel are properly trained and 
adequately resourced to perform their safety oversight responsibilities 
within their respective jurisdictions. At the State level, SSOA 
personnel are responsible for direct safety oversight of those rail 
transit systems under their jurisdiction. And, at the local level, 
public transportation agency personnel directly responsible for safety 
oversight have the responsibility for developing and implementing 
safety oversight within their respective agencies.
    FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
    48. What other safety-related competency areas or training outcomes 
should be identified?
    49. Are all of the specific competencies already identified 
necessary?
    50. Should personnel be required to obtain certification prior to 
starting a position, or should they be given a specific time frame to 
obtain safety certification after starting a position? What are the 
pros and cons of each option?
    51. How often should personnel be required to receive refresher 
training?
    52. Which transit agency positions are directly responsible for 
safety oversight of bus and/or rail? When answering this question, 
please refer to the table of competencies posted in the docket for this 
ANPRM.
    53. Which transit agency operational positions are directly 
responsible for safety oversight? What are their job duties? What type 
of training do these employees currently receive?
    54. Do members of transit agency board of director's or other 
equivalent entity currently receive any type of safety or risk 
management training? If so, what does the training cover?
    55. How are personnel with transit safety oversight responsibility 
currently trained? How long does the training take? How is the 
effectiveness of the training evaluated? What type of training do 
oversight personnel need that is not already easily available within 
the transit industry?

VII. The National Transit Asset Management System

A. Overview and Considerations for Small Operators

    The various elements of the National Transit Asset Management (TAM) 
System will apply very broadly to the many public transit agencies that 
receive funds from FTA. Most importantly, all recipients and 
subrecipients of FTA grants must develop a TAM Plan. 49 U.S.C. 
5326(b)(2). Each recipient is further required to set SGR performance 
targets. 49 U.S.C. 5326(c)(2). Finally, recipients of the section 5307 
or 5311 formula programs must also report asset condition data to the 
NTD. 49 U.S.C. 5335 and 5326(c)(3).
    In FTA's Online Dialogue, conducted in early 2013, some commenters 
suggested that the best approach for implementing the requirement for a 
TAM Plan might be through a single statewide plan for subrecipients of 
certain statewide grants. While FTA recognizes the desire to minimize 
the administrative burden on small subrecipients, the statute requires 
that all FTA ``recipients and subrecipients develop a transit asset 
management plan.'' Thus, while the statute specifically contemplates a 
single statewide safety plan for small operators, FTA interprets the 
language of the statute to specifically exclude a statewide TAM Plan.
    Further, many commenters to the Online Dialogue suggested that 
small transit systems (and small rural transit systems in particular), 
should have

[[Page 61266]]

simpler and fewer requirements for smaller transit systems. FTA seeks 
to further develop these suggestions and seeks additional comments on 
how to be sensitive to the needs of small transit operators through 
this ANPRM. In particular, FTA notes that most small transit systems 
have already developed a detailed asset inventory for revenue vehicles 
in order to meet their NTD reporting requirements. This may allow FTA 
to set simpler TAM Plan requirements for small systems that would 
require assembling asset inventory information for assets other than 
revenue vehicles, and then also creating an investment prioritization.
    The requirement that each recipient and subrecipient of FTA funds 
develop a TAM Plan represents a significant shift in the nature of 
FTA's financial assistance to the transit industry. All beneficiaries 
of FTA financial assistance will be required to take a strategic 
approach to thinking about the life-cycle needs of the assets 
underlying their service, and to deliberately consider how to strike an 
appropriate balance between the competing needs of operations, 
maintenance, reinvestment, and system expansion. Larger organizations 
will be required to systematically engage the differing perspectives of 
operations, safety, planning, engineering, budget, and information 
technology in order to include an organization-wide approach in the 
resulting plan. Smaller organizations may be permitted to take a 
simpler approach in developing an investment prioritization based on 
asset inventory information that is already largely on-hand.
Performance Targets
    MAP-21 requires that all recipients set SGR performance targets, 
based on the definition of state of good repair established by FTA 
which must include objectives standards for measuring the condition of 
capital assets, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure and 
facilities. Subrecipients will not be required to set SGR performance 
targets directly; the recipient will set a performance target on their 
behalf. FTA intends to define state of good repair, and to set the SGR 
performance measure in a way that will allow for and provide a simple 
approach for small recipients and for grant recipients setting SGR 
targets on behalf of small subrecipients.
Transit Asset Management Plans
    MAP-21 requires that all FTA recipients and subrecipients have a 
TAM Plan. The law specifies that plans, at a minimum, must have capital 
asset inventories and condition assessments and investment 
prioritization. As noted above, FTA's recipients and subrecipients in 
our two primary formula programs, section 5307 and 5311, already 
maintain an asset inventory for revenue vehicles and report that 
information to the NTD. Expanding these inventories to include the one 
or two facilities for which small recipients and subrecipients have 
capital responsibility should not be particularly burdensome. Although 
FTA has not yet developed the specific requirements for the TAM Plan, 
FTA intends for the TAM Plan required of small operators to be 
relatively simple and based on the life-cycle of the revenue vehicles 
and facilities in the operator's asset inventory.
National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting
    Currently NTD reporting requirements apply to section 5307 and 
section 5311. Recipients and beneficiaries \27\ of the section 5307 
program must report directly to the NTD. Recipients of section 5311 
grants report directly to the NTD on behalf of their subrecipients. In 
all cases, recipients and subrecipients currently report a detailed 
asset inventory for revenue vehicles to the NTD. FTA will propose 
specific requirements for reporting an inventory of assets other than 
revenue vehicles to the NTD in a future notice in the Federal Register. 
The initial notice will likely only apply to reports from urbanized 
areas. A subsequent notice will likely cover additional reporting to 
the NTD Rural Module. Additionally, since revenue vehicles are the 
primary assets for small grant recipients in urbanized areas, the 
additional reporting burden on the basis of the one or two facilities 
for which the small recipient might have capital responsibility will be 
quite small. FTA will publish in the Federal Register a separate notice 
on this topic with more information and an opportunity to comment on 
the burden of these reporting requirements on small systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A beneficiary is a transit operator that benefits from a 
section 5307-funded project, but is not a direct recipient of the 
grant. For example, a rail system may benefit from a facility 
constructed using a section 5307 grant to a municipality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA recognizes that meeting the new requirements for transit asset 
management will not be easy and may require additional resources and 
expertise. In many cases funds from FTA's core formula grant programs 
may be used to cover costs related to implementing the TAM 
requirements. For example, expenses that may be eligible for FTA 
funding include the software associated with an asset inventory system, 
tools for estimating capital investment needs over time, and for a 
decision support tools for investment prioritization. Similarly, costs 
related to assembling and maintaining an asset inventory and condition 
inspections are generally eligible preventive maintenance costs that 
can be funded by capital assistance. Finally, costs related to creating 
the TAM Plan itself are an eligible expense under the section 5307 
program, the section 5311 program, and the section 5337 program. 
Recipients should consult with their FTA Regional Office with specific 
questions regarding grant eligibility.
    FTA seeks comments on the following questions:
    56. How should the requirements for the TAM Plan be tailored to 
different sized operators? Small operators will inherently have fewer 
assets and less-complex asset inventories, but what other steps can FTA 
take to minimize the burden on them?
    57. How should FTA define small operator for purposes of the TAM 
Plan requirements? Please be as specific as possible. Should this 
definition use the same criteria for determining a small operator for 
purposes of a Transit Agency Safety Plan that is developed or certified 
by a State?
    58. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan be handled for 
subrecipients of the section 5307 program--including both subrecipients 
of State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and of individual large 
transit systems, for subrecipients of the section 5311 program, and for 
subrecipients of the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with 
Disabilities Program (section 5310)?
    59. Should FTA require State DOT's and urbanized area designated 
recipients to maintain a list of certified subrecipients that have 
established? If so, how should this list of certified subrecipients be 
maintained and updated?
    60. How should FTA apply the various TAM provisions to recipients 
of the section 5311 Tribal Transit Formula Program and Tribal Transit 
Discretionary Program?
    61. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan apply to grant 
recipients who use an asset that is owned by a third party? Responses 
should consider that these assets may or may not have been purchased 
with Federal funds. Also, the grant recipient may indirectly contribute 
to the capital maintenance of the asset through a rental or lease 
payment, or in some cases the grant

[[Page 61267]]

recipient may not make a payment to the owner or operator of the asset.
    62. Should FTA allow States to develop a Statewide TAM Plan?

B. Defining State of Good Repair

    Under 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1), FTA is required to establish ``a 
definition of the term state of good repair (SGR) that includes 
objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets of 
recipients, including equipment, rolling stock, infrastructure, and 
facilities.'' This definition will have a number of important 
consequences, including defining eligibility for projects under the 
State of Good Repair Grants Program (49 U.S.C. 5337(b)(2)) and defining 
what projects are excluded from eligibility under the Core Capacity 
Improvement Grants Program. 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(2). This definition will 
also be used for grant applicants to the Pilot Program for Expedited 
Project Delivery to certify that their existing system ``is in a state 
of good repair.'' Section 20008(b) of MAP-21. Further, the National 
Public Transportation Safety Plan must include the definition of state 
of good repair. 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(B). As discussed in Section II, 
FTA envisions that the definition of state of good repair will play a 
role in a transit agency determining whether it needs to perform a 
safety risk assessment for those assets that fall below the SGR 
threshold.
    Finally, the definition of state of good repair, which itself must 
include ``objective standards for measuring the condition'' of transit 
assets, will also form the basis for the SGR performance measures to be 
established by FTA. FTA grant recipients will set transit SGR 
performance targets, and report to FTA on their progress towards 
achieving that target. These targets will then be integrated into the 
Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Processes by Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations (MPOs) and State. See 49 U.S.C. 5326(c), 49 U.S.C. 5303 
and 49 U.S.C. 5304. In particular, the SGR targets will be integrated 
into the performance-based planning processes and require consideration 
of transit SGR needs side-by-side with highway system goals in planning 
for the investment of Federal transportation funds.
    In defining the term state of good repair, it is difficult to 
separate the definition from how it will ultimately be measured. For 
example, FTA used a definition of state of good repair in its 2010 
Conditions and Performance Report \28\ using a numerical (1-5) 
condition rating scale and the Transit Economic Requirements Model 
(TERM).\29\ In that report, an asset is considered to be in a state of 
good repair when the condition of that asset is estimated by the model 
to be above a condition rating value of 2.5, which is the mid-point of 
the marginal range on the rating scale. These ratings are primarily 
derived from measurements of asset age. The model consists of pre-
defined ``decay curve'' relationships between asset age and asset 
condition for each of the several hundred defined asset classes. The 
model takes an asset inventory with asset ages as an input, and then 
provides estimated conditions for each of the assets as the output. 
Thus, the measurement of SGR in this case, being below a rating value 
of 2.5 on a 1-5 scale, is intrinsically tied to the age-based approach 
for defining state of good repair. FTA does not believe that this 
numerical measure satisfies the statutory requirement that the 
definition include ``objective standards for measuring the condition of 
assets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The 2010 Conditions and Performance Report to Congress is 
available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/2010_CP_Report_FINAL.pdf.
    \29\ The TERM model consists of a database of transit assets and 
deterioration schedules that express asset conditions principally as 
a function of an asset's age. Vehicle condition is based on an 
estimate of vehicle maintenance history and major rehabilitation 
expenditures in addition to vehicle age; the conditions of wayside 
control systems and track are based on an estimate of use (revenue 
miles per mile of track) in addition to age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Altogether, in many respects, the definition of state of good 
repair is the cornerstone on which all other aspects of the National 
TAM System will be built. This section describes four potential 
approaches that could be used to define and measure state of good 
repair, including objective standards for measuring the condition of 
assets. These approaches are, as follows:
     Asset age;
     Asset condition;
     Asset performance; or,
     A comprehensive (combined) approach.
    None of these approaches represent a perfect means of defining and 
measuring state of good repair. In particular, these approaches all 
make various trade-offs between precision and reporting burden. In 
general, the simpler and less-burdensome the nature of the approach is, 
the less precise that approach will be for defining and measuring state 
of good repair. On the other hand, the more precise a particular 
approach is at defining and measuring state of good repair, then so is 
the overall burden and complexity of that approach.
    The guidance provided by statute for selecting one of these 
approaches is relatively limited. The definition must ``include 
objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets;'' 
and must at least be applicable to ``equipment, rolling stock, 
infrastructure, and facilities.'' The definition should also lend 
itself to an implementable performance measure for purposes of 49 
U.S.C. 5326(c) and the performance-based planning process in 49 U.S.C. 
5303 and 5304. FTA recognizes that multiple approaches are capable of 
satisfying these requirements, including the four approaches identified 
above.
    In our online dialogue, several commenters suggested that the 
definition of state of good repair should be kept ``simple and short'' 
or ``simple and high level.'' While FTA appreciates the virtues of 
simplicity, FTA also notes that the statute does require the definition 
to include ``objective standards for measuring the condition of capital 
assets.'' Thus, the definition of state of good repair must be detailed 
enough to allow for the establishment of standards.
    Another commenter proposed that, ``if a vehicle can be operated 
safely, the state of good repair definition should not preclude that.'' 
Although there often are safety implications if assets are not in a 
state of good repair, FTA does not intend to solely define state of 
good repair in terms of safety. Poor asset condition also has other 
important consequences beyond safety, such as reduced reliability, 
increased maintenance costs, diminished system performance, which 
delays transit riders from getting to their destinations, and decreased 
passenger comfort and aesthetics. FTA's goal in defining state of good 
repair is to draw attention to all of these negative impacts, as well 
as safety risks. When an asset is identified as not being in a state of 
good repair, this will trigger the need for a safety risk analysis in 
the Transit Agency Safety Plan, which may result in the implementation 
of appropriate controls.
    FTA has developed a State of Good Repair White Paper \30\ that 
provides greater detail on each of the proposed approaches to defining 
state of good repair which is included in the docket for this ANPRM. 
Commenters are strongly encouraged to review the White Paper alongside 
this ANRPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Available at www.fta.dot.gov/sgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Asset Age
    This approach relies on the assumption that most assets provide 
reliable service for a predictable period

[[Page 61268]]

of time (adjusted by level of usage for some types of assets) after 
which they should be replaced. Although assets may continue to function 
safely and effectively at ages beyond this point, it is assumed that 
failure to replace assets at the end of this period of useful life 
leads to decreased performance, increased risk of in-service failure, 
and higher maintenance costs.
    This approach establishes a maximum useful life for many assets, 
beyond which an asset is considered to be part of the state of good 
repair backlog. This is not to be confused with the minimum useful 
life, with which many FTA recipients may already be familiar and which 
represents the age before which an asset should not be replaced.
    The primary benefits of this approach are its simplicity, 
consistency, and ease of implementation, while the primary drawbacks of 
this approach are its lack of precision in identifying the actual 
conditions of specific assets. For example, a well-maintained asset 
might be in suitable condition beyond its maximum useful life, whereas 
an asset with deferred maintenance might reach a deteriorated condition 
before reaching its maximum useful life. For a more detailed analysis 
of this approach please see the State of Good Repair White Paper.
(2) Asset Condition
    This approach is based on periodic condition assessments of all 
assets using a set of standardized procedures and criteria. Assets with 
longer life expectations, such as buildings or tunnels, can be 
inspected less frequently than assets with shorter life expectancies, 
such as vehicles. Small or numerous assets (e.g. rail ties) may be 
sampled, as determined by standard procedures, with the average 
condition of the sample being applied to all assets in the category.
    This approach would require FTA to develop significant guidance on 
how and when to assess the conditions of different classes of assets, 
including parameters for sampling, if necessary. The primary benefit of 
this approach is that it identifies the actual condition of each asset 
based upon its actual usage and maintenance history, while the primary 
draw-back is that it is significantly more labor-intensive for 
operators to complete and slightly less-consistent than the age-based 
approach. For a more detailed analysis of this approach please see the 
State of Good Repair White Paper.
(3) Asset Performance
    This approach is based on a regular, comprehensive, assessment of a 
system's performance and relies upon the assumption that as assets age, 
they will become less durable and reliable, resulting in decreased 
operational performance. In many respects, the ability of an asset to 
safely and reliably perform its assigned function at a full-performance 
level is at the heart of state of good repair. This approach has not 
been tested in the United States but was the basis for public oversight 
of the public-private partnership that briefly ran the London 
Underground.
    A performance-based approach would require far tighter integration 
of operations and capital maintenance than currently exists at most 
transit systems. It would also involve more FTA oversight of transit 
operational performance measures at a much-greater level of detail than 
currently occurs today. The primary benefit of this approach is that it 
is focused on the actual outcomes of being in a state of good repair, 
or not. The primary draw-back of this approach is that it is relatively 
untested, and the requisite data infrastructure to support this 
approach may still need to be developed. For a more detailed analysis 
of this approach please see the State of Good Repair White Paper.
(4) Comprehensive Assessment of Assets
    This approach combines the previous approaches to look at the age, 
condition, and performance of a system's assets, as well as to 
incorporate information on maintenance history for each asset. 
Condition ratings are calculated as a weighted combination of metrics 
for all the above considerations to produce a single rating for the 
asset. This approach would produce the most-comprehensive results, and 
would also involve FTA developing significant additional guidance in 
order to implement it.
    The primary benefit of this approach is that it takes into 
consideration all the factors that contribute to state of good repair, 
whereas the primary draw-back of this approach is that it is clearly 
the most-complex and most-labor intensive approach for transit 
operators and FTA to implement. For a more detailed analysis of this 
approach please see the State of Good Repair White Paper.
    FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
    63. What is the appropriate balance that FTA should strike in 
defining state of good repair between achieving precision in measuring 
state of good repair vs. minimizing the cost of measuring state of good 
repair?
    64. What are the relative merits and drawbacks of each approach for 
defining state of good repair for FTA grant recipients and 
subrecipients of varying sizes, and/or with different modes? Should FTA 
consider implementing different approaches for different transit modes, 
or for grant recipients and subrecipients of different sizes? If so, 
what modal delineations or size distinctions should FTA adopt?
    65. What are the relative merits and drawbacks of each approach for 
defining state of good repair for different classes of transit assets? 
Should FTA consider implementing different approaches for different 
asset classes? If so, what distinctions should FTA adopt between asset 
classes?
    66. Should FTA implement different approaches for defining state of 
good repair based on a combination of the size of the recipient and the 
class of asset, particularly given the role of state of good repair in 
the SMS prescribed risk management process? If so, what delineations 
should FTA make?
    67. What are the relative merits and drawbacks of each approach for 
purposes of implementing the required performance measures and 
performance targets?
    68. If a condition-based approach (or the comprehensive approach) 
is adopted in whole, or in part, for certain asset classes or for 
certain recipients, what requirements and procedures should FTA 
establish for the requisite condition inspections?
    69. If a performance-based approach (or the comprehensive approach) 
is adopted in whole, or in part, for certain asset classes or for 
certain recipients, what requirements and procedures should FTA adopt 
for collecting the necessary performance data to implement this 
approach?
    70. How should the definition of state of good repair balance the 
benefits of improved safety, performance, comfort, and other factors?
    71. If the comprehensive approach is selected for one or more 
classes of assets, how should FTA define the weights between various 
aspects of this approach?
    72. To what extent should FTA include measures of the intensity of 
usage of an asset in its measure of state of good repair?
    73. How do transit agencies currently evaluate the state of good 
repair of their systems? What criteria are used for this evaluation? 
What are the costs of the evaluation?
    74. Are there any other approaches that FTA should consider?

[[Page 61269]]

C. Transit Asset Management Plans

(1) Plan Requirements
    Under 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(2) every recipient and subrecipient of FTA 
funds is required to develop a TAM Plan. The TAM Plan must include, at 
a minimum, capital asset inventories and condition assessments, 
decision support tools, and investment prioritization. These 
requirements apply to every recipient and subrecipient that either 
operates transit services or manages transit assets. Section 5326(a)(1) 
specifically states that this includes ``equipment, rolling stock, 
infrastructure, and facilities for use in public transportation owned 
or leased by a recipient or subrecipient of Federal financial 
assistance under this chapter.''
    The foundation of any effective TAM Plan is a good capital asset 
inventory. A transit agency must know what assets it has in order to 
plan how to manage those assets. Although FTA is preparing a separate 
Federal Register notice on collecting asset inventory information 
through the NTD, that is a separate subject from what should be 
included in the capital asset inventory of the TAM Plan. This is 
particularly true for larger transit systems and transit systems with 
rail modes, where the level of detail needed for a successful TAM Plan 
is likely to be more detailed than the data that will eventually be 
collected through the NTD.
    Nevertheless, FTA recognizes that meeting the requirements for a 
TAM Plan may be challenging for many of our recipients. For example, 
out of 36 medium-sized rail and bus operators contacted by FTA for the 
2010 National State of Good Repair Assessment,\31\ FTA found that none 
of the sampled transit agencies possessed fully-developed capital asset 
planning inventories. Additionally, out of seven large rail systems 
contacted by FTA for the 2009 Rail Modernization Study Report to 
Congress,\32\ only four had complete information on asset age or 
condition and remaining useful life; only two had replacement cost data 
for individual assets included in the inventory; and only one had 
comprehensive data on past asset rehabilitation activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/National_SGR_Study_072010(2).pdf.
    \32\ Available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Rail_Mod_Final_Report_4-27-09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
    75. Some current recipients or subrecipients may currently have 
Federally-funded assets with a Federal interest remaining in the asset, 
but these recipients may not be seeking FTA funding in the future. 
Should these recipients be required to develop TAM Plans?
    76. What other elements of a good TAM Plan should FTA consider as 
either requirements or as a suggested best-practice (e.g. a risk 
analysis, or a consideration of life-cycle costs)?
    77. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan apply to transit 
systems that operate using a full-service contractor, where the 
contractor both provides the assets and operates the assets? What 
requirements for state of good repair and a TAM Plan should FTA require 
to be included in such full-service contracts, if any?
    78. How should the TAM Plan apply to assets that are owned and 
operated by an entity other than the recipient, but upon which the 
recipient's operations relies?
    79. How should the requirements for a TAM Plan apply to grant 
recipients who purchase an asset with Federal funds, and then lease 
that asset to a third party who operates the asset? Should the 
requirement for a TAM Plan apply to the party that is leasing the 
asset? Or should the requirement for a TAM Plan only apply to the grant 
recipient that is the lessor of the asset?
    80. What level of detail should be required for the capital asset 
inventory in a TAM Plan? What type of categorization of assets should 
be required? Please be as specific as possible as to what requirements 
FTA should propose to ensure that capital asset inventories included in 
the TAM Plan support an effective transit asset management process.
    81. What parameters should be required for the condition 
assessments included in the TAM Plan? Should these parameters be based 
on FTA's definition of state of good repair and the SGR performance 
measure?
    82. Should FTA construct one or more TAM Plan templates for 
recipients to use? If so, should these templates be based upon asset 
type, recipient size, and/or some other factor? Should FTA develop 
professional certification or training courses related to TAM Plan 
development?
(2) Investment Prioritization
    As noted above, each TAM Plan must include investment 
prioritization. 49 U.S.C. 5326(a)(2)(A). All projects identified in the 
TAM Plan should reflect priorities for funding from all available 
sources, including FTA program funds, State and local funds, and funds 
transferred from the Federal Highway Administration. Specifically, the 
new section 5337 State of Good Repair Formula Program requires that all 
projects funded through this program must be identified in the TAM 
Plan.
    Investment prioritization and project identification in the TAM 
Plans will connect funding decisions to projects that address SGR 
needs. In this fiscally-constrained environment, it is unlikely that 
sufficient increases in new funding from all sources will materialize 
to directly address all transit SGR needs. Investment prioritization in 
the TAM Plan will be the manifestation of each organization's strategic 
process to balance the competing needs for operations, maintenance, 
reinvestment, and system expansion in a resource-constrained 
environment, all while addressing or controlling safety hazards.
    In FTA's Online Dialogue, a recurrent theme from commenters was the 
difficulty of balancing these competing needs. FTA recognizes that 
there are no easy answers to this dilemma. Thus, it is critical that 
the investment prioritization be done strategically, with an 
organization-wide approach, informed by up-to-date and reliable data. 
As such, investment prioritization must guide the setting of the SGR 
performance targets and safety performance targets for the 
organization.
    These SGR priorities must ``be coordinated to the maximum extent 
practicable'' with the transit state of good repair performance targets 
being set by the States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 49 
U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(i)(II). Identification of SGR projects in the 
investment prioritization of the TAM Plan is the first step towards 
including these projects in the transportation improvement program 
(TIP) and the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). By 
extension, inclusion in the TIP and the STIP is essential for meeting 
the goals of the National TAM System to leverage both new and existing 
sources of funding towards reducing the SGR backlog throughout the 
industry.
    FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
    83. How specific should the investment prioritization section be in 
the TAM Plan? Should it include specific projects, or just groups of 
assets to be addressed? How should this requirement align with the 
requirement that all projects funded by the SGR Formula Program 
(section 5337) be identified in the TAM Plan?
    84. What time period should the investment prioritization in the 
TAM Plan cover?
    85. What processes or procedures should FTA recommend or require 
for balancing competing priorities for operations, maintenance, and 
expansion projects with rehabilitation and

[[Page 61270]]

replacement projects in development of TAM Plans? How should these 
trade-offs be reflected in final, certified TAM Plans?
    86. What processes or procedures should FTA recommend or require to 
ensure that the investment prioritization reflects an organization-wide 
perspective towards establishing priorities?
    87. What processes or procedures should FTA recommend or require to 
ensure that the investment prioritization identified in the TAM Plan 
match the actual investment decisions that are made?
    88. At what level of detail should transit system safety be linked 
to or included as part of a transit system's TAM Plan? In particular, 
what procedures or requirements should FTA establish for incorporating 
safety into the asset inventory, condition assessment, and/or 
investment prioritization components of a TAM Plan?
    89. Do transit agencies currently use any type of risk-based 
process to make investment decisions? If so, please describe that 
process.
    90. How might a risk-based process change going forward to 
systematically ensure that each agency's greatest safety 
vulnerabilities are addressed first?

D. Performance Measures

    Under 49 U.S.C. 5326(c)(1), FTA is required to establish SGR 
performance measures, based on the definition of state of good repair. 
Three months after a final rule is issued to establish SGR performance 
measures each FTA grant recipient is required to establish annual SGR 
performance targets in relation to those measures. Further, each year, 
FTA grant recipients are required to report to FTA on progress towards 
meeting those SGR targets, and to report the targets established for 
the subsequent fiscal year. Please note that only recipients, not 
subrecipients, will be required to set SGR performance targets. FTA 
also intends to select SGR performance measures that will minimize the 
administrative burden on small grant recipients.
    The SGR performance measures are an essential component of the 
National TAM System. Each FTA grant recipient will be accountable for 
setting annual SGR performance targets relative to the measures. There 
are neither rewards for meeting a performance target, nor consequences 
for missing a performance target. Nevertheless, the process of setting 
targets and measuring progress is not just a paper exercise, but 
reflects the increased expectations by everyone involved with the 
transit system, including the riding public, for bringing system assets 
into a state of good repair.
    As a practical matter, several strong candidates for a SGR 
performance measures make reference to the SGR backlog for an 
individual transit system, particularly if the age-based, condition-
based, or comprehensive approaches are used. The SGR backlog is a 
measurement of the total size or amount of assets owned or leased by a 
transit system that are not in a state of good repair. Under these 
approaches, FTA envisions adopting performance measures that provide a 
direct measure of each transit agency's SGR backlog. This sort of 
direct performance measure, based on the size of the SGR backlog, will 
allow individual transit systems to either show periodic progress 
towards achieving a state of good repair or to identify the resource 
investment necessary over a period of time for achieving a state of 
good repair. An SGR performance measure based on the SGR backlog would 
also be consistent with FTA's goal of working with the transit industry 
towards reducing the National SGR backlog, which FTA currently 
estimates to exceed $78 billion, and which continues to grow. 
Alternatively, under the performance-based approach to defining state 
of good repair, FTA envisions adopting performance measures that 
provide an indirect measure of each transit agency's SGR backlog. These 
indirect measures could include in-service vehicle failures, 
maintenance break-downs, and track slow-zones.
    The process of setting SGR performance targets will require each 
recipient to think quantitatively about the size of its own SGR backlog 
problem, and to analyze what resources it can leverage to address their 
SGR needs. The setting of SGR performance targets will also be an 
entirely local decision. Although FTA will strongly encourage 
recipients, States, and MPO's to set meaningful SGR targets, based on a 
creative and strategic leveraging of all available financial resources, 
FTA will not have a role in setting or approving SGR performance 
targets.
    (1) Defining Performance Measures
    FTA believes that the SGR performance measures should be 
transparent, readily understandable by the public, and sustainable over 
the long-term as possible. As such, FTA envisions that the SGR 
performance measures will be quantitative, and that the measures will 
not be constructed in reference to an arbitrary baseline. Rather, the 
measures will identify a quantitative value, and each transit agencies' 
SGR targets will represent goals for that measurement after a specific 
time period. For example:
     The estimated replacement value of all assets in the SGR 
backlog for the transit system, e.g. the value of all assets in our SGR 
backlog will be less than $100 million by the end of 2015.
     The percent of total assets, weighted by replacement 
value, in the SGR backlog for the transit system, e.g. fewer than 15% 
of our assets, weighted by replacement value, will be in our SGR 
backlog by the end of 2015.
     The average condition of all assets, weighted by 
replacement value, for the transit system as a whole, e.g. the average 
condition of all of our assets, weighted by replacement value, will be 
at least 3.14 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being 
excellent) by the end of 2015.
    FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
    91. What are some other possible SGR performances measures that 
would have significant practical utility? Please be as specific as 
possible, using the format for the examples, above.
    92. Should FTA consider a purely performance-based approach, i.e. 
rather than establishing direct SGR measures, instead establishing 
indirect SGR measures of in-service failures, maintenance break-downs, 
and track slow zones?
    93. Should FTA propose different measures for smaller agencies? How 
should FTA develop different measures for different sized entities?
(2) Performance Targets
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5326(c)(2), FTA grant recipients will be 
required to establish SGR performance targets in relation to the SGR 
performance measures within three months after FTA establishes the 
performance measures. Additionally, recipients of FTA funding will be 
required to submit an annual report describing the progress of the 
recipient toward meeting the recipient's SGR performance targets for 
the subsequent year. FTA seeks comment on how the SGR performance 
targets for each recipient should be reported to FTA, and how progress 
should be reported annually to FTA. FTA is considering requiring the 
SGR targets for each SGR performance measure be reported to the NTD 
since most FTA recipients already file an annual report to the NTD. 
These SGR targets could alternatively be reported to FTA through the 
Transit Electronic Awards Management (TEAM) System, although these SGR 
targets would need to be filed on a system-wide basis, and not on a 
grant-by-grant basis. It is also possible that stand-alone performance 
reports to

[[Page 61271]]

meet the statutory requirements could be considered, if that approach 
is determined to be less burdensome.
    FTA seeks comments and suggestions on the following questions:
    94. Should FTA collect the SGR performance targets through its 
National Transit Database? Or should SGR targets be collected through 
some other system?
    95. Should SGR targets be set on a system-wide basis? Or should SGR 
targets be set on a per-mode basis, per asset class, or both? Or on 
some other basis?
    96. Should the SGR performance measures and performance results be 
based on data reported through the NTD? Should the SGR performance 
measures and performance results be based on data reported separately?
    97. What should be the time horizon for the SGR performance 
targets? Although the SGR targets must be set annually, as required by 
law, should separate short-range (one year) and long-range (greater 
than one year) targets be established?
    98. How should the SGR performance measures and performance results 
be connected to the requirement for applicants to the Pilot Program for 
Expedited Project Delivery? Section 20008(b) of MAP-21. How should 
applicants certify to FTA that their existing transit system ``is in a 
state of good repair'' in order to be eligible for the Pilot Program?

E. Technical Assistance and Tools

    As noted above, many of the TAM requirements outlined in MAP-21 
apply to all FTA recipients who operate transit services. Because these 
are new requirements and affect a variety of transit providers, FTA is 
dedicated to providing guidance to recipients to assist in complying 
with these requirements. MAP-21 requires FTA to provide technical 
assistance on these provisions as well as develop an analytical process 
or decision support tool for estimating capital investment needs of 
transit systems over time and assisting with asset investment 
prioritization by transit systems. 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(4).
    Currently, there are a number of documents and resources \33\ that 
have been developed that may assist recipients in meeting the 
requirements of the National TAM System. These include:

    \33\ All of these reports and decision support tools can be 
found on FTA's Web site at http://www.fta.dot.gov/sgr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Asset Management Methodology/Condition Assessment Methodology 
Research, FTA-2011-002-TRI
 Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management of our 
Transit Investment
 TCRP Report 157: State of Good Repair: Prioritizing the 
Rehabilitation and Replacement of Existing Capital Assets and 
Evaluation the Implications for Transit
 TCRP Synthesis 92: Transit Asset Condition Reporting

    FTA has also already developed its TERM-Lite \34\ model as a 
possible tool for individual transit systems to estimate their own 
capital investment needs. There may be a need for other decision 
support tools to be developed to support TAM efforts. For example, 
there may be a need for a tool to help estimate the risks of reduced 
safety, increased maintenance costs, less reliability, and decreased 
performance that may result from deferring investments on particular 
assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ TERM-Lite can be accessed at http://www.fta.dot.gov/term-lite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA seeks comments and suggestions on the following questions:
    99. What specific tools and resources should FTA develop to ease 
the implementation of these requirements? Please be specific as to what 
tools or resources would be most useful to you and your transit system, 
such as guidebooks, classroom training, webinars or online training, 
peer-to-peer exchanges, etc.
    100. A number of private companies offer software tools for 
compiling and maintaining an asset inventory. Are there gaps in what is 
currently offered for these purposes that FTA should consider filling?
    101. A number of private companies already offer software tools to 
assist transit systems with taking an organizational approach to 
investment prioritization. Are there specific gaps in what is currently 
available for these purposes that FTA should consider filling?
    102. FTA has currently developed TERM-Lite to assist transit 
systems with estimating capital investment needs over time. Are there 
additional tools that FTA should develop to assist transit systems with 
estimating capital investment needs?
    103. Are the various guidebooks and reports listed above useful to 
your transit system in preparing to conduct transit asset management 
planning? Are there other guidebooks or reports that FTA should develop 
to support planning for transit asset management?
    104. Are there any other support tools or resources not mentioned 
here that would be helpful for recipients to have access to?
    105. What decision support tools for investment prioritization and/
or analytic processes for capital investment needs estimation does your 
transit agency already use?
    106. What research should FTA be conducting or sponsoring to 
support improved TAM analysis?

VIII. Certification of Transit Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset 
Management Plans

    Both the Transit Agency Safety Plan and the TAM Plan have a self-
certification requirement. See 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 
5326(a)(2)(B). These certifications will serve two fundamental 
purposes. First, certification provides assurance to FTA that 
recipients have conscientiously sought to meet the requirements for the 
Transit Agency Safety Plan and the TAM Plan established by FTA, and 
that the resulting plans are supporting the goals for safety and 
transit asset management, respectively. Second, a recipient that 
engages in a rigorous review of their Transit Agency Safety Plan and 
TAM Plan before certifying it to FTA will have confidence that their 
plans meet the standards established by FTA.
    FTA recognizes that applicants to FTA's grant programs are 
currently required to certify and assure compliance with many other FTA 
program elements. Although MAP-21 does not establish the process for 
how FTA will oversee certification of Transit Agency Safety Plans and 
TAM Plans, FTA will strongly consider using the existing certification 
process with oversight through the Triennial and State Management 
Reviews. However, FTA is also considering developing a new program for 
review of Transit Agency Safety Plans and TAM Plan certifications. 
Despite the method of oversight, recipients must ensure that FTA has 
access to each of these plans upon request and should be able to 
confirm that the certification requirements have been met.
    FTA seeks public comment on the following questions:
    107. Should certification be done through the annual Certification 
and Assurance process and a requirement to receive a grant? How should 
subrecipients certify? Is there another process to consider?
    108. Should FTA establish a self-assessment or other set of 
procedures for recipients to follow before certifying their Transit 
Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan?
    109. After recipients have certified they have plans that comply 
with FTA requirements, should FTA review the

[[Page 61272]]

plans prior to grant approval, as part of the Triennial/State 
Management Review, or at some other time?
    110. FTA is considering reviewing certification of Transit Agency 
Safety Plans and TAM Plans on the basis of a weighted random sample of 
recipients as an alternative to reviewing all plans. Would this be a 
suitable alternative to reviewing all certifications?
    111. What requirements and procedures should FTA establish for 
States and urbanized area designated recipients to review the TAM Plans 
of their subrecipients before certification?
    112. What requirements and procedures should FTA establish for 
States that develop and certify Transit Agency Safety Plans for rural 
providers and small urban providers?
    113. How frequently should TAM Plans be updated? How frequently 
should FTA review a recipient's updated TAM Plan? How should the 
certification be updated when the TAM Plan is updated?
    114. For all grant recipients, should FTA require the certification 
of the TAM Plan to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer of transit 
operations, and/or the Chief Executive Officer of the legal entity 
receiving grants from FTA?
    115. For grant recipients with a board of directors, should FTA 
require the TAM Plan be approved by the Board before certification?

IX. Coordination of Targets and Plans With Metropolitan, Statewide and 
Non-Metropolitan Planning

    The Metropolitan Transportation Planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 
5303 and the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning requirements at 49 
U.S.C. 5304, oblige Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and 
States, respectively, to coordinate their performance targets, to the 
maximum extent practicable, with performance targets set by FTA 
recipients for safety and state of good repair, and to integrate these 
targets into the planning process. See 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(1)(E). At the MPO and State level, funding allocation for 
surface transportation investments must weigh the needs for transit 
safety and SGR side-by-side with the highway performance objectives and 
targets, as well as with goals for the expansion of the existing 
transit network. FTA plans to issue a joint NPRM with the Federal 
Highway Administration on this new performance management framework.
    As a reminder of Federal planning requirements, MPOs are 
established in urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population, and must 
prepare a long range plan of at least 20 years in duration (updated 
every 4-5 years). 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(A)(ii). This plan is financially 
constrained to revenue sources that are ``reasonably expected to be 
made available'' over that period. 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(E)(i)(II). Any 
projects anticipated to receive federal funds or that are subject to 
federal actions must be included in the long range plan. In addition, 
the MPOs are required to develop a metropolitan ``transportation 
improvement program,'' (TIP) which includes projects consistent with 
the long range plan that are expected to be implemented in the first 
four years of the plan. 49 U.S.C. 5303(j). The TIP, too, is financially 
constrained, in that any project included in it must demonstrate that 
it is fully funded.
    As a result of MAP-21, MPOs and States are now required to 
establish performance targets that address forthcoming U.S. Department 
of Transportation-issued national performance measures that are based 
on the goals outlined in the legislation: safety, infrastructure 
condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement 
and economic vitality, environmental sustainability, reduced project 
delivery delays, transit safety, and transit state of good repair. MPOs 
also must coordinate their performance targets, to the maximum extent 
practicable, with performance targets set by FTA recipients under the 
new performance measure requirements for safety and state of good 
repair. TIPs must include a description of the anticipated progress 
toward achieving the performance targets resulting from implementation 
of the TIP. The investment prioritization developed for the TAM Plan at 
the individual system level must also be coordinated with development 
of the long-range transportation plan and the TIP.
    Additionally, States are required by 49 U.S.C. 5304(h)(2)(C) to 
integrate transit safety and transit state of good repair performance 
targets into the planning process, and are required by section 
5304(d)(2)(B)(ii), for areas not represented by a MPO, to select 
performance targets that are ``coordinated, to the maximum extent 
practicable, with providers of public transportation'' to ensure 
consistency with the state of good repair elements of section 5326(c) 
and the safety program found in sections 5329(b)(2) and 5329(d)(1)(E). 
Likewise, the investment prioritization developed for the TAM Plan at 
the individual system level must also be coordinated with development 
of the statewide transportation plan and the statewide transportation 
improvement program (STIP).
    In FTA's TAM Online Dialogue, one commenter noted that areas with 
multiple transit systems under the same MPO face particular challenges 
in coordinating efforts in the planning process. This commenter 
suggested that it is important that ``coordination to the maximum 
extent practicable'' should also extend in both directions, with 
individual transit systems coordinating their own and SGR performance 
targets with the regional and SGR performance targets being established 
by the MPO. FTA raises this comment in order to get additional comments 
on the merits of this suggestion, and how such a requirement might be 
implemented.
    FTA seeks comment on the following questions:
    116. What procedures or requirements should FTA establish to ensure 
that Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and 
targets from individual transit systems are integrated into the 
metropolitan transportation planning process?
    117. Should MPO's be required to set a region-wide target for 
transit state of good repair, or should MPO's be required to 
incorporate the both safety and transit state of good repair targets 
from each transit system within their jurisdiction into the 
performance-based planning process, or should have MPO's have 
discretion to choose between these two approaches?
    118. What procedures or requirements should FTA establish to ensure 
that Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and 
targets from individual transit systems are integrated into the 
statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning process? Since 
States are already setting the transit SGR performance targets for 
rural area grants received by the State, are any additional steps 
needed for integration into the planning process?
    119. Should FTA establish procedures or requirements to ensure that 
Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and targets 
from individual transit systems are integrated into other metropolitan 
planning products, such as the Unified Planning Work Program (``UPWP'') 
and Congestion Management Process (``CMP'')?
    120. FTA is interested in hearing recipient and stakeholder 
perspectives on how the investment priorities set forth in can be most-
effectively reflected in the prioritization of projects, strategies, 
and resources--including Federal, state, and local funds--in MPO Plans 
and Transportation Improvement Programs, as well as the Long-Range 
Transportation Plans of States and Statewide Transportation Improvement

[[Page 61273]]

Programs. Specifically, how should transit state of good repair needs 
identified in be addressed alongside other investment goals in these 
financially-constrained plans?
    121. How should safety targets be considered in the planning 
process by State's and MPOs? Should MPO's be required to set a region-
wide safety target? Or, should MPO's be required to incorporate each of 
the safety targets from each transit system within their jurisdiction 
into the performance-based planning process? Or, should MPO's have 
discretion to choose between these two approaches? How would each 
approach make the planning process easier or more difficult for transit 
agencies?

X. Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Requirements

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to propose or 
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
justify its costs, tailor a regulation to impose the least burden on 
society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, and in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those 
approaches that maximize net benefits.
    Consistent with the requirements in these executive orders, FTA 
seeks comment on the following questions:
    122. FTA seeks information from the public in order to assist it in 
assessing the cost of alternative regulatory approaches for 
implementing the National Safety Program and the National TAM System. 
For example, for commenters who suggest that FTA consider adopting 
certain safety performance criteria, minimum safety standards for 
vehicles, or objective standards for measuring the condition of capital 
assets, or training standards, what information do you have to assist 
FTA in assessing the incremental cost of adopting your suggestion? FTA 
is interested in information to assist it in assessing the full cost of 
the suggestion, such as the cost for transit agencies to collect and 
assess information and the cost to take action based on the 
information.
    123. Likewise, FTA seeks information from the public to assist FTA 
in assessing the potential benefits of alternative regulatory 
approaches for implementing the National Safety Program and the 
National TAM System. For example, for commenters who suggest that FTA 
consider adopting certain safety performance criteria, minimum safety 
standards for vehicles, objective standards for measuring the condition 
of capital assets, or training standards, what information do you have 
to assist FTA in assessing the incremental benefit from adopting your 
suggestion?

XI. Next Steps and Public Participation

    This ANPRM seeks input from the public on these topics to ensure 
that the final rules are clear and effective. It is important that 
transit agencies, State agencies, SSO agencies, MPOs, other 
organizations, as well as interested members of the public that could 
potentially be affected by rules issued after this ANPRM, take this 
opportunity to share thoughts, concerns, ideas, and general comments on 
the topics presented herein.
    After FTA reviews the comments collected through this ANPRM, FTA 
will draft several Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRM) for the 
National Safety Program and the TAM Program. These NPRMs will set forth 
proposed regulations based on FTA's analysis of the statutory 
requirements and relevant issues, as well as comments received from the 
public. Once FTA publishes the proposed rules, stakeholders and the 
public will have another opportunity to provide comments that FTA will 
take into consideration prior to issuing final rules.

 Peter Rogoff,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-23921 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P