[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52611-52614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22528]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA-2017-0010]
Response to Comments on National Transit Database Reporting
Changes and Clarifications
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52612]]
SUMMARY: This notice responds to comments received on proposed changes
and clarifications to the National Transit Database (NTD) reporting
requirements published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2017 (ID:
FTA-2017-0010).
DATES: All proposed changes and clarifications will be effective for
NTD report year 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Schilling, National Transit
Database Program Manager, FTA Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-
2054 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
A. Background and Overview
B. Clarifications on reporting requirements related to the Transit
Asset Management Program Rule
a. Establishes a Definition of Capital Responsibility
b. Clarifies Reporting Deadlines for New Assets
c. Adds Non-Revenue Service/Yard Track and Total Track Without
Capital Replacement Responsibility Category
C. Additional guidance on reportable safety events
D. Clarifications on reporting requirements for Job Access and
Reverse Commute (JARC) fund recipients
E. Guidance on distinguishing between commuter and intercity service
F. Change to reporting requirements for non-rail for-profit
providers of public transportation
G. Clarification of ``major mechanical system failures'' and ``other
mechanical system failures'' definitions
A. Background and Overview
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a notice in the
Federal Register on October 27, 2017 seeking public comment on several
NTD reporting changes and clarifications. The comment period closed on
December 26, 2017. FTA intended to implement the proposed changes in
report year 2017; however, due to the timing of the notice's
publication, FTA will implement all changes finalized in this Federal
Register notice in report year 2018.
Following is a summary of the comments received with FTA responses.
B. Clarifications on Reporting Requirements Related to the Transit
Asset Management Program Rule (Published July 2016)
a. Definition of Capital Responsibility
FTA received three comments on the proposed definition of capital
responsibility. One agency requested a clarification on direct capital
responsibility as it relates to transit agencies operating as a tenant
railroad on FRA-regulated Class 1 infrastructure. Specifically, they
asked if the railroad co-funds the replacement of guideway assets, does
that denote direct capital responsibility? The agency stated that the
information necessary to calculate the track performance metric (slow
zones) may not be available to the tenant railroad. Finally, the agency
asked FTA to consider exempting FRA-regulated Class 1 infrastructure
from this definition.
A second agency requested that FTA provide a specific definition of
major repair and additional clarification on whether subrecipients who
``lease or rent a facility for operations or an office space in a
larger building for administration'' should include language in the
lease agreement specifying who has capital responsibility.
Finally, an agency requested clarification on whether both a
`capital line' item expense and management oversight of an asset are
required to meet the reporting threshold or if, as stated in the
notice, this was intended to be an ``or'' statement.
FTA Response: If an agency is jointly responsible for funding the
replacement of guideway assets this does denote direct capital
responsibility for the purposes of the Transit Asset Management rule
and NTD reporting requirements. Additionally, FTA does not intend to
exempt a tenant railroad operating on FRA-regulated Class 1
infrastructure from the requirements of the Transit Asset Management
rule. Successful transit asset management requires a comprehensive
assessment of all the assets necessary to deliver service. Although a
transit system may not currently have capital responsibility for an
asset, if that asset is essential to the delivery of transit service,
then that asset may well become part of a transit system's capital
needs in the future. Finally, FTA believes that it is reasonable to
expect that a tenant railroad will be provided with enough information
to calculate the track performance metric (slow zones) from the host
railroad in the normal course of operations.
The current guidance on calculating the track performance metric
requires the agency to record the total amount of track under
performance restriction at 9 a.m. on the first Wednesday of each month.
Daily slow order information provided to operations staff to alert them
of service changes should provide the information necessary to
calculate the performance metric.
FTA does not currently have a published definition of major repair
but clarifies that such a repair would be one with a useful life of
more than one year. Additionally, FTA does not require an agency to
include specific language in a lease or agreement to specify which
entity has capital replacement responsibility.
Finally, FTA clarifies that the definition of capital
responsibility did not intend that both a ``capital line'' item expense
and management oversight of an asset are required to meet the reporting
threshold. As stated in the notice, this was intended to be an ``or''
statement.
FTA will implement the definition of capital responsibility as
stated in this notice in the FY 2018 NTD Policy Manual.
b. Clarification on the Reporting Deadlines for New Assets
FTA did not receive any comments on the clarification that an
agency is required to report a new asset to the NTD asset inventory in
the fiscal year that the agency begins using the asset for public
transportation service. FTA will include this guidance as proposed in
the 2018 NTD Reporting Policy Manual.
c. Addition of Non-Revenue Service/Yard Track and Total Track Without
Capital Replacement Responsibility Category
FTA received four comments related to the inclusion of two
additional track types to the asset inventory module: (1) Non-revenue
service/yard track and, (2) total track without capital responsibility.
One commenter expressed their support of the addition of total non-
revenue/yard track and total track without capital replacement
responsibility.
Although FTA did not specifically request comment on the
established track categories of ``total tangent track'' and ``total
curved track'' in this notice, three commenters stated that these two
categories should be combined. One of the commenters believed that
separating track into tangent and curved ``adds cost to data collection
and reporting without adding value to transit agencies or the FTA''.
Two commenters further requested that FTA clarify the degree of
curvature necessary to differentiate between tangent and curved track.
Finally, two commenters recommended three new track categories: (1)
Mainline track work; (2) special track work (to include guarded
curves); and (3) yard/secondary track work.
FTA Response: FTA's Transit Economic Requirement Model (TERM) used
to estimate the transit industry's state of good repair backlog, which
is
[[Page 52613]]
reported to Congress biennially, currently includes different useful
life assumptions for tangent vs. curved track. FTA has included these
track categories for public comment in two past Federal Register
notices (ID: FTA-2014-0006-0001 and ID: FTA-2015-0029-0001) and has
finalized these categories during that notice and comment process. FTA
appreciates the additional industry feedback on these categories but
does not intend to make any changes beyond the additional categories
proposed in this notice at this time. As the feedback received on the
addition of non-revenue service/yard track and total track without
capital replacement responsibility category was supportive, FTA will
proceed with adding these categories to the database.
FTA will further consider the request for clarification on the
degree of curvature necessary for track to be considered curved vs.
tangent. Additional guidance will be included in a future notice.
In addition to providing comment on the track categories, one
commenter included recommendations for adjusting the guideway
categories collected in the NTD asset inventory. The guideway
categories were included in two past Federal Register notices for
public comment (ID: FTA-2014-0006-0001 and ID: FTA-2015-0029-0001).
Based on comments received, the FTA finalized these categories and
published them in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016 (ID: FTA-2014-
0006-0083). As these comments are outside of the scope of this notice,
FTA is not providing response to these suggestions.
C. Additional Guidance on Reportable Safety Events
FTA received two comments related to the additional guidance on
reportable safety events. One agency expressed support for the
additional guidance. One agency requested a clarification on whether a
transit revenue vehicle needs to be ``in service'' when an incident
occurs to be considered a reportable safety event.
FTA Response: The definition published in the NTD glossary defines
a ``revenue vehicle'' as ``the floating and rolling stock used to
provide revenue service for passengers''. It does not specify that a
``revenue vehicle'' is only considered such when it is in active
revenue service. The FTA further clarifies that any event meeting the
thresholds for a reportable event and involving a transit revenue
vehicle, regardless of whether that vehicle is in revenue service at
the time of the event, is reportable to the NTD safety module.
FTA will include the additional guidance as published in the FY2018
Safety Report Manual.
D. Clarifications on Reporting Requirements for Job Access Reverse
Commuter (JARC) Fund Recipients
FTA Response: FTA did not receive any comments on this
clarification. FTA will proceed with the proposal to exempt from NTD
reporting any subrecipient that only receives FTA money for Urbanized
Area (5307) or Rural Area (5311) funded JARC projects that are not
public transportation projects, and does not have any transit operating
or capital expenses from any other 5307 or 5311 FTA funding sources.
E. Guidance on Distinguishing Between Commuter and Intercity Service
FTA received four comments related to the guidance on
distinguishing between commuter and intercity service. One commenter
stated that the clarification between commuter and intercity service
``might imply that all public transportation and intercity
transportation are mutually exclusive'' and that ``such a statement
would be contrary to the plain wording of the statutory definition of
public transportation.'' One commenter requested a clarification of the
term ``qualified statistician.'' They specifically asked if a general
consulting firm would be able to complete the work of a qualified
statistician. Two commenters stated that requiring a survey of service
to establish the percentage of riders taking same day trips when FTA
deems it necessary seems ``arbitrary.'' They requested that FTA set a
clear threshold for when a survey would be required. One commenter
further believes that the survey seemed overly burdensome.
FTA Response: FTA does not have a published definition of
``qualified statistician'' but clarifies that a general consulting firm
or an individual with education or training in mathematics, statistics,
or a related quantitative field would be able to complete the work of a
qualified statistician.
FTA did not intend to imply that intercity service and public
transportation are mutually exclusive in their entirety. In some cases,
commuters may ride intercity service to reach their destination, and in
some cases intercity passengers may ride a commuter service to reach
their destination. As a clarification, this notice and the previous
notice referenced (FTA-2016-0006) are distinguishing between commuter
and intercity service for the purpose of allocating service information
to an urbanized area in the NTD and for inclusion in the Urbanized Area
Formula program.
Intercity service that meets the statutory definition of public
transportation at 49 U.S.C 5302 is reportable to the NTD as public
transportation service but only the portion that is located within the
boundaries of an urbanized area may be attributed to that urbanized
area. Intercity service located outside of the urbanized area would be
attributable at a rate of 27 percent per 49 U.S.C. 5336. In contrast,
service meeting the definition of commuter service would be fully
attributable to the urbanized area regardless of its location.
This notice clarifies that the existing definition of commuter
service applies to ferry boats and that ferry service is only fully
attributable to an urbanized area if at least 50 percent of passengers
are making a return trip on the same day. If the ferry does not meet
this threshold, it would be considered intercity service and service
located outside of the urbanized area would be attributable at a rate
of 27 percent per 49 U.S.C. 5336.
Current FTA policy requires a passenger survey of new commuter
service to the NTD to establish that it meets the criteria for
reportable commuter rail or bus service. This notice simply extends
this requirement to ferry service. Further, FTA recognizes that this
survey is both time consuming and costly to an agency. This notice
attempted to reduce the burden on agencies by presuming that those
services with 100 percent one-way trip times of 90 minutes or less are
commuter services, without requiring a passenger survey. The notice did
preserve FTA's discretion to survey services outside of this boundary
or with characteristics suggesting that they may not meet the
definition of commuter service. Those services would still need to
complete a survey to establish that they meet the threshold of commuter
service.
In response to the request for a more definitive threshold, FTA
clarifies that services with 100 percent one-way trip times of 30
minutes or less will not require a survey to establish the service as
commuter. FTA will continue to presume that services with 100 percent
one-way trip times of 90 minutes or less are commuter services, while
maintaining discretion to request a survey of those with service
characteristics suggesting that they may not meet the definition of
commuter service.
FTA will include these clarifications as presented in the notice
and this
[[Page 52614]]
response in the 2018 NTD Policy Manual.
F. Change to Reporting Requirements for Non-Rail For-Profit Providers
of Public Transportation
FTA received two comments on the proposed change to reporting
requirements for non-rail for-profit providers of public
transportation. One agency stated that the ``safety of passengers and
good stewardship of any associate tax dollars is a higher priority''
than protecting competitive advantage of for-profit providers. A second
agency strongly opposed the change and stated that FTA failed to
``provide any evidence'' of the assertion that reporting as a full
reporter may compromise a company's ability to successfully compete for
business. They further expressed concern that most of the identified
providers are in the New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT urbanized area and
believed this change would disproportionately reduce the Urbanized Area
Formula apportionment for New York. They ``urged FTA to eliminate this
proposal from further consideration'' or issue the proposal for public
comment along with additional detail for the public to review.
FTA Response: FTA agrees that the safety of passengers and the good
stewardship of public tax dollars are the highest priorities. Although,
FTA does not believe that this proposal represents any risk to the
safety of transit passengers, FTA is sensitive to the concerns
expressed that this proposal could primarily impact the New York-
Newark, NY-NJ-CT urbanized area. FTA is withdrawing this proposed
change. Reporting requirements will remain the same for non-rail, for-
profit providers of public transportation.
G. Clarification of Mechanical Failure Definitions
FTA received five comments on the clarification of mechanical
failure definitions and request for feedback on potential definition
changes. Two commenters support the proposed definition change. One
commenter requested clarification on ``vandalism.'' Specifically, they
asked FTA to clarify whether a door defect caused by a customer holding
a door should be considered vandalism under the proposed definition.
FTA Response: FTA clarifies that a door defect caused by normal
interaction with customers boarding and alighting the vehicle,
including attempting to hold a door to allow for normal boarding and
alighting would not be considered ``vandalism.'' FTA's use of the word
vandalism was the common definition of willful or malicious destruction
or defacement of public or private property.
FTA will implement the proposed definition adjustments. These
changes will be reflected in the FY2018 NTD Policy Manual and NTD
Glossary.
In addition to clarifications to the mechanical failure
definitions, FTA asked for feedback on current utility of the major
mechanical failure and other mechanical failure metrics. FTA also
offered two scenarios for adjusting these metrics and requested
stakeholder feedback on these scenarios. FTA provides a summary of the
feedback received below for stakeholder awareness. As the comments
received did not indicate a consensus among stakeholders on the best
way to improve the reporting of mechanical failures, FTA is not
proposing to make any changes to reporting at this time.
As stated in the original notice, FTA is not recommending any
further changes to the major mechanical failure and other mechanical
failure definitions at this time. FTA will use the feedback outlined
below to inform any future changes to these data points.
One commenter recommended adjusting the metric to track mean
distance between delays to better align with industry practice and
suggested changing the proposed definition of ``other mechanical system
failures'' to include ``all failures.''
Another commenter states that collecting major mechanical system
failures by fleet rather than mode ``would not be an issue'' but this
has limited utility to an agency because they measure reliability using
a different metric. The commenter suggests changing the proposed
definition of ``other mechanical system failures'' to include ``all
failures''.
Two commenters did not support discontinuing reporting of other
mechanical system failures. One stated that FTA should continue to
collect it ``with the intent to provide value to stakeholders'' unless
the financial burden is excessive. The second stated that discontinuing
the reporting of other mechanical system failures would not reduce
agency burden to maintain and analyze failure data.
One commenter stated that changing the reporting threshold to
failures requiring a work order would be inconsistent among agencies
and would not make reporting more consistent.
One commenter recommended that FTA discontinue the reporting of
``partially cancelled trains'' as this may be a source of inconsistent
reporting.
A final commenter expressed concern that collecting major
mechanical system failure by fleet rather than by mode may increase the
reporting burden. They requested that FTA clearly articulate how the
more granular data set will be used and allow the public to weigh if
the utility of the data set balances the potential cost and burden
before making any changes to the current metrics.
K. Jane Williams,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-22528 Filed 10-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P