6344 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1See United States Department of Transportation, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ‘‘Table 2–1: 

Transportation Fatalities by Mode 1960–2013,’’ at 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/

files/publications/national_transportation_

statistics/html/table_02_01.html_mfd; and ‘‘Table 

1–40: U.S. Passenger Miles (Millions) 1960–2013,’’ 

at http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/

files/publications/national_transportation_

statistics/html/table_01_40.html. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 673 

[Docket No. FTA–2015–0021] 

RIN 2132–AB23 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM): request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) is proposing 

requirements for Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans as authorized by 

Section 20021 of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP– 

21). This proposed rule would require 

operators of public transportation 

systems that receive Federal financial 

assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to 

develop and implement Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

based on the Safety Management System 

approach. Development and 

implementation of agency safety plans 

will help ensure that public 

transportation systems are safe 

nationwide. FTA seeks public 

comments on all aspects of this 

proposed rule, including information 

related to its benefits and costs, as well 

as alternative approaches that may more 

cost-effectively satisfy the statutory 

requirements and help ensure the safety 

of the nation’s public transportation 

system. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 5, 2016. Any comments filed after 

this deadline will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

FTA will hold webinars to explain the 

proposed rule. Interested stakeholders 

should check FTA’s Web site for days 

and times of webinars: http://www.fta.

dot.gov/calendar.html. Additionally, 

FTA will hold a listening session on 

Wednesday, March 16, 2016, in 

conjunction with the American Public 

Transportation Association’s Legislative 

Conference. The listening session will 

be held at the JW Marriott, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004 at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit your 

comments by only one of the following 

methods, identifying your submission 

by Docket Number (FTA–2015–0021) or 

Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 

(2132–AB23). 

• 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–2015–0021 for this notice or 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

2132–AB23), 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 the 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 selfaddressed stamped postcard. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Anyone 

is able to search the electronic form for 

all comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the United States 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

Privacy Act system of records notice for 

the DOT Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) in the Federal Register 

published on December 29, 2010 (75 FR 

82132) at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program matters, contact Brian Alberts, 

Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, 

(202) 366–1783 or Brian.Alberts@

dot.gov. For legal matters, contact 

Michael Culotta, Office of Chief 

Counsel, (212) 668–2178 or 

Michael.Culotta@dot.gov. 

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Statutory Authority 

C. Summary of Major Provisions 

D. Costs and Benefits (Table) 

II. Background 

A. History 

B. General Requirements 

C. The Safety Management Systems (SMS) 

Approach 

D. The Role of the Accountable Executive 

With Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans and Transit Asset 

Management Plans 

III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Response to Relevant Comments 

A. Scope and Applicability of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

B. Safety Management Systems 

C. Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan Development, Certification, and 

Oversight 

D. Role of the Board of Directors (or 

Equivalent Authority) and the Chief 

Safety Officer 

E. Coordination of Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan With Other MAP–21 

Programs and Plans 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

The public transportation industry 

remains among the safest surface 

transportation modes in terms of total 

reported safety events, fatalities, and 

injuries.1 Nonetheless, given the 

complexity of public transportation 

service, the condition and performance 

of transit equipment and facilities, 

turnover in the transit workforce, and 

the quality of procedures, training, and 

supervision, the public transportation 

industry remains vulnerable to 

catastrophic accidents. 

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) proposes requirements for 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans that would carry out explicit 

statutory mandates in the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (Pub. L. 112–141; July 6, 2012) 

(MAP–21), which recently was 

reauthorized by the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 

114–94; December 4, 2015) and codified 

at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), to strengthen the 

safety of public transportation systems 

that receive Federal financial assistance 

under Chapter 53. This NPRM proposes 

requirements for the adoption of Safety 

Management Systems (SMS) principles 

and methods; the development, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6345 

certification, and update of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans; 

and the coordination of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

elements with other FTA programs and 

proposed rules, as specified in 49 U.S.C. 

5329. 

B. Statutory Authority 

In Section 20021 of MAP–21, 

Congress directed FTA to establish a 

comprehensive Public Transportation 

Safety Program, one element of which is 

the requirement for Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA 

must issue a final rule requiring 

operators of public transportation 

systems that receive financial assistance 

under Chapter 53 to develop and certify 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans. FTA also is required to issue a 

rule designating certain Urbanized Area 

Formula Program recipients under 49 

U.S.C. 5307 that may have their Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

drafted or certified by a State. 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(3)(B). Further, FTA must allow 

States to draft and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

Rural Area Formula Program recipients 

and subrecipients under 49 U.S.C. 5311. 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(A). 

C. Summary of Major Provisions 

The proposed rule would add a new 

Part 673, ‘‘Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans,’’ to Title 49 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. The rule would 

implement the requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d). 

One year after FTA issues a final rule 

to carry out Section 5329(d), each State, 

local governmental authority, and other 

operator of a public transportation 

system that receives Federal financial 

assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 

must certify that it has established and 

implemented a comprehensive Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan. 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d)(1). FTA proposes that 

large transit providers that are direct 

recipients of Section 5307 funds would 

develop their own plans, have the plans 

approved by their Boards of Directors 

(or equivalent authority), and certify to 

FTA that those plans are in place. FTA 

also proposes that transit providers 

which receive funds under the 

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and 

Individuals with Disabilities Program 

authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5310 (which 

tend to be much smaller transit 

providers) and transit providers that 

receive funds under the Rural Area 

Formula Program authorized by 49 

U.S.C. 5311, as well as small public 

transportation providers as defined in 

this NPRM, may have their plans 

drafted or certified by the State in which 

they operate. 

At a minimum, and consistent with 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA proposes that 

each Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan must: 

• Include a Safety Management 

System consisting of four main pillars: 

(1) Safety Management Policy, (2) Safety 

Risk Management, (3) Safety Assurance, 

and (4) Safety Promotion, as discussed 

in more detail below (49 CFR 

673.11(a)(2)); 

• Include performance targets based 

on the safety performance criteria 

established under the National Public 

Transportation Safety Plan, and the state 

of good repair standards established in 

the regulations that implement the 

National Transit Asset Management 

System and are included in the National 

Public Transportation Safety Plan (49 

CFR 673.11(a)(3)); 

• Address all applicable requirements 

and standards as set forth in FTA’s 

Public Transportation Safety Program 

and National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan (49 CFR 673.11(a)(4)); and 

• Establish a process and timeline for 

conducting an annual review and 

update of the Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan (49 CFR 

673.11(a)(5)). 

FTA proposes that each rail transit 

agency must include in its Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan an 

emergency preparedness and response 

plan, as historically required by FTA 

under its State Safety Oversight Rule at 

49 CFR part 659. 49 CFR 673.11(a)(6). 

A transit agency would be able to 

develop one Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan for all modes of 

service, or it may develop a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan for 

each mode of service not subject to 

safety regulation by another Federal 

entity. 49 CFR 673.11(b). A transit 

agency would be required to maintain 

records associated with its Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan. 49 

CFR 673 subpart D. Any rail fixed 

guideway public transportation system 

that had a System Safety Program Plan 

compliant with 49 CFR part 659 as of 

October 1, 2012, would be able to keep 

that plan in effect until one year after 

the effective date of the final rule. 49 

CFR 673.11(e). Agencies that operate 

passenger ferries regulated by the 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) or 

commuter rail service regulated by the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

would not be required to develop 

agency safety plans for those modes of 

service. 49 CFR 673.11(f). 

A State or transit agency would be 

required to make its safety performance 

targets available to States and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations to 

aid in the planning process, and to the 

maximum extent practicable, a State or 

transit agency would be required to 

coordinate with States and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations in the selection 

of State and MPO safety performance 

targets. 49 CFR 673.15. 

On an annual basis, a transit agency 

or State would be required to certify its 

compliance with this rule. 49 CFR 

673.13. 

D. Costs and Benefits (Table) 

FTA has determined that this 

proposed rule likely is ‘‘economically 

significant’’ under Executive Order 

12866, in that it may lead to transit 

agencies making investment and 

prioritization decisions related to 

mitigation of safety risks that would 

result in economic impacts that could 

exceed $100 million in a year. However, 

as discussed in greater detail below, 

FTA was unable to quantify the 

potential impacts of this rule beyond the 

costs for transit agencies to develop and 

implement Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans. FTA was able to 

estimate costs of approximately $86 

million in the first year, and $70 million 

per year thereafter. These costs result 

from developing and certifying safety 

plans, documenting the SMS approach, 

implementing SMS, and associated 

recordkeeping. The estimated costs do 

not include the costs of actions that 

transit agencies would be required to 

take to mitigate risk as a result of 

implementing this rule, such as vehicle 

modifications, additional training, 

technology investments, or changes to 

operating procedures. The annualized 

cost of proposed requirements is 

estimated to be approximately $71 

million. 

FTA could not estimate the benefits of 

the proposed rule. To estimate safety 

benefits, one would need to understand 

the exact causes of the accidents and the 

factors that may cause future accidents. 

This information is generally unknown 

in this sector, given the infrequency and 

diversity of the type of safety incidents 

that occur. In addition, one would need 

information about the safety problems 

that agencies are likely to find through 

implementation of their safety plans and 

the actions agencies are likely to take to 

address those problems. Instead, FTA 

conducted a breakeven analysis that 

compares the estimated costs (absent the 

cost of mitigations beyond those 

specifically required by the rule such as 

training) to a pool of potential safety 

benefits. The pool of potential safety 

benefits is an estimate of the cost of all 

bus and rail incidents over a future 20- 

year period. The estimate is an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6346 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2The costs in this table and the breakeven 

threshold do not account for actions by agencies to 

mitigate or eliminate safety risks identified through 

implementation of their safety plans (beyond those 

specifically required by the rule, such as training). 

extrapolation of the total cost of bus and 

rail incidents that occurred from 2010 to 

2014. 

As Table 1 below shows, the amount 

of incident reduction needed to 

breakeven with estimated costs is low. 

However, benefits of SMS will primarily 

result from mitigating actions, which are 

largely not accounted for in this 

analysis. FTA has not estimated the 

benefits of implementing SMS without 

mitigating actions, but expects they are 

unlikely to be large. Estimated costs for 

agencies’ safety plans include certain 

activities that could yield safety 

improvements, such as improved 

communication, identification of 

hazards, and greater employee 

awareness. It is plausible that these 

activities alone could produce accident 

reductions that surpass the breakeven 

level, though even greater reductions 

could be achieved in concert with other 

mitigating actions. 

This analysis assumes that benefits 

are realized from reducing both rail and 

bus incidents after adjusting for the 

estimated breakeven threshold for the 

proposed State Safety Oversight and 

Safety Training Rules (RINs 2132–AB19 

and 2132–AB25 respectively), to which 

the rail agencies also will be subject 

when finalized. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BREAKEVEN ANALYSIS 2

Current dollar value 7% Discounted value 3% Discounted value 

Bus Incidents (20-Year Estimate) .............................................. $86,999,489,120 ............ $40,894,178,605 ............ $58,084,884,054. 

Rail Incidents (20-Year Estimate) .............................................. $37,680,410,444 ............ $17,711,706,703 ............ $25,157,185,334. 

Total Pool of Benefits (20-Year Estimate) ................................. $124,679,899,564 .......... $58,605,885,309 ............ $83,242,069,388. 

Estimated Costs (20-Year Estimate) .......................................... $1,407,680,883 .............. $752,319,890 ................. $1,050,876,643. 

Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Actions ................................... Not Estimated ................ Not Estimated ................ Not Estimated. 

Estimated Cost (Annualized) ...................................................... ........................................ $71,013,675 ................... $70,635,417. 

Breakeven Threshold Including Bus and Rail ............................ ........................................ 1.28% ............................. 1.26%. 

II. Background 

On July 6, 2012,the President signed 

into law MAP–21 (Pub. L. 112–141). 

MAP–21 authorized a number of 

fundamental changes to the Federal 

transit programs at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 

53. This NPRM addresses the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

within the Public Transportation Safety 

Program authorized under 49 U.S.C. 

5329. 

The Public Transportation Safety 

Program consists of several key 

elements: the National Public 

Transportation Safety Plan, authorized 

by 49 U.S.C. 5329(b); the Public 

Transportation Safety Certification 

Training Program, authorized by 49 

U.S.C. 5329(c); the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 

authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); and the 

State Safety Oversight Program, 

authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e). FTA 

will issue rules and guidance to carry 

out all of these plans and programs 

under the rulemaking authority of 49 

U.S.C. 5329 and 5334(a)(11). 

On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the National 

Public Transportation Safety Plan, the 

Safety Certification Training Program, 

and the Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. 78 FR 61251. Through the 

ANPRM, FTA also sought public 

comment on transit asset management, 

given FTA’s statutory directive to 

develop and implement a Transit Asset 

Management System under 49 U.S.C. 

5326. FTA is addressing the National 

Public Transportation Safety Plan, the 

Safety Certification Training Program, 

and the Transit Asset Management 

System through separate rulemakings 

and guidance documents. Each of these 

programs will contribute to the 

establishment of a comprehensive 

framework that will help to ensure 

public transportation systems are safe 

nationwide. 

In most instances, the requirements of 

the Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans will apply to each recipient and 

subrecipient of FTA funding, regardless 

of the mode(s) of transit provided. 

However, two provisions limit FTA’s 

regulatory jurisdiction. First, FTA is 

prohibited from establishing safety 

performance standards for rolling stock 

that is already regulated by another 

Federal agency. 49 U.S.C. 

5329(b)(2)(C)(i). Second, the 

requirements of the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans will 

not apply to rail transit systems to the 

extent that they are already subject to 

regulation by FRA. 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(1) 

and (e)(2). Further, to the extent that any 

other Federal agency already regulates 

the safety of a particular mode of public 

transportation, FTA does not intend to 

publish duplicative, inconsistent, or 

conflicting regulations. 

Today’s proposed rule for establishing 

and certifying Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans takes into account 

the size, complexity, and operating 

environments of applicable recipients. 

FTA proposes the incorporation of SMS 

principles and methods to support 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan development and implementation. 

SMS provides transit agencies flexibility 

in establishing processes and activities 

to address safety risks within their 

agencies in a scalable manner. 

Until FTA issues a final rule to carry 

out Section 5329(d), existing system 

safety and security program plans 

required of rail fixed guideway systems 

under 49 CFR part 659 will remain in 

effect. 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(2). Within one 

year of the Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan final rule’s effective 

date, all operators of public 

transportation systems that receive 

Chapter 53 funds would be required to 

draft and certify their Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 

unless a State is otherwise required to 

do so on behalf of the public 

transportation provider, in which case, 

the State also would have one year after 

the rule’s effective date to draft and 

certify its Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. Public transportation 

providers that operate multiple modes 

of transit service would have the option 

of preparing separate Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

each mode, or preparing one Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan for 

all modes operated by the provider. If 

separate safety plans are developed for 

multiple modes under FTA’s 

jurisdiction, each Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan (for example, one 

for bus service and one for rail transit 

service) must comply with the final 

rule. 

A. History 

Prior to MAP–21, FTA’s authority to 

require safety plans was limited to rail 

transit agencies subject to FTA’s State 

Safety Oversight Rule. Under existing 49 

CFR part 659, any State that has a rail 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6347 

3See United States Department of Transportation, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ‘‘Table 2–1: 

Transportation Fatalities by Mode 1960–2013,’’ 

available at http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/

rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_

transportation_statistics/html/table_02_01.html_

mfd; and ‘‘Table 1–40: U.S. Passenger Miles 

(Millions) 1960–2013,’’ available at http://www.rita.

dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/

national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_

40.html. 

4National Transit Database, Major-Only Time 

Series, http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/

data.htm. 

5For example, the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) issued Safety Recommendation R– 

15–010 for the Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority’s (WMATA) Metrorail incident on 

January 12, 2015, and NTSB issued Safety 

Recommendations R–15–20 and R–15–021 for the 

Chicago Transit Authority’s (CTA) incident on 

March 24, 2015. NTSB’s reports for these 

recommendations are pending. 

6NTSB issued Safety Recommendation R–15–008 

for the WMATA Metrorail incident on January 12, 

2015; NTSB’s report for this incident is pending. 

NTSB also issued several Safety Recommendations 

in Report RAR–10/02. 

7NTSB issued Safety Recommendations R–15– 

009 and R–15–011 for the WMATA Metrorail 

incident on January 12, 2015; NTSB’s report for 

these recommendations is pending. NTSB also 

issued several Safety Recommendations in Reports 

RAB–15–02, RAR–12/04, and RAR–10/02. 

8NTSB cited safety culture concerns in Reports 

SIR–14/03 and RAR–07/02. 

9NTSB issued Safety Recommendation R–15–007 

for the WMATA Metrorail incident on January 12, 

2015, and Safety Recommendations R–15–018 and 

R–15–019 for the CTA incident on March 24, 2015. 

NTSB’s reports for these recommendations are 

pending. NTSB also issued several safety 

recommendations in Reports RAR–12/04, RAR–11/ 

01, and RAR–10/02. 

fixed guideway system not subject to 

FRA regulation is required to establish 

a state safety oversight agency, and each 

state safety oversight agency must 

require each rail fixed guideway system 

within its jurisdiction to develop a 

system safety and a system security 

program plan. These plans are reviewed 

and approved by state safety oversight 

agencies. 49 CFR 659.17. MAP–21 

authorized significant changes to FTA’s 

State Safety Oversight Program, and 

FTA is undergoing a rulemaking to 

effectuate those changes. The history of 

49 CFR part 659, and its relationship to 

the Public Transportation Safety 

Program and today’s notice, can be 

viewed in the NPRM for 49 CFR part 

674, which is the proposed new location 

for the State Safety Oversight Rule in 

the Code of Federal Regulations. See 80 

FR 11002, Feb. 27, 2015 (http://www.

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-27/pdf/

2015-03841.pdf). 

In addition to requiring safety and 

security plans for rail fixed guideway 

systems, FTA established and currently 

manages a voluntary Bus Safety Program 

that has encouraged bus transit agencies 

to develop system safety program plans 

to implement safety program activities. 

The voluntary program has been very 

well received and has promoted 

coordination among FTA, the 

Community Transportation Association 

of America (CTAA), and the American 

Public Transportation Association 

(APTA) to provide technical assistance 

to bus transit agencies to support system 

safety program plan development and 

implementation. Through FTA’s Bus 

Safety Program, more States have 

recommended that their bus transit 

agencies develop safety plans using 

templates provided by FTA through its 

safety Web site. In addition, a number 

of States require both rail and bus 

transit agencies to develop system safety 

program plans. 

The aforementioned efforts 

demonstrate that many transit agencies 

embrace the concept and benefits of 

developing safety plans in order to 

document their safety program 

activities, as well as ensure commitment 

from agency executives who often 

review and sign the safety plan or policy 

statement. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

must be drafted and certified by each 

transit agency regardless of mode, with 

the exception of transit providers that 

receive funds under 49 U.S.C. 5311 

(Section 5311) and small public 

transportation providers as defined in 

this NPRM, which may have their plans 

drafted and certified by the State. In 

addition to this statutory requirement, 

FTA is proposing that the State must 

draft and certify Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans for operators of 

public transportation that receive funds 

under 49 U.S.C. 5310 (Section 5310), in 

an effort to alleviate the regulatory, 

administrative, and financial burdens 

on the small recipients in this program. 

FTA proposes that a Section 5310, 

Section 5311, or small public 

transportation provider may opt to draft 

and certify their own plan. Today’s 

proposed rule helps advance the 

regulatory steps taken by FTA and 

States previously and the voluntary 

efforts taken by industry associations, 

States, and transit providers to improve 

transit safety. 

B. General Requirements 

Pursuant to 49 U. S.C. 5329(d)(1), 

each Public Transportation 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 state of 

good repair standards set out in the 

National Public Transportation 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 

that includes the completion of a safety 

training program and continuing safety 

education and training. 

C. The Safety Management Systems 

(SMS) Approach 

Public transportation is one of the 

safest modes of travel.3 However, public 

transportation incidents occur, and the 

potential for catastrophic events 

remains. In recent years, there have 

been several major transit accidents that 

resulted in fatalities, injuries, and 

significant property damage. From 2004 

to 2013, the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) reported on nine 

transit accidents that, collectively, 

resulted in 15 fatalities, 297 injuries, 

and over $30 million in property 

damages. During that same period, 

transit agencies reported over 40,000 

incidents, approximately 2,000 

fatalities, and over 76,000 injuries to 

FTA’s National Transit Database.4

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; 5 deficiencies 

in the maintenance of equipment and 

infrastructure; 6 and deficiencies in 

safety management and oversight, such 

as weaknesses in transit agencies’ safety 

rules and procedures,7 lack of safety 

cultures within transit agencies,8 and 

lack of adequate oversight by State and 

Federal agencies.9 The deficiencies 

identified by NTSB will continue to 

plague the transit industry as 

infrastructure ages, skilled employees 

retire, and transit agencies continue to 

endure financial stresses. Through 

implementation of the Public 

Transportation Safety Program, 

including today’s Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan proposed 

rulemaking, FTA’s goal is to address 

these deficiencies and improve the 

safety of public transportation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6348 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

10 Implementing Safety Management System 

Principles in Rail Transit Agencies, available at 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TRACS_Ltr_Rpt_

SMS_fnl.pdf. 

11The Dear Colleague Letter is available at http:// 

www.fta.dot.gov/newsroom/12910_15391.html. 

12The SMS FAQs are available at http://www.fta.

dot.gov/tso_15177.html. 

In order to advance a comprehensive 

approach to safety decision-making, 

FTA is proposing to adopt an SMS 

approach to developing and 

implementing the Public Transportation 

Safety Program, and specifically the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans. Following a recommendation 

from FTA’s designated Federal Advisory 

Committee—the Transit Advisory 

Committee for Safety (TRACS) 10—on 

May 13, 2013, the FTA Administrator 

issued a Dear Colleague Letter 11 and 

answers to Frequently Asked Questions 

(FAQs) 12 to the transit industry stating 

FTA’s intention to adopt the SMS 

approach as the basis for its initiatives 

to improve the safety of public 

transportation. This NPRM seeks 

comment on proposed SMS processes 

and activities and their documentation 

in the Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. This NPRM also seeks 

public comments on alternatives to 

requiring adoption of SMS, such as 

promoting adoption of SMS through 

guidance or technical assistance (while 

also promulgating regulations that 

satisfy the statutory requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d)). 

Safety management is based on the 

fact that safety is not an absolute 

condition—there always will be hazards 

and risks in public transportation. 

However, an approach of primarily 

reacting to accidents and incidents by 

prescribing measures to prevent 

recurrence alone will not contribute to 

sustaining and improving public 

transportation safety. 

Modern SMS 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 other transportation 

sectors. Such practices call for setting 

safety goals and objectives, defining 

clear levels of accountability and 

responsibility for safety, establishing 

proactive approaches to identifying 

hazards and managing safety risks in 

day-to-day activities, establishing safety 

risk-based resource allocation, 

monitoring and evaluating performance 

towards goals, and continuous learning 

and improvement. SMS is a significant 

improvement over more ‘‘reactive’’ 

safety activities, which tend to focus on 

discovering and mitigating the cause of 

an accident only after that accident has 

occurred. 

SMS integrates safety into all aspects 

of a transit system’s activities, from 

planning to design, to construction, to 

operations, and 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, policies, and 

procedures in place to direct and 

control resources to manage safety 

optimally. When fully applied, the SMS 

approach provides a set of decisionmaking tools that allow transit agencies 

to prioritize safety when making 

informed operating and capital 

investment decisions. 

SMS is comprised of four essential 

components: (1) Safety Management 

Policy, (2) Safety Risk Management, (3) 

Safety Assurance, and (4) Safety 

Promotion. Each of these components, 

or ‘‘pillars,’’ is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d). The table below illustrates the 

connection between each of the 

statutory requirements for safety plans 

and the pillars of SMS. 

TABLE 2—CROSSWALK BETWEEN THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFETY PLANS AND THE PILLARS OF SMS 

Statutory provision Safety plan must include: SMS Pillar 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A) .......... ‘‘a requirement that the board of directors (or equivalent entity) of the recipient 

approve the agency safety plan and any updates to the agency safety plan’’.

Safety Management Policy. 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B) .......... ‘‘methods for identifying and evaluating safety risks throughout all elements of the 

public transportation system of the recipient’’.

Safety Risk Management. 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(C) ......... ‘‘strategies to minimize exposure of the public, personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions’’.Safety Risk Management. 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D) ......... ‘‘a process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the safety 

plan of the recipient’’.

Safety Assurance. 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E) .......... ‘‘performance targets based on the safety performance criteria and state of good 

repair standards’’.

Safety Management Policy. 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(F) .......... ‘‘assignment of an adequately trained safety officer who reports directly to the 

general manager, president, or equivalent officer of the recipient’’.

Safety Management Policy. 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(G) ......... ‘‘a comprehensive staff training program for the operations personnel directly responsible for safety of the recipient’’.Safety Promotion. 

Safety Management Policy is the 

foundation of the organization’s SMS. 

The safety management policy 

statement clearly states the 

organization’s safety objectives and sets 

forth the policies, procedures, and 

organizational structures necessary to 

accomplish the safety objectives. It 

clearly delineates management and 

employee responsibilities for safety 

throughout the organization. It also 

ensures that management is actively 

engaged in the oversight of the 

organization’s safety performance by 

requiring regular review of the safety 

policy by a designated Accountable 

Executive (general manager, president, 

or other person with similar authority). 

Within the context of the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan, an 

organization’s safety objectives will be 

articulated through the setting of 

performance targets based on, at a 

minimum, the safety performance 

criteria established in the National 

Public Transportation Safety Plan, and 

state of good repair standards based on 

the definition of that term established 

under the National Transit Asset 

Management System Rule. See 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(1)(E). 

Pursuant to the statutory requirements 

at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B) and (C), each 

agency’s Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan must include ‘‘methods for 

identifying and evaluating safety risks 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6349 

13See FAA’s Final Rule, ‘‘Safety Management 

Systems for Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental 

Operations Certificate Holders,’’ 14 CFR parts 5 and 

119, 80 FR 1308, Jan. 8, 2015. 

14See http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2015/2015-02- 

25/html/sor-dors26-eng.php. 

throughout all elements of the public 

transportation system,’’ and ‘‘strategies 

to minimize the exposure of the public, 

personnel, and property to hazards and 

unsafe conditions.’’ Each of these 

requirements is consistent with the 

second component of SMS—Safety Risk 

Management—which requires the 

development of processes and activities 

to help the organization better identify 

hazards associated with its operational 

systems. Once identified, a transit 

agency would evaluate the safety risk 

associated with the potential 

consequences of these hazards, and then 

institute mitigations, as necessary, to 

control the consequences or minimize 

the safety risk. Additionally, FTA 

proposes to require a transit agency to 

perform hazard identification activities 

on those assets that do not meet the 

state of good repair standards 

established under the National Transit 

Asset Management System. 

The statutory requirements at 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B), (C), and (D) also 

encompass the requirements of the third 

component of SMS—Safety Assurance. 

Safety Assurance requires an 

organization to monitor the 

effectiveness of safety risk mitigations 

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. One of the 

keys elements of Safety Assurance is a 

regular review and update of a transit 

agency’s SMS and overall safety plan to 

ensure their effectiveness. 

The fourth component of SMS— 

Safety Promotion—involves the 

training, awareness, and communication 

that support safety. The training aspect 

of SMS is consistent with the statutory 

requirement for a comprehensive staff 

training program for operations 

personnel and personnel directly 

responsible for safety. 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(1)(G). 

Service providers within the public 

transportation industry can vary greatly 

based on size, complexity, and 

operating characteristics. Transit 

agencies need safety processes, 

activities, and tools that scale to size, 

complexity, and uniqueness of the 

transit system. SMS provides such an 

approach. SMS is flexible, and can be 

scaled to the mode, size, and complexity 

of any transit operator, in any 

environment—urban, suburban, or rural. 

The extent to which the transit agency’s 

SMS processes, activities, and tools are 

used and documented will vary from 

agency to agency. For a small bus 

operation, SMS is going to be simple 

and straightforward. For a larger transit 

agency with hundreds or thousands of 

employees and multiple modes, SMS is 

going to be more complex. 

SMS scales itself to reflect the size 

and complexity of the operation, but the 

fundamental accountability remains the 

same. SMS establishes the 

accountabilities, processes and activities 

necessary to ensure that appropriate 

information rises to the highest levels of 

the organization to support decisionmaking related to safety risk. However, 

each transit agency will determine the 

level of detail necessary to identify and 

evaluate its own unique safety risks and 

target its resources to manage those 

safety risks. 

Other modes of transportation, such 

as the aviation and rail industries, have 

adopted SMS as the foundation and 

framework for their safety systems given 

the success of SMS in preventing and 

mitigation safety outcomes. For 

example, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) recently adopted 

SMS and promulgated a regulation 

which requires certain air carriers to 

develop safety plans based on the 

principles of SMS.13 In the rail industry, 

FRA is proposing to adopt SMS in its 

rulemaking which would require 

railroads to develop system safety 

program plans, largely based on the 

principles of SMS, under 49 CFR part 

270. 

There is also preliminary evidence of 

the success of SMS as an effective 

method of mitigating and preventing 

safety outcomes in other modes of 

transportation in other parts of the 

world. For example, Transport Canada 

has noted that, in the area of rail safety: 

[N]ot only have qualitative benefits been 

identified, but statistics reflect a correlation 

between the introduction of the safety 

management system approach in 2001 and 

improved safety statistics. Statistical analysis 

. . . indicates a downward trend in accident 

rates . . . over the past 10 years. Moreover, 

since 2007, train accidents have decreased by 

23% and passenger train accidents have 

decreased by 19%. This decrease can be 

linked to increased levels of consultation and 

communication between the three largest 

railway companies and Transport Canada, 

enhanced focus on safety management 

systems, and a variety of new safety 

initiatives related to operations and 

infrastructure. It is therefore expected that 

updates to safety management systems would 

help further reduce the number of accidents, 

fatalities and injuries, and property 

damage.14

In short, FTA believes that SMS is the 

most effective way of preventing and 

mitigating safety events in the transit 

industry. Notwithstanding the above, 

FTA seeks comments from the public on 

alternative regulatory requirements, 

potentially in combination with nonmandatory guidance, that would satisfy 

the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d) and that may more costeffectively improve the safety of the 

nation’s public transportation systems. 

FTA specifically invites the public to 

provide information to allow the 

comparison of the benefits and costs of 

FTA’s proposed requirements to 

alternative approaches. 

D. The Role of the Accountable 

Executive With Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset 

Management Plans 

Each transit agency has a process by 

which it budgets, allocates funds, and 

plans for the future. In most cases, this 

decision-making process is led by a 

President, General Manager, or Chief 

Executive Officer who formulates and 

proposes capital and operating budgets. 

For purposes of the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan and 

Transit Asset Management Plan rules, 

FTA is proposing to require transit 

agencies to identify these individuals as 

the ‘‘Accountable Executives’’ for those 

agencies. The Accountable Executive 

would be responsible approving the 

transit agency’s Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan, and any updates 

thereto. The Accountable Executive 

would be responsible for the 

implementation and maintenance of the 

SMS. This Accountable Executive also 

would be responsible for making 

decisions over the human and capital 

resources needed to develop and 

maintain the agency’s Transit Asset 

Management Plan required by 49 U.S.C. 

5326. FTA intends that the individual 

who is responsible for making decisions 

related to the condition of the agency’s 

capital assets, particularly whether 

those assets are in a state of good repair, 

is also responsible for implementing the 

agency’s SMS and determining whether 

those assets are presenting any safety 

risks. This individual must have the 

ability to make budgetary, operational, 

and capital program decisions to 

address these competing needs and 

issues. 

Ultimately, the decisions made by the 

Accountable Executive regarding the 

proposed capital and operating budgets 

typically are presented for approval to 

the transit agency’s Board of Directors or 

equivalent entity. An Accountable 

Executive and members of the transit 

agency’s Board of Directors must make 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6350 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

strategic decisions regarding operational 

and service demands, capital 

investments, and the safety resource 

needs of the system. This often can be 

challenging due to budget constraints 

and service demand pressures. It is 

important that safety receives 

appropriate attention by the 

Accountable Executive and Board of 

Directors as they make decisions 

regarding operating and capital budgets. 

Within an SMS environment, the 

Accountable Executive would rely on 

outputs of SMS processes and activities 

to ensure that a transit agency’s strategic 

planning is informed and transparent 

with regard to the role of safety in 

decision-making. 

III. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Response to Relevant 

Comments 

As discussed above, FTA issued an 

ANPRM on October 3, 2013. 78 FR 

61251 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ 

FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf). 

The comment period closed on January 

2, 2014. The ANPRM sought comment 

on 123 questions related to the 

implementation of the public 

transportation safety program and 

transit asset management. In response to 

the ANPRM, FTA received comments 

from 167 entities, including States, 

transit agencies, trade associations, and 

individuals. FTA received and reviewed 

approximately 2,500 pages of 

comments. Throughout the ANPRM, 

FTA expressed its intention to adopt a 

comprehensive approach to safety that 

would be scalable and flexible. 

Of the 123 questions presented in the 

ANPRM, FTA is addressing 42 

questions in this notice related to Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 

Specifically, FTA addresses the 

following questions in this notice: 8–10, 

17–31, 33–44, 47, 107–110, 112, and 

116–121. 

To reduce the burden on readers, 

where applicable and possible, FTA 

provides a summation and/or reference 

to the State Safety Oversight Program, or 

Public Transportation Safety Program 

NPRMs as a way to direct the reader to 

the appropriate discussion and limit 

redundancy. 

FTA took relevant comments into 

consideration when developing this 

proposed rule. Below, the ANPRM 

comments and responses are subdivided 

by subject and corresponding question 

numbers. 

A. Scope and Applicability of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

B. Safety Management Systems 

C. Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan Development, Certification, and 

Oversight 

D. Role of the Board of Directors (or 

Equivalent Authority) and the Chief 

Safety Officer 

E. Coordination of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

with Other MAP–21 Programs and 

Rules 

A. Scope and Applicability of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

(Questions 22, 31, 33 and 43) 

In the Plan Requirements section of 

the ANPRM, FTA sought input on the 

costs and benefits of including rail, bus, 

and other public transportation modes 

under one Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan for those agencies 

that operate multiple modes of public 

transportation. The State’s Role section 

of the ANPRM sought comment on the 

applicability of Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan requirements to 

recipients of Section 5311 Tribal Transit 

Formula and Tribal Transit 

Discretionary Program funds. The 

ANPRM also sought comment on how to 

define small public transportation 

providers under 49 U.S.C. 5307 (Section 

5307) and whether or not the scope of 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan requirements should be less 

stringent for smaller public transit 

providers. 

Comments: Commenters were evenly 

split on whether multiple modes should 

be combined into one agency-wide 

safety plan or whether multi-modal 

agencies should develop separate safety 

plans for each of their modes. Many 

commenters felt strongly that a single 

plan should be adopted in order to 

maintain agency-wide consistency and 

uniformity in overall safety culture. 

Other commenters suggested that rail 

and bus modes require separate safety 

plans due to inherent differences in 

safety concerns and focus. Additional 

respondents requested that FTA allow 

flexibility on this matter, leaving it up 

to each individual agency as to whether 

to adopt separate safety plans by mode 

or to combine all modes into one 

agency-wide safety plan. 

In regards to 49 U.S.C. 5311 Tribal 

recipients, some commenters stated that 

FTA should decide how best to apply 

safety plan provisions to these 

recipients. Other commenters suggested 

that Section 5311 Tribal recipients 

should report directly to FTA, and 

others stated that Tribal recipients 

should be included in standard 

statewide safety plans. Additionally, a 

few commenters suggested that 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d) does not apply to State 

subrecipients or Tribal Transit 

recipients. One commenter 

recommended that Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

requirements should apply equally to all 

recipients, including those receiving 

funds through the Tribal Transit 

Formula and Tribal Transit 

Discretionary Programs. 

In terms of whether or not 

requirements should be less stringent 

for smaller public transit providers, 

several commenters suggested that, 

while there should be consistency in the 

approach to safety, smaller transit 

providers should not be subjected to 

overly burdensome requirements and 

should be allowed to implement less 

stringent approaches to safety 

management. These and other 

commenters also suggested that, if 

possible, smaller transit providers 

should be able to pool resources with 

States or other transit providers for 

expenses associated with acquiring 

safety training, if possible. To this point, 

a few commenters recommended that 

FTA adopt CTAA’s Certified Safety and 

Security Officer Certification Program as 

a way to minimize additional training 

cost for small transit providers. In 

general, many commenters 

recommended that the scope of FTA’s 

requirement should be scalable and 

flexible enough to recognize that smaller 

transit operations may contain fewer 

safety risks than those of larger transit 

agencies. 

With respect to FTA’s question as to 

how it should define small Section 5307 

public transportation providers, several 

commenters recommended that the 

definition should be based on either the 

population of the urbanized area (UZA) 

that the transit agency serves or by the 

number of vehicles in operation during 

peak service. Specifically, commenters 

stated that either a population between 

50,000 and 200,000, or a population of 

200,000 or less, should be used as the 

threshold to define a small Section 5307 

public transportation provider. Other 

commenters stated that 100 buses or 

fewer in peak service should be the 

threshold set for a small Section 5307 

public transportation provider, as it is a 

measure familiar throughout the entire 

public transportation industry and less 

subject to variation than other similar 

measures. A few commenters 

recommended that the definition used 

for waivers in the National Transit 

Database (NTD)—thirty or fewer 

vehicles across all modes and types of 

service—should be used as the measure 

to define a small Section 5307 public 

transportation provider. Other 

commenters suggested that FTA define 

these agencies by size of area served, 

revenue miles, or passenger counts. 

Finally, a few commenters suggested 

that the States should have no role in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6351 

overseeing the safety of small Section 

5307 public transportation providers. 

Response: In today’s NPRM, FTA 

proposes that a transit agency may 

include more than one mode of service 

in a single plan, or may have individual 

safety plans for each mode of service. 

FTA agrees that flexibility is important 

on this matter, and that each agency 

should have discretion in deciding 

which approach is appropriate for its 

particular operations. FTA does not 

intend to promulgate safety regulations 

that will apply to either commuter rail 

systems that are regulated by the FRA or 

to ferry systems that are regulated by the 

United States Coast Guard (USCG). FTA 

invites additional comments on how 

FTA could support the development of 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans for transit agencies of different 

sizes and modes. 

Although FTA is proposing to provide 

flexibility to transit agencies so that they 

can determine for themselves whether 

they will develop a single safety plan for 

all modes of transit, or whether they 

will develop individual safety plans for 

each mode, FTA is not proposing to 

allow transit agencies to utilize their 

FRA-required commuter railroad safety 

plans for other modes of transit 

regulated by FTA. FTA notes that on 

September 7, 2012, FRA issued an 

NPRM related to its System Safety 

Program. 77 FR 55406. In this NPRM, 

FRA proposes to require any railroad 

that operates intercity or commuter 

passenger train service and any railroad 

that provides commuter or other shorthaul rail passenger train service to 

develop a System Safety Program Plan. 

FRA proposes to protect from discovery, 

evidence, and Federal and State court 

proceedings any information compiled 

or collected solely for the purpose of 

developing, implementing, or evaluating 

a System Safety Program Plan, including 

a railroad’s analysis of its safety risks 

and its identification of safety risk 

mitigation measures. Given FRA’s 

proposal and given the fact that FTA 

does not have similar statutory authority 

to protect data, an operator of a public 

transportation system which provides 

commuter rail service regulated by FRA 

would not be able to use its System 

Safety Program Plan for other modes of 

public transportation. The public 

transportation provider would be 

required to develop a separate plan or 

plans for its other modes of public 

transportation subject to FTA’s safety 

regulation. 

In today’s NPRM, FTA proposes, 

consistent with the statutory mandate, 

that requirements of Part 673 would 

apply to all operators of public 

transportation systems that receive 

Federal financial assistance under 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53. FTA proposes to 

define an operator of a public 

transportation system to mean a 

provider of public transportation as 

defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302(14). This 

definition generally includes regular, 

continuing shared ride surface 

transportation that is open to the public, 

and which does not provide service that 

is closed to the general public and only 

available for particular clientele, such as 

Section 5310-funded service that is not 

open to the general public and only 

available for a particular clientele. FTA 

invites comments from the public 

regarding the definition of the term, 

‘‘operator of a public transportation 

system.’’ 

While Congress did not specify that 

Section 5310 providers could have their 

plans drafted or certified by a State, 

FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329 applies 

to all operators of public transportation 

systems that receive Chapter 53 funds. 

The definition of public transportation 

in 49 U.S.C. 5302 includes services that 

‘‘are open to a segment of the general 

public defined by age, disability, or low 

income.’’ The Section 5310 program 

historically has funded vehicles for nonprofit agencies that serve these segments 

of the general public, either in open 

door service or closed door service 

available only to clients of a particular 

agency or agencies. Importantly, not 

every entity that receives Section 5310 

funds is a small non-profit agency with 

one or two FTA-funded vehicles. Many 

Section 5310 providers operate 

substantial fixed route or demand 

response service, including ADA 

complementary paratransit service, and 

in many cases these entities also receive 

urbanized (Section 5307) or rural area 

(Section 5311) formula funds. 

FTA therefore is proposing that the 

type of service, rather than the source of 

FTA funds, be the deciding factor in 

determining whether a Section 5310 

recipient must have a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan. In 

the case when a Section 5310 provider 

operates service that is open door 

service (open to a segment of the general 

public), FTA proposes that the Section 

5310 provider must have its Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

drafted and certified by a State, unless 

the Section 5310 provider opts to draft 

and certify its own plan. Most of these 

Section 5310 providers are smaller 

operators of public transportation 

systems, and through this requirement, 

FTA intends to alleviate the 

administrative and financial burdens 

placed on Section 5310 providers in 

complying with this part. In the case 

when a Section 5310 provider operates 

service that is closed to the general 

public and only available for a 

particular clientele, FTA proposes that 

neither the State nor the Section 5310 

provider would be required to develop 

and certify a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan. In other words, 

nonprofit and other community service 

organizations that receive Section 5310 

funds and provide closed door service 

would not be required to draft and 

certify Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. 

FTA seeks comments from the public 

on these proposals, particularly as to 

whether a Section 5310 provider 

operating a public transportation system 

should be required to develop and 

implement a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan, whether or not the 

entity also receives Section 5307 or 

Section 5311 funds, and if so, whether 

that plan should be drafted and certified 

by a State. FTA also seeks comment as 

to whether a designated recipient under 

49 U.S.C. 5310 should draft and certify 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans on behalf of Section 5310 

providers in large urbanized areas 

instead of the State, or if the States 

should draft and certify those plans. 

FTA anticipates scalability and 

flexibility in agency plan development, 

and FTA will provide substantial 

technical assistance and guidance to all 

recipients and subrecipients. Proposed 

requirements in today’s NPRM 

recognize the variance in size, 

complexity, and operating 

characteristics of the public 

transportation industry. 

Because 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) provides 

that States may draft and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

Section 5311 providers (most of which 

are smaller transit agencies) and small 

public transportation providers under 

Section 5307, and because SMS 

implementation is inherently scalable, 

FTA believes that today’s proposal 

provides sufficient flexibility for States 

and small transit providers, such that 

they would not be expected to incur 

expenses for safety management equal 

to those of a large transit agency. While 

FTA proposes that 49 CFR part 673 

would apply to all Chapter 53 operators 

of public transportation systems, the 

proposed requirements may be scaled to 

address variances in transit agency size, 

complexity, and operating environment. 

In today’s NPRM, FTA proposes to 

define small public transportation 

providers under Section 5307 based on 

vehicles operating in revenue service. 

Any public transportation provider that 

does not operate rail fixed guideway 

service and operates 100 or fewer 

vehicles in revenue service, including 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6352 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

fixed route, general public paratransit, 

and Americans with Disabilities Act 

complementary paratransit, would be 

considered a small Section 5307 public 

transportation provider for purposes of 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan development and certification. 

FTA considered various alternatives 

suggested by commenters, such as using 

a lower vehicles operating in revenue 

service threshold or UZA population. 

FTA evaluated each alternative, 

assessing safety performance, resource 

burden, and consistency with other FTA 

programs and definitions. Ultimately, 

FTA agreed with commenters that 

recommended the 100 or fewer vehicles 

operating in revenue service option 

because it results in a lower degree of 

burden placed on individual Section 

5307 public transportation providers 

and it creates alignment with FTA’s 

Transit Asset Management Program 

proposed rule. By using this number, 

FTA is trying to ensure that the lowest 

administrative, financial, and regulatory 

burdens are placed on the transit 

industry, including small transit 

providers. This is a number that the 

industry commonly uses to define small 

Section 5307 bus agencies, particularly 

in regards to FTA operating assistance. 

See 49 U.S.C. 5307(a)(2)(B). FTA also is 

proposing to use this number as a 

benchmark in its Transit Asset 

Management NPRM, so FTA is 

proposing to use the 100-bus threshold 

here for consistency. 

B. Safety Management Systems 

(Questions 17–21, 27–28) 

Section I of the ANPRM highlighted 

FTA’s intention to propose the SMS 

approach as the foundation for the 

development, implementation, 

oversight, and enforcement of the new 

Public Transportation Safety Program. 

The ANPRM posed several questions 

related to SMS, including questions 

related to: (1) Barriers to SMS adoption; 

(2) the need for technical assistance; (3) 

the current use of SMS in the transit 

industry and alternative approaches; 

and (4) the current practices and 

challenges with the management of 

safety risks. These ANPRM questions 

also related to the adoption of SMS by 

FTA and the use of SMS to inform 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans. 

1. Barriers to SMS Adoption and Need 

for Technical Assistance 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that the SMS approach may 

be burdensome for smaller transit 

agencies to implement, and identified or 

listed barriers or challenges to adopting 

SMS principles. Specifically, these 

commenters suggested the following as 

barriers to adoption: A lack of financial 

resources, inconsistent or insufficient 

training on SMS (both classroom and 

online), limited staffing for development 

and implementation of SMS, the burden 

of additional data collection and 

documentation, and concern that SMS 

is a departure from tried and true safety 

practices. Many respondents requested 

that training programs be scalable based 

on agency size; several responders 

pointed out that attendance at off-site 

training programs would be practically 

impossible for small agencies, where a 

single employee is often the only person 

capable of fulfilling critical agency 

functions. There were many requests for 

FTA to provide training programs 

online to ease this burden on already 

taxed agencies and employees. Other 

commenters noted the challenges for 

agencies with boards of directors 

consisting of local politicians whose 

decisions are subject to political 

pressure; the importance of 

distinguishing between the FRArequired model and the SMS model for 

agencies that operate in a shared rail 

corridor; and the ability of FTA to 

provide clear guidance on defining how 

SMS principles are to be interpreted and 

applied. Additionally, a few 

commenters suggested that SMS might 

be challenging to implement within the 

current management/labor collective 

bargaining agreement process. Other 

commenters suggested that, for a system 

that contracts for some or all of its 

service, implementing SMS would be 

challenging and difficult. A few 

commenters stated that the practical 

benefit from a fully-implemented SMS 

far outweighs the effort needed to 

overcome potential challenges. 

Conversely, a few other commenters 

were opposed to any adoption of SMS 

by Federal regulation whatsoever. 

Response: FTA proposes to adopt 

SMS as the framework for managing 

safety risks in the transit industry 

because SMS is flexible and scalable, 

and also provides a level of 

implementation that is commensurate 

with the size and complexity of transit 

agencies. For additional information on 

SMS, FTA recommends readers review 

Appendix A to FTA’s NPRM on State 

Safety Oversight Programs (see 80 FR 

11002, Feb. 27, 2015; http://www.gpo.

gov/;fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-27/pdf/2015- 

03841.pdf), FTA’s SMS Framework 

guidance document (see http://www.fta.

dot.gov/documents/FTA_SMS_

Framework.pdf), and FTA’s forthcoming 

National Public Transportation Safety 

Plan. Today’s proposal reflects key 

elements of the law that are consistent 

with SMS principles and methods. Each 

element of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1) sets 

forth requirements for transit agency 

safety management that are critical to an 

effective SMS, namely: Executive 

management accountability, the 

identification of hazards, the evaluation 

of safety risks, the strategies to mitigate 

these safety risks, regular reviews of a 

transit agency’s safety system, direct 

lines of safety reporting, and a 

commitment to safety training. 

SMS processes and activities can 

assist transit agencies in identifying 

safety concerns and issues, evaluating 

these concerns for their potential impact 

on transit safety, and developing costeffective mitigations to address safety 

concerns so that an accident or safety 

event can be prevented. FTA does not 

agree that SMS is a departure from tried 

and true safety practices. SMS, as a 

management system, embraces current 

safety practices and activities, and 

ensures that transit agency executive 

management is presented with timely 

information to act on safety risks in a 

proactive manner. 

Today’s rulemaking proposes that 

each transit agency would be required to 

implement SMS. FTA believes that it is 

critical for each transit agency to work 

through the process of identifying and 

managing safety risks that may be 

unique to its size, operations, and 

operating environment. Because SMS 

processes, activities and tools can be 

adapted to the size, complexity, and 

uniqueness of the transit agency, FTA 

believes it is the best approach to 

address the requirements set forth in 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d)(1). For example, the 

safety reporting program of a large 

agency might require rather important 

and robust IT support for data 

management and several safety data 

analysts, whereas the same program for 

a small agency might be administered 

with a spreadsheet for data management 

and a part-time safety analyst or a staff 

person who analyzes safety data as an 

ancillary duty. 

To reduce the administrative, 

financial, and regulatory burdens on 

small public transportation providers, 

the proposed rule requires States to 

draft and certify Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans—and 

documentation of SMS processes 

therein—for Section 5310, Section 5311, 

and small public transportation 

providers, unless those providers opt to 

draft and certify their own safety plans. 

Although FTA proposes to require 

States to draft and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 

FTA proposes that each recipient which 

operates a public transportation system 

implement its own safety plan, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6353 

regardless of the size of the agency. In 

other words, States will lend their 

resources and technical expertise to 

smaller operators of public 

transportation by drafting the safety 

plans and by certifying to FTA that the 

plans they drafted satisfy all of FTA’s 

requirements. The plans will include 

various elements, such as processes for 

identifying safety hazards and risks, 

processes for evaluating those safety 

hazards and risks, and processes for 

mitigating those safety hazards and 

risks, as appropriate. The transit 

agencies will have to perform those 

activities themselves—not the States— 

thus, the individual transit agencies are 

responsible for ‘‘implementing’’ and 

‘‘carrying out’’ the plans that are drafted 

by the States, but the States will be 

ultimately responsible for drafting and 

certification functions (unless a small 

transit agency opts to draft and certify 

its own agency safety plan). 

Additionally, each transit agency would 

be responsible for implementing SMS 

that scales to the size and complexity of 

the organization. As a result, FTA 

expects that the Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan also will scale for 

smaller organizations. 

In an effort to further reduce the 

administrative, financial, and regulatory 

burdens on recipients and other public 

transportation operators, FTA will 

develop and issue templates for Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

agencies of different sizes. FTA also will 

develop and issue guidance and other 

tools, and provide technical assistance, 

to support SMS development and 

implementation. 

Some commenters suggested that a 

need for SMS training exists, and that 

transit agencies may experience 

challenges with the development and 

implementation of SMS. To address 

these concerns, FTA will continue to 

develop and provide safety training for 

the industry, and FTA also will collect 

and provide information on other 

sources of outside SMS training. 

Currently, FTA provides a number of 

courses to support transit agency safety 

training needs. FTA intends to expand 

these offerings, including online 

courses, to support general safety 

training, as well as training on SMS 

principles and methods. FTA is piloting 

SMS training courses. Additionally, 

FTA will launch an Agency SMS 

Implementation Pilot Program to help 

reduce the burden on transit agencies 

for developing SMS by identifying 

effective safety practices, including 

training that will be shared with the 

industry. These efforts, coupled with 

technical guidance, will directly assist 

those agencies for which a lack of 

training and guidance may be a barrier 

to SMS implementation. Recently, FTA 

issued Final Interim Safety Certification 

Training Provisions which set forth the 

safety training requirements for Federal 

and State Safety Oversight Agency 

personnel and their contractors who 

conduct safety oversight audits and 

examinations of public transportation 

systems not otherwise regulated by 

another Federal agency. See 80 FR 

10619 (Feb. 27, 2015) (http://www.gpo.

gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-27/pdf/2015- 

03842.pdf). Consistent with the 

statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(1)(G), FTA’s proposed training 

requirements and technical assistance 

discussed in this NPRM are intended to 

address the training needs of those 

individuals directly responsible for 

safety, and they are intended to 

complement the requirements and 

technical assistance for safety oversight 

personnel as discussed in the Final 

Interim Safety Certification Training 

Provisions. 

FTA disagrees with commenters who 

suggested that there might be additional 

challenges with SMS adoption because 

of political and legal issues with Boards 

of Directors and local politics. Just as a 

Board of Directors is responsible for the 

service levels provided to the 

community and budgets adopted, they 

are also accountable for safety 

outcomes. FTA believes that SMS 

provides greater transparency in the 

prioritization of, and decision-making 

regarding, a transit agency’s safety risks. 

Today’s notice mirrors statutory 

language in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) with 

respect to executive level accountability 

and would require that a transit 

agency’s Board of Directors (or 

equivalent authority) review and 

approve the Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan. 

One commenter suggested that a 

challenge to SMS adoption may be the 

difficulty in distinguishing between the 

FRA-required safety model and the SMS 

model. FTA believes that SMS 

implementation encourages 

coordination in Safety Risk Management 

for all modes operated by a transit 

agency. However, and in response to 

this comment, FTA notes that it has 

different statutory authority than FRA 

for regulating safety, and to the extent 

another Federal agency already 

regulates safety of a particular mode of 

transportation, FTA does not intend to 

promulgate duplicative, inconsistent, or 

conflicting regulations. Therefore, 

agencies that operate passenger ferries 

regulated by the United States Coast 

Guard or commuter rail service 

regulated by FRA would not have to 

develop FTA safety plans for those 

modes of service. FTA seeks public 

comments on whether any aspect of this 

proposed rule is duplicative, 

inconsistent, or conflicts with other 

Federal agency regulations. 

With respect to comments related to 

perceived challenges in SMS 

implementation due to management/

labor collective bargaining agreements 

or for systems that contract for service, 

today’s proposed rule does not include 

requirements regarding collective 

bargaining, and FTA anticipates that 

each transit agency would benefit from 

increased information on safety issues 

and performance. 

2. Current Use of SMS in the Transit 

Industry and Alternative Approaches 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that they currently practice 

SMS-related activities, and provided 

detailed responses. Commenters 

identified, in part, the following list of 

activities and practices: Data-driven 

safety performance management; 

employee safety reporting programs; 

committee structures to support safety 

communication and safety risk 

evaluation; safety management policy 

statements; senior management 

accountability; safety audits and 

inspections; designated Safety Officers 

and staff; safety accountabilities and 

responsibilities; proactive hazard 

identification and analysis; accident 

investigation to determine probable 

cause; safety promotion and 

communication; and safety training. 

One commenter indicated that his 

agency has reorganized its safety 

department to reflect the four major 

components of SMS. 

Some commenters indicated that they 

provide alternative safety management 

approaches. Some suggested that FTA 

adopt a centralized, State or regional, 

safety management or other approach 

that would lessen the burden for States. 

One commenter suggested that FTA 

provide an option for transit agencies 

that operate fewer than 100 vehicles, or 

other small transit agencies, to 

participate in insurance risk pools (and 

be exempted from any requirement to 

develop and implement SMS), while 

other commenters expressed their 

opposition to any rulemaking by FTA 

on SMS because they did not want to be 

subject to Federal regulations on safety. 

Finally, several commenters indicated 

that they were in agreement with FTA’s 

adoption of SMS. 

Response: FTA believes that SMS 

builds on industry safety practices, 

which is evidenced by the number of 

SMS-related activities currently being 

practiced by several of the commenters. 

FTA proposes to adopt SMS to guide the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6354 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15Secretary Anthony Foxx recently issued a 

bicycle and pedestrian safety initiative, and FTA 

encourages transit agencies to consider that 

initiative when developing their safety plans (see 

http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/safer_

people_safer_streets_summary_doc_acc_v1-11- 

9.pdf). 

advancement of FTA’s safety 

rulemakings, and therefore, today’s rule 

proposes that Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans must address the 

basic four components of SMS: (1) 

Safety Management Policy, (2) Safety 

Risk Management, (3) Safety Assurance, 

and (4) Safety Promotion (explained in 

more detail in the Section-by-Section 

Analysis of Subpart C of the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan, 

below). 

Recipients may utilize additional 

safety management practices, but 

recipients would be required to meet the 

basic requirements as set forth in 

today’s proposed rule. Based on 

comments received, FTA is confident 

that the transit industry already has 

some elements of SMS in place. 

With respect to commenters who 

suggested a more centralized State 

management approach, today’s proposal 

requires States to draft and certify 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans on behalf of Section 5310, Section 

5311, and small public transportation 

providers (as defined in this NPRM). 

FTA disagrees with the commenter who 

proposed that transit agencies operating 

fewer than 100 vehicles be exempt from 

SMS requirements in favor of insurance 

risk pools. While insurance risk pools 

may take into account safety risk, FTA 

does not believe that they meet all 

elements of an SMS, nor do they satisfy 

all of the statutory requirements of 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans. Nothing in today’s proposal 

would prevent transit agencies from 

participating in insurance risk pools in 

addition to implementing a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan with 

SMS. 

3. Current Practices and Challenges 

With the Management of Safety Risk 

Related to Human Factors 

Comments: Many commenters stated 

they currently apply some type of riskbased approach in managing safety risks 

related to human factors. These 

approaches included drug and alcohol 

program testing, post-incident testing, 

commercial driver’s license physical 

examination requirements, fitness for 

duty physical examinations, medical 

evaluations, application of the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

hours of service regulations, fatigue 

awareness training, medication 

reporting, sleep disorder screening, and 

evaluating the ability of employees to 

comply with procedures and rules. 

One commenter suggested that 

another potential issue with adopting a 

risk-based approach to human factors 

relates to transit employees’ rights to 

health privacy. A few commenters 

recommended that FTA take a statistical 

sample approach to gather data on this 

subject, which could inform and guide 

further formulation of agency safety 

plan requirements. 

Response: FTA is encouraged that 

many transit agencies already take a 

risk-based approach in managing safety 

risks related to human factors, and are 

doing so through a number of different 

methods, including those listed above. 

This is a positive step towards 

implementing the Safety Risk 

Management component of SMS, and 

FTA encourages agencies to continue to 

conduct these risk-based approaches to 

managing safety risks related to human 

factors. FTA also encourages agencies to 

take into account bicycle and pedestrian 

safety concerns, along with other 

factors, as agencies are conducting 

Safety Risk Management.15 As 

discussed above, FTA intends to 

provide additional guidance, technical 

assistance, and training regarding SMS. 

C. Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan Development, Certification, and 

Oversight (Questions 25–26, 30, 34–42, 

44–47, 107–110, 112) 

The ANPRM posed several questions 

related to the development, 

certification, and oversight of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 

Specifically, FTA sought comments in 

the following areas: (1) Plan drafting 

and updating, (2) plan certification, (3) 

the role of the State, and (4) oversight 

of the plan. Questions regarding the 

drafting, certification, or oversight of a 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan that included reference to the role 

of the State are addressed in Section 3: 

Role of the State, below. 

1. Plan Drafting and Updating 

Comments: Many commenters 

suggested that FTA can reduce the 

administrative burden of drafting Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans by 

providing transit agencies with 

templates, models, and assistance to 

support agency safety plan 

development. Some commenters stated 

that FTA should provide the safety plan 

templates and a few others stated that 

State Departments of Transportation 

(State DOTs) should provide the 

templates. Other commenters stated that 

FTA could reduce the burden by not 

requiring annual safety plan updates. A 

few commenters recommended that 

either FTA not promulgate or reduce the 

requirements for small transit providers. 

Finally, a few commenters suggested 

that FTA utilize only the current level 

of NTD reporting requirements, and not 

expand safety data reporting, as it 

would add unnecessary burdens. 

Response: As mentioned previously, 

FTA intends to provide States and the 

industry with templates to guide and 

support Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan development. FTA does not 

anticipate that a small transit provider 

(or its State in the case of Section 5310, 

Section 5311, and small public 

transportation providers) would require 

as complex of a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan as a larger transit 

provider. One of the key elements of 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans would be the development and 

implementation of SMS principles, and 

inherent to SMS is its scalability and 

flexibility. FTA anticipates the 

scalability and flexibility in plan 

development will not unduly burden 

any particular recipient, and to reduce 

any burdens, FTA intends to develop 

and issue to the industry electronic 

templates, guidance, and training. 

FTA is proposing that recipients and 

other operators of public transportation 

systems update their Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

annually so that they remain current to 

meet evolving needs and so that they 

capture any new best practices in the 

industry. Readers should note that 

reviews and updates to a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

developed by rail fixed guideway 

systems must adhere to the 

requirements that are codified at 49 CFR 

part 659, until FTA issues a final rule 

for State Safety Oversight at 49 CFR part 

674. 

2. Plan Certification and Review 

FTA sought comment on the 

mechanics of Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan certification, 

including the certification for 

subrecipients; whether a selfassessment, or set of procedures, should 

be followed prior to certification; and 

the role of FTA in reviewing plans and 

certifications. 

Comments: Many commenters 

responded that they preferred the use of 

FTA’s annual Certifications and 

Assurances process for certifying that 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans comply with FTA’s statutory and 

regulatory requirements, particularly 

given the industry’s familiarity with this 

process as it is used currently for FTA’s 

standard grant programs. Several of 

these same commenters suggested that 

subrecipient certification should be a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6355 

separate process between the 

subrecipient agency and the designated 

recipient (or State). In addition, a few 

commenters stated that certification 

should not be through FTA’s annual 

Certification and Assurance process, 

and a few commenters stated that 

recipients should self-certify. Several 

commenters also suggested that FTA 

should review the safety plans as part of 

FTA’s Triennial and State Management 

Review (SMR) oversight processes, and 

not as part of the grant approval process. 

Many commenters indicated that they 

do not support FTA’s review of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

certifications on the basis of a weighted 

random sample. A few commenters 

suggested that Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan certifications be 

reviewed on the basis of a weighted 

random sample, as a suitable alternative 

to reviewing all plans. Some 

commenters also indicated that, 

although a weighted random sample 

could be appropriate, it is important 

that the system is not overly 

burdensome. 

Some commenters suggested that FTA 

establish self-assessment procedures, 

but only one commenter indicated that 

FTA should establish procedures for 

recipients to follow before certifying 

their Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. Many commenters 

suggested that it would be helpful if 

FTA established a self-assessment 

checklist, or a tool for recipients to 

utilize, to assist with the certification of 

their Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. Many of these same 

commenters added that the selfassessment tool should make clear 

which components of the plans are 

required by law, and which components 

are at the recipient’s discretion. A few 

commenters indicated that an FTA selfassessment tool would not be helpful 

because agencies differ substantially in 

their plans and practices. 

Response: In keeping with the 

statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d), and many of the comments, 

FTA proposes that each transit agency 

self-certify that it has established a 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan that complies with all of FTA’s 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

through FTA’s annual Certification and 

Assurances process. FTA proposes that 

States are required to certify on behalf 

of subrecipients, which is discussed in 

greater detail below. FTA is not 

proposing that it review safety plans 

prior to grant approval, but FTA intends 

to review the plans through its Triennial 

Review and SMR oversight processes. 

FTA intends to conduct additional 

oversight of Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans and SMS programs, 

outside of the standing Triennial 

Review and SMR processes, at its 

discretion. FTA will consider 

developing a self-assessment tool, 

although this notice does not propose 

the use of a self-assessment tool prior to 

agency safety plan certification. In 

addition, FTA intends to provide the 

industry with technical assistance, as 

needed. 

3. Role of the State 

The ANPRM posed several questions 

related to the role of States in regards to 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans. In the State’s Role section of the 

ANPRM, FTA sought comments with 

respect to States and Section 5311 and 

small Section 5307 public 

transportation providers, including: (1) 

The drafting and updating of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans, (2) 

certifying Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans, and (3) overseeing and 

reviewing the implementation of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

(covered in the subsequent ‘‘Oversight 

of Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans’’ section). 

a. Role of the State in Drafting Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

Comments: Many commenters 

recommended that FTA should allow 

States to draft State safety plans for 

subrecipients. Many commenters 

indicated their support for a national 

and/or statewide template to support 

States’ development of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans, as 

it would relieve the burden on States 

and bring more consistency to the plans. 

A subset of these commenters 

recommended that FTA work closely 

with industry associations such as 

CTAA and APTA in the development of 

the national or statewide Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

templates, including those that could be 

modified to reflect individual transit 

agency operating needs. 

Given the significant degree of 

variance in transit agencies’ size, 

complexity, and operating 

environments, several commenters 

suggested that FTA should not allow 

States to develop statewide plans 

applicable to subrecipients and small 

public transportation providers. These 

commenters recommended that FTA 

require transit agencies to develop their 

own Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. Other commenters agreed, 

stating that Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans should reflect local 

safety implementation and that a 

statewide plan may not provide 

sufficient detail for the management of 

safety from agency to agency. Other 

commenters responded with concern 

that States may not have sufficient 

resources and technical capacity to 

develop Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. Finally, a few commenters 

suggested that it would be too great of 

an administrative burden on States to 

develop Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. 

Many commenters indicated that the 

ability to modify the statewide safety 

plan template would be important 

because safety risks can vary from 

agency to agency. Several commenters 

believed that there would be utility with 

FTA or State-generated templates to 

support Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan development. A few 

commenters suggested that FTA allow 

States to have the option of developing 

statewide plans, and these commenters 

recommended that FTA should not 

require States to develop statewide 

plans. 

In terms of the number of safety plans 

that a State might be expected to draft, 

many commenters stated that this 

number could vary from state-to-state 

and range anywhere from 20 to 70 

plans. Another set of commenters stated 

that the number of safety plans a State 

might be expected to draft should be 

determined by the State. 

Response: In this NPRM, FTA 

proposes to require States to draft Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans on 

behalf of Section 5310, Section 5311, 

and small public transportation 

providers. FTA agrees with commenters 

who recommended that FTA should 

require States to develop plans on 

behalf of these providers. As discussed 

above, this proposal is consistent with 

the statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(3), and it reduces the 

administrative, financial, and regulatory 

burden on smaller transit agencies that 

may not have the resources or technical 

expertise to draft and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 

The number of safety plans that a State 

may prepare will vary from state-tostate, and although FTA is requiring the 

State to develop the plan, FTA is not 

instructing States on how to develop 

those plans. For example, a State may 

draft a single statewide plan or it may 

draft individual plans on behalf of each 

Section 5310, Section 5311, and small 

public transportation provider. FTA 

proposes that each Section 5310, 

Section 5311, and small public 

transportation provider may opt to draft 

their own plan if they choose to do so. 

In addition, FTA seeks comments 

from the public regarding the following 

questions: If a State was to draft a 

statewide plan, how would the plan 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6356 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

respond to the SMS component of 

Safety Risk Management (i.e. 

identification of individual agency risks 

and hazards)? Should FTA require 

drafting of single statewide plans or 

individual safety plans on behalf of 

Section 5310, Section 5311, and small 

public transportation providers in that 

State? Or should FTA defer to the 

State’s preference on this requirement? 

With respect to the potential burden 

of plan development, FTA agrees with 

commenters that templates and 

guidance would be beneficial. FTA 

plans to provide technical assistance, 

training, and templates to support plan 

development. Similar to the variety of 

safety plan templates that FTA has 

provided in the past as part of its Bus 

Safety Program, FTA will provide safety 

plan templates for states and transit 

agencies, keeping in consideration 

differences in size, complexity and 

operating characteristics. 

b. Role of State in Certifying Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

In its ANPRM, FTA sought comments 

with respect to the type of assistance 

that should be provided to States that 

choose to certify to FTA the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans on 

behalf of small operators. FTA also 

sought comments on the types of 

requirements and procedures that FTA 

should establish for State certification of 

safety plans. 

Comments: Many commenters 

suggested that a significant burden 

would be imposed upon States if FTA 

required them to certify each and every 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan. These commenters expressed that, 

in part, the burden would be due to a 

lack of staff resources at States and the 

amount of time that staff would need to 

review and certify individual safety 

plans. A number of commenters 

suggested that FTA should allow 

maximum flexibility for States. A few 

commenters suggested that the burden 

would be minimal since they already 

have a role in monitoring agency safety 

plans. Many commenters suggested that 

FTA could reduce the overall 

administrative burden if it provides 

technical assistance and sample 

templates. Many commenters stated that 

FTA should not establish any 

requirements or procedures for States 

that draft and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

subrecipients. Other commenters 

expressed an opinion that 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d) does not require States’ 

subrecipients to develop safety plans. A 

few commenters suggested that FTA 

should establish requirements for States 

that develop and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

their subrecipients. 

Response: FTA proposes to require 

each State to review and certify Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

all Section 5310, Section 5311, and 

small public transportation providers in 

that State. FTA also proposes to require 

States to certify individual subrecipient 

plans, or certify a statewide plan on 

behalf of its subrecipients, particularly 

given the statutory requirement at 49 

U.S.C. 5329 that any ‘‘operator of a 

public transportation system’’ which 

receives Chapter 53 financial assistance 

must draft and certify a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan, 

regardless of its status as a recipient or 

subrecipient. In addition, any Section 

5310, Section 5311, or small public 

transportation provider that opts to draft 

its own plan may also certify its own 

plan. With respect to the process for 

certification of Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans, as noted above, 

FTA proposes to use its annual 

Certifications and Assurances process 

for the certification of the plans. 

4. Oversight and Review of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

The State’s Role section of the 

ANPRM posed questions relating to the 

purview a State might have in 

overseeing subrecipients, how oversight 

should be provided, and the time 

estimated to provide such oversight. In 

addition, FTA asked those States that 

currently perform safety operations 

oversight for non-rail modes, to provide 

information on these programs. Finally, 

this section posed questions about the 

annual review of Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans. 

Comments: Many commenters 

suggested that States should provide 

oversight of transit agencies for which 

the State drafts and certifies the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan (or 

statewide safety plan). Other 

commenters suggested that this form of 

oversight could represent a conflict of 

interest for the State. Additional 

commenters suggested that States do not 

have the staff and expertise to draft and 

certify plans. 

Many commenters suggested that FTA 

should require State DOTs to maintain 

lists of certified subrecipients that have 

established safety plans or are covered 

by a statewide plan. A few commenters 

noted that some states already maintain 

lists of subrecipients. Other commenters 

suggested that State DOTs should not be 

required to maintain these types of lists, 

either because all Section 5311 

subrecipients already will be covered by 

a state management plan, or in their 

opinion, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) does not 

require individual safety plans for State 

DOT subrecipients so there is no need 

to maintain a list. 

In response to FTA’s question 

regarding current safety oversight 

practices, some commenters stated that 

they do not currently perform safety 

oversight for non-rail modes. Other 

commenters suggested that the oversight 

role could be effectively streamlined by 

combining bus oversight into each 

State’s existing rail oversight program, 

but other commenters disagreed. 

Additional commenters stated that 

combining oversight of rail and non-rail 

transit safety may work in some States, 

but it may not work in others, and 

therefore, FTA should not require 

transit agencies to combine oversight 

practices. Some commenters stated that 

bus and rail system elements are very 

different, so the oversight programs 

would be best administered separately. 

Many commenters recommended that 

States should have some sort of 

oversight role of non-rail transit systems 

and could combine bus oversight into 

each State’s existing rail oversight 

program, but others disagreed that they 

could be combined. Finally, several 

commenters suggested that additional 

financial and staffing resources would 

be necessary if FTA requires States to 

provide oversight of non-rail transit, and 

that adding additional staff would take 

considerable time. 

Many commenters suggested that FTA 

should not have a role in reviewing the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans. Other commenters recommended 

that FTA review the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans 

through the Triennial and SMR review 

processes. Finally, many commenters 

suggested that an annual review would 

be too frequent for transit agencies that 

only provide bus service, and an annual 

review may increase a transit agency’s 

operating costs and be difficult to 

implement without diverting resources 

from other agency programs. 

Response: With today’s notice, FTA 

does not propose additional oversight 

requirements for States that draft and 

certify Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. FTA anticipates that 

oversight for Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan implementation for 

agencies that do not operate a rail fixed 

guideway system would be conducted 

primarily through FTA’s SMR and 

Triennial Review Programs. FTA is 

likely to conduct additional oversight of 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans outside of these programs. FTA 

agrees with commenters who suggested 

that States likely already maintain lists 

of subrecipients, and therefore is not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6357 

proposing a requirement for additional 

subrecipient lists. 

With respect to the review of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans, as 

mentioned earlier, FTA intends to 

maintain the authority to review the 

plans during SMR and Triennial 

Reviews or at its sole discretion, such as 

in the event that FTA identifies 

circumstances posing a safety risk. FTA 

disagrees with commenters who 

suggested that an annual review would 

be too frequent. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(1)(D), transit agencies are 

required to perform annual reviews of 

their Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans. FTA proposes that each 

transit agency document its timeline for 

an annual review and update, as 

necessary, of its Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan (§ 673.11(a)(7)). 

D. Role of the Board of Directors (or 

Equivalent Authority) and the Chief 

Safety Officer (Questions 23, 29) 

In the Plan Requirements section of 

the ANPRM, FTA posed a question 

regarding the role of a transit agency’s 

Board of Directors (or equivalent 

authority) with the approval of its 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan. FTA also posed questions 

regarding the roles and responsibilities 

of a transit agency’s executive 

leadership, including the combination 

of roles and responsibilities, particularly 

in smaller operations, where the same 

individual may function as the transit 

agency’s general manager, operations 

manager, and Safety Officer. Related to 

this question, FTA asked if the 

combination of these roles could cause 

any conflict of interest between safety 

and any other agency responsibilities. 

1. Board of Directors (or Equivalent 

Authority) 

Comments: Many commenters 

suggested that if a Transit agency does 

not have a Board of Directors, 

‘‘equivalent entities’’ to a Board of 

Directors generally would be those that 

have authority to make day-to-day 

policy decisions. In the cases where a 

transit agency does not have a Board of 

Directors, several commenters suggested 

that FTA should allow a transit agency’s 

General Manager to certify that it has 

reviewed a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan through FTA’s 

Certifications and Assurances process. 

Other commenters noted that the 

attributes, functions, and authorities of 

an ‘‘equivalent entity’’ to a Board of 

Directors should be the same as that of 

a Board of Directors. A few commenters 

suggested that, in some instances, 

boards of directors and equivalent 

entities may be serving in a volunteer 

capacity, and lack the experience and 

knowledge to develop or certify safety 

plans. These commenters suggested that 

only the State or FTA may have the 

experience and knowledge to develop 

and certify Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans. A few commenters 

stated that if there is no Board of 

Directors, then only the State (or State 

Safety Oversight Agency) or FTA should 

be allowed to approve Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 

Response: FTA is proposing to define 

the term ‘‘Equivalent Authority’’ to 

mean an entity that carries out duties 

similar to that of a Board of Directors, 

including, at the very minimum, 

sufficient authority to review and 

approve a recipient or subrecipient’s 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan. If a recipient or subrecipient does 

not have a Board of Directors to review 

and approve a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan, then FTA proposes 

that the recipient or subrecipient must 

identify an ‘‘Equivalent Authority’’ as 

defined in today’s proposal. For 

example, an ‘‘Equivalent Authority’’ 

could be the policy decision-maker/

grant manager for a Section 5310, 

Section 5311, or small public 

transportation provider; the city council 

and/or city manager for a city; a county 

legislature for a county; or a State 

transportation commission for a State. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A), 

FTA proposes that each Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and 

subsequent updates, would be reviewed 

and approved by the Board of Directors 

(or Equivalent Authority). 

Regarding the role of State Safety 

Oversight Agencies, it would be a 

conflict of interest for those oversight 

authorities to be involved in the 

development of the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans that 

they are charged with overseeing. 

Consequently, FTA is not proposing that 

a State Safety Oversight Agency serve as 

an ‘‘Equivalent Authority’’ for purposes 

of this rule. 

2. Chief Safety Officer 

Comments: When asked what other 

responsibilities might be combined with 

the Safety Officer role, particularly in 

smaller operations where the same 

individual may function as the general 

manager, operations manager, and 

Safety Officer, many commenters 

acknowledged that the Safety Officer 

position could be combined with other 

complementary non-operational 

positions, but these commenters 

recommended that the Safety Officer 

position should not be combined with 

operational roles because the combined 

duties would create a conflict of 

interest. Many other commenters noted 

that small agencies do not have the 

resources to dedicate a single position to 

a Safety Officer role, and in some cases, 

combine operational, maintenance, and 

safety functions under a single 

individual. A few commenters stated 

that a Safety Officer very likely will 

serve many functions within small 

transit agencies, and these commenters 

believe that there are no conflicts of 

interest with this arrangement. 

A few commenters suggested that a 

transit agency could combine the 

following responsibilities with the 

Safety Officer position: training, 

emergency preparedness and 

management, security, risk management 

(claims), quality assurance, and 

environmental management. One 

commenter also stated that FTA needs 

to be very diligent about codifying new 

requirements, and should consider a 

different set of rules for the 20 to 50 

largest transit providers than for smaller 

operators nationwide. 

Response: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(1)(F), a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan must include the 

‘‘assignment of an adequately trained 

Safety Officer who reports directly to 

the general manager, president, or 

equivalent officer of the recipient.’’ The 

intent for this direct reporting 

relationship is to ensure that safety 

matters are directly and routinely 

elevated from the most senior Safety 

Officer to the Accountable Executive. 

FTA agrees that many smaller 

agencies may not have sufficient 

resources for a dedicated Safety Officer. 

In many cases, a transit agency’s Safety 

Officer may serve several other 

functions, including those related to 

safety, operations, and maintenance. 

Consequently, FTA proposes that 

Section 5310, Section 5311, and small 

public transportation providers may 

assign an adequately trained Safety 

Officer to serve other agency functions. 

For example, it would be reasonable to 

anticipate that in a very small bus 

transit agency, the general manager or 

operations manager may be the same 

individual as the Safety Officer. 

Notwithstanding this proposal for 

smaller transit providers, FTA believes 

that it is preferable for larger transit 

systems to have a Safety Officer who 

focuses exclusively on safety-related 

issues, so for rail fixed guideway 

systems and all other recipients, FTA 

proposes that the Safety Officer may not 

also serve in an operational or 

maintenance capacity, and that the 

Safety Officer must report directly to the 

chief executive officer, general manager, 

president, or other equivalent officer. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6358 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

E. Coordination of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan With 

Other MAP–21 Programs and Plans 

(Questions 8–10, 24, 116–121) 

In the ANPRM, FTA discussed the 

statutory requirements regarding 

coordination of the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan with 

the National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan at 49 U.S.C. 5329(b) and the 

Transit Asset Management System at 49 

U.S.C. 5326. FTA also discussed the 

statutory requirements regarding 

coordination of the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan with 

the planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 

5303 and 49 U.S.C. 5304. These 

provisions require Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) and 

States to coordinate the selection of 

their performance targets with the 

performance targets set by FTA 

recipients for safety and state of good 

repair. 

Comments: Commenters generally 

opposed FTA issuing prescriptive 

criteria for safety, state of good repair, 

or statewide and metropolitan planning 

processes. To address the law’s 

requirements, commenters generally 

encouraged FTA to allow transit 

agencies to establish their own safety 

and state of good repair definitions, and 

to allow transit agencies to develop their 

own performance measures in their 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans. Several commenters expressed 

the opinion that state of good repair 

considerations should only become 

relevant when safety issues are 

identified. These commenters generally 

recommended that FTA focus the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan and 

SMS implementation on processes used 

to ensure the identification of these 

issues. Other commenters disputed the 

existence of a nexus or connection 

between state of good repair and safety. 

Several commenters pointed out that 

although safety is an important 

consideration in state of good repair, it 

is only one consideration, and existing 

processes and capabilities already 

account for safety issues in asset 

management and statewide/MPO 

planning processes. 

Many commenters believed that FTA 

should not establish any other 

requirements for integrating Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans and 

Transit Asset Management Plan goals, 

measures, and targets into each other or 

the transportation planning process. 

Other commenters stated that FTA 

should not establish any requirements 

regarding coordination. Some 

commenters stated that the MPO 

Certification process is the most 

appropriate venue to ensure that Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan’s 

and the Transit Asset Management 

Plan’s goals, measures, and targets from 

individual transit systems are integrated 

into the metropolitan transportation 

planning process. A small group of 

commenters recommended that any 

FTA requirements be as general as 

possible and not undercut fundamental 

State and local prerogatives. 

Response: FTA recognizes that safety 

is only one factor in the transit asset 

management and statewide and local 

planning processes, and likewise, that 

safety programs do not deal exclusively 

with asset condition and capital 

investments but rather touch on a wide 

variety of operational, engineering, and 

maintenance activities. While the 

connections between and among safety, 

transit asset management, and statewide 

and metropolitan planning may appear 

tenuous to some commenters, MAP–21 

makes them a matter of law. 

Specifically, Congress authorized a new 

Transit Asset Management Program at 

49 U.S.C. 5326 to establish a system to 

monitor, manage, and improve the state 

of good repair of the nation’s public 

transportation capital assets. Further, in 

the enhanced requirements for 

Statewide and Metropolitan planning at 

49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(iii) and 

5304(d)(2)(B)(ii), respectively, Congress 

mandated that the performance targets 

set in the Metropolitan and Statewide 

Planning processes be ‘‘coordinate[d] to 

the maximum extent practicable’’ with 

transit agencies’ performance targets for 

safety and asset management. In their 

entirety, the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

5329, 5326, 5303 and 5304 support one 

another and the coordination of 

national, State, and local efforts to 

improve transit safety and increase the 

reliability and performance of the 

nation’s public transportation systems. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(B), 

FTA must develop and implement a 

National Public Transportation Safety 

Plan that includes safety performance 

criteria and the definition of state of 

good repair, which must be defined 

through a transit asset management 

rulemaking. 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1) and 

(d). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E), 

a Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan must include safety performance 

targets based on the safety performance 

criteria in the National Public 

Transportation Safety Plan and the state 

of good repair standards established 

under the National Transit Asset 

Management System. 49 U.S.C. 

5329(b)(2), 49 U.S.C. 5326(b)(1). 

Although not required in this 

proposed rule, pursuant to the planning 

requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 

5304 and the proposed regulations 

thereunder at 23 CFR part 450 (see 79 

FR 31784, June 2, 2014), States and 

MPOs must integrate into the Statewide 

and metropolitan planning processes 

the developed goals, objectives, 

performance measures, and targets 

described in the Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans and Transit Asset 

Management Plans, either directly or by 

reference. Further, in the Statewide 

Long Range Plans and Metropolitan 

Transportation Plans, States should and 

MPOs must (1) describe the safety and 

asset management performance 

measures and targets; (2) report on the 

condition of the transit systems with 

respect to the safety and asset 

management performance targets; and 

(3) report on the progress achieved in 

meeting the safety and asset 

management performance targets in 

comparison with the conditions 

reported in previous years. 49 U.S.C. 

5303(i)(2)(B) and (C); 49 U.S.C. 

5304(f)(7). States and MPOs also must 

coordinate in the selection of transit 

safety performance and state of good 

repair targets with the transit agencies to 

the maximum extent practicable. 49 

U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(ii); 49 U.S.C. 

5304(d)(2)(B)(ii). Finally, transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) and 

statewide transportation improvement 

programs (STIPs) must include, to the 

maximum extent practicable, a 

discussion of the anticipated effects of 

the TIP or STIP toward achieving the 

safety and asset management 

performance targets, linking the safety 

and asset management investment 

priorities to those performance targets. 

49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(2)(D); 49 U.S.C. 

5304(g)(4). 

The integration of a transit agency’s 

safety and asset management 

performance targets into the State and 

MPO planning process would inform 

States and MPOs in the setting of their 

goals, objectives, and investment 

strategies for public transportation. This 

integrated planning process should 

result in States and MPOs being able to 

identify investment and management 

strategies to improve or preserve the 

safety of public transportation systems 

and the condition of transit capital 

assets. 

In today’s NPRM, FTA proposes in 

§ 673.11(a)(3) that transit agencies must 

include in their Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans performance targets 

that are based on the safety performance 

criteria and state of good repair 

standards established by FTA under its 

National Public Transportation Safety 

Plan and the National Transit Asset 

Management System, respectively. In 

§ 673.15, FTA proposes to require 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6359 

transit agencies to coordinate with 

States and MPOs in the selection of 

State and MPO safety performance 

targets. 

In addition, the development of safety 

performance criteria by FTA and safety 

performance targets by transit agencies 

support FTA’s overall efforts to monitor 

the safety performance of the public 

transportation industry, in keeping with 

recommendations made by the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office in its 

January 2011 report, ‘‘FTA Programs are 

Helping Address Transit Agencies’ 

Safety Challenges, but Improved 

Performance Goals and Measures could 

Better Focus Efforts’’ (http://www.gao.

gov/new.items/d11199.pdf). 

FTA is providing additional 

information regarding the coordination 

of Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans, the Public Transportation Safety 

Program, National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan, and Transit Asset 

Management Plans in separate NPRMs 

issued to implement the MAP–21 

provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(b) 

and 5326, respectively. FTA and FHWA 

jointly issued an NPRM on June 2, 2014, 

that proposes new requirements for 

Metropolitan, Statewide and NonMetropolitan Planning to implement the 

new MAP–21 provisions codified at 49 

U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and in the future, 

FTA and FHWA will issue a joint final 

rule to guide the new performancebased approach to planning. See 79 FR 

31784. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

Subpart A—General 

§ 673.1 Applicability 

This section explains that this 

regulation would apply to all States, 

local governmental authorities, and 

other operators of public transportation 

systems that are recipients of Federal 

financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 53. In accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d), a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan would be required 

of all operators of public transportation 

systems, whereas in the past, a ‘‘system 

safety program plan’’ was only required 

of rail fixed guideway systems, 

currently codified in 49 CFR 659.17. 

This requirement would go into effect 

one year after the effective date of the 

final rule. 

§ 673.3 Policy 

This section explains that FTA 

proposes the use of principles and 

methods of SMS as the basis for this 

regulation and all other regulations and 

policies FTA will issue under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329, to the 

extent practicable and consistent with 

law and other applicable requirements 

(such as those for regulatory review). It 

further proposes FTA’s intent to set 

standards for SMS that are flexible and 

can be tailored to the size and operating 

complexity of the recipient. 

§ 673.5 Definitions 

This section sets forth a number of 

proposed definitions, many of which are 

based on the principles and methods of 

SMS. For example, readers should refer 

to ‘‘Accountable Executive,’’ ‘‘Hazard,’’ 

‘‘Operator of a Public Transportation 

System,’’ ‘‘Safety Assurance,’’ ‘‘Safety 

Management System,’’ ‘‘Safety 

Management Policy,’’ ‘‘Safety 

Promotion,’’ and ‘‘Safety Risk 

Management.’’ In recent years SMS has 

emerged as the preferable practice for 

enhancing safety in all modes of 

transportation, and the Secretary of 

Transportation instructed each of the 

Department’s operating administrations 

to develop rules, plans, and programs to 

apply SMS to their grant recipients and 

regulated communities. See http://www.

fedeval.net/docs/2012Coplen_1.pdf. 

Many of the definitions for applying the 

principles and methods of SMS in 

proposed § 673.5 are very similar to 

those set forth in the FAA’s SMS 

regulation, titled ‘‘Safety Management 

Systems for Domestic, Flag, and 

Supplemental Operations Certificate 

Holders,’’ 14 CFR parts 5 and 119, 80 FR 

1308, Jan. 8, 2015. 

In addition, both the Administrator’s 

May 13, 2013 Dear Colleague letter and 

a set of frequently asked questions about 

SMS are available on FTA’s Web site at 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/tso_15177.html. 

Finally, FTA has provided its ‘‘Safety 

Management Systems Framework,’’ in 

Appendix A to FTA’s State Safety 

Oversight NPRM. 80 FR 11002, Feb. 27, 

2015 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2015-02-27/pdf/2015-03841.pdf). FTA 

anticipates that it will be incorporating 

these same definitions for applying SMS 

to public transportation in its related 

rulemakings for the Public 

Transportation Safety Program and the 

Public Transportation Safety 

Certification Training Program. 

FTA proposes to include a definition 

for ‘‘Accountable Executive’’ that 

identifies the person at a transit agency 

that has the responsibility and 

accountability for the implementation of 

SMS and control and direction of the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan and the Transit Asset Management 

Plan. FTA proposes to include 

definitions for ‘‘Safety Risk 

Management,’’ ‘‘Safety Risk,’’ ‘‘Safety 

Assurance,’’ and ‘‘Safety Management 

Policy,’’ all key terms to the 

implementation of SMS. 

This section also proposes a number 

of definitions for terms used repeatedly 

throughout the other safety programs 

authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329. Some of 

these terms are included in FTA’s 

proposed State Safety Oversight NPRM 

which was issued prior to this NPRM, 

but the wording of the definitions has 

been slightly changed in today’s 

rulemaking for sake of clarity. FTA’s 

intent is for all terms to have the same 

definition in all of its safety programs, 

and FTA will reconcile those terms in 

the appropriate rulemakings. Readers 

should refer, specifically, to the 

definitions of ‘‘Accident,’’ ‘‘Event,’’ 

‘‘Hazard,’’ ‘‘Incident,’’ ‘‘Investigation,’’ 

‘‘Occurrence,’’ and ‘‘Transit Agency.’’ 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(3)(B), 

FTA must issue a rule that designates 

which 49 U.S.C. 5307 small public 

transportation providers may have 

States draft Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans on their behalf. 

This section proposes a definition for 

‘‘Small Public Transportation Provider’’ 

(in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(3)(B)) as a Section 5307 

recipient or subrecipient that does not 

operate rail fixed guideway service and 

operates 100 or fewer vehicles in 

revenue service. 

New definitions are proposed for the 

terms ‘‘National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan,’’ ‘‘Transit Asset 

Management Plan,’’ and ‘‘Equivalent 

Authority,’’ all of which are consistent 

with the use of those terms in the 

statutes and FTA’s related rulemakings 

on safety and transit asset management. 

Subpart B—Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans 

§ 673.11 General Requirements 

This section proposes the minimum 

requirements for the elements to be 

included in a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan. Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C 5329(d)(1), this section proposes 

that each operator of public 

transportation that receives Federal 

financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 53 must develop and certify a 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan. As provided by 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(3)(A), § 673.11(d) proposes that 

a State must draft the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan for 

49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311 providers, as 

well as for any small public 

transportation providers as defined in 

today’s NPRM. A State is not required 

to develop a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan for a particular 

transit agency that receives Federal 

financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 

5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or a small public 

transportation provider, if that agency 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6360 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

16FTA may adopt additional performance criteria 

through future public comment processes. 

17See FTA’s State Safety Oversight Rule at 49 

CFR 659.19(r) (2015). 

notifies the State that it will develop its 

own plan. 

Section 673.11(a)(1) proposes that the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan, and any updates, must be signed 

by the transit agency’s designated 

Accountable Executive and be approved 

by the transit agency’s Board of 

Directors, or equivalent entity. This 

proposal is consistent with the statutory 

requirement in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A) 

that a Board of Directors (or equivalent 

entity) approve the transit agency’s 

safety plan. In short, under today’s 

NPRM, accountability for the contents 

in the Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan is formally elevated to the 

Accountable Executive and Board of 

Directors. Section 673.11(a)(7) proposes 

that this occurs annually to a timeline 

established by the agency, or State, in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

5329(d)(1)(D). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B), 

(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G), a transit agency 

must establish: Methods for identifying 

and evaluating safety risks throughout 

all elements of its public transportation 

system; strategies to minimize the 

exposure of the public, personnel, and 

property to hazards and unsafe 

conditions; a process and timeline for 

conducting an annual review and 

update of its safety plan; safety 

performance targets; a safety officer who 

reports directly to the general manager, 

president, or equivalent officer; and a 

comprehensive staff training program 

for the operations personnel and 

personnel directly responsible for 

safety. These statutory requirements fit 

into the four key pillars of SMS, as 

discussed in more detail above: Safety 

Management Policy, Safety Risk 

Management, Safety Assurance, and 

Safety Promotion. Consequently, FTA 

proposes to require each transit agency 

to develop and implement an SMS 

under § 673.11(a)(2); this SMS will 

satisfy the statutory requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), 

and (G). In this proposal, FTA 

recognizes that a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan for a large, multimodal, complex public transportation 

system most likely will be more 

complex than that of a very small bus 

operator. The scalability of SMS will 

allow transit agencies to develop safety 

plans that will meet the unique needs of 

their operating environments. 

Proposed § 673.11(a)(3) explains that 

each Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan must include safety 

performance targets based on the safety 

performance criteria and state of good 

repair measures established by FTA in 

the National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan. In the National Public 

Transportation Safety Plan, FTA is 

proposing to adopt four initial safety 

performance criteria: (1) Fatalities, (2) 

Injuries, (3) Safety Events, and (4) 

System Reliability.16 These safety 

performance criteria represent 

categories of measures that are intended 

to reduce safety events, fatalities, and 

injuries. These measures are broad so 

that they will be relevant to all public 

transportation modes, and they are 

intended to focus transit agencies on the 

development of specific and 

measureable targets, as well as the 

actions each agency would implement 

to improve their own safety outcomes. 

Through the SMS process, FTA expects 

transit agencies to develop their own 

performance indicators and regularly 

monitor the performance of their 

systems to ensure that they are meeting 

their targets and improving safety 

outcomes. FTA is proposing to adopt 

these measures through a separate 

notice and comment process, and FTA 

directs readers to that docket if readers 

are interested in submitting comments 

on the safety performance criteria. FTA 

expects transit agencies to evaluate their 

safety performances and determine 

whether they should change their safety 

performance targets at least annually 

when the transit agencies are reviewing 

and updating their Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. A 

State or transit agency must make its 

safety performance targets available to 

States and Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPO) to aid States and 

MPOs in the selection of their own 

performance targets. 

Section 673.11(a)(4) proposes that a 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan must address any future standards 

or requirements, as applicable, set forth 

in FTA’s Public Transportation Safety 

Program and FTA’s National Public 

Transportation Safety Plan. 

Section 673.11(a)(5) proposes that 

each transit agency must establish a 

process and timeline for conducting an 

annual review and update of its Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan. 

Proposed § 673.11(a)(6) would require 

that each rail transit agency include, or 

incorporate by reference, in its Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan an 

emergency preparedness and response 

plan. FTA intends that each emergency 

preparedness and response plan would 

address, at a minimum: The assignment 

of employee responsibilities, as 

necessary and appropriate, during an 

emergency; the integration of responses 

to all hazards, as appropriate; and 

coordination with Federal, State, 

regional, and local officials with roles 

and responsibilities for emergency 

preparedness and response in the transit 

agency’s service area. FTA understands 

that a transit agency may have 

developed an emergency preparedness 

and response plan that addresses these 

minimum requirements in accordance 

with regulations from other Federal and 

State agencies. Notably, FTA currently 

requires rail fixed guideway systems to 

have emergency preparedness plans 

through the State Safety Oversight Rule 

at 49 CFR 659.19(k). FTA intends to 

require rail transit systems to continue 

to implement the twenty-one elements 

of their system safety program plans as 

currently required under 49 CFR part 

659; the pillars of SMS cover the 

remaining twenty elements. FTA has 

developed a crosswalk analysis between 

each of the twenty-one elements of 

system safety program plans and each of 

the elements of SMS. FTA is adding this 

crosswalk to the docket, and FTA is 

making the crosswalk available on its 

Web site at http://fta.dot.gov/tso.html. 

FTA notes that there are safety models 

that include emergency preparedness as 

a key element. For example, FAA 

requires certain air carriers to have 

emergency preparedness plans. See 14 

CFR 5.27. Additionally, FRA is 

proposing to require railroads to have 

emergency preparedness plans. See 77 

FR 55403 (Sept. 7, 2012). Recent safetyrelated events have demonstrated the 

need for emergency preparedness plans 

in improving safety outcomes 

nationally. 

In addition to the above general 

requirements, FTA would expect a 

transit agency to comply with all other 

applicable Federal, State, and local 

requirements, laws, regulations, and 

codes as they may relate to safety.17

Section 673.11(b) proposes that the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan may include more than one mode 

of service. However, if a transit agency 

has a safety plan for its commuter rail 

service, passenger ferry service, or 

aviation service, then the transit agency 

may not use that plan for purposes of 

satisfying 49 CFR part 673; the transit 

agency must develop a separate Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

consistent with this part. FTA invites 

specific comment on how FTA could 

support the development of Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans for 

Transit Agencies of different sizes and 

modes. 

Section 673.11(c) proposes that a 

transit agency must maintain its Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6361 

18NTSB issued Safety Recommendation R–10/02 

for the WMATA Metrorail train collision accident 

on June 22, 2009, found at: http://www.ntsb.gov/

investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/

RAR1002.pdf. Through this report, NTSB 

recommends that ‘‘FTA facilitate the development 

of non-punitive safety reporting programs at all 

transit agencies [in order] to collect reports from 

employees in all divisions within their agencies.’’ 

19See the NTSB’s hearing materials at http://

www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2015_WMATA_

Washington_DC_IHG_Agenda.aspx. and http://dms.

ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=

432379&docketID=57383&mkey=90596. 

accordance with the recordkeeping 

requirements of Subpart D of this Part. 

Section 673.11(d) proposes that a 

State must draft and certify a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan on 

behalf of any 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 

5311, or small public transportation 

provider. A State is not required to draft 

a Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan if a 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, 

or small public transportation provider 

notifies the State that it will draft its 

own plan. In either instance, the transit 

agency must carry out the plan. 

If a State drafts and certifies a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan on 

behalf of a transit agency, and the transit 

agency later opts to draft and certify its 

own Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan, then the transit agency 

would be required to notify the State, 

and the transit agency would have one 

year from the date of the notification to 

draft and certify a Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan that is compliant 

with this part. 

Section 673.11(e) proposes that any 

rail fixed guideway system that had a 

system safety program plan, as per 

requirements set forth in 49 CFR part 

659 as of October 1, 2012, may keep that 

plan in effect until one year after the 

effective date of the final rule. 

§ 673.11(f) proposes that agencies that 

operate passenger ferries regulated by 

USCG or commuter rail service 

regulated by FRA are not required to 

develop agency safety plans for those 

modes of service. 

§ 673.13 Certification of Compliance 

Section 673.13(a) provides that not 

later than one year after the effective 

date of the final rule, each transit agency 

must certify its compliance with the 

requirements of this part. For transit 

agencies that receive Federal funding 

under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, 

and those identified as small public 

transportation providers under 49 

U.S.C. 5307, a State must certify 

compliance unless the provider opts to 

draft and certify its own safety plan. In 

those cases where a State certifies 

compliance for 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 

U.S.C. 5311, or small public 

transportation provider under 49 U.S.C. 

5307, this certification must also occur 

within one year after the effective date 

of the final rule. 

In addition to certification, Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans that 

are developed by transit agencies with 

rail transit systems must also be 

reviewed and approved by the 

appropriate State Safety Oversight 

Agency as per the requirements set forth 

in 49 CFR part 659, and the future 

recodification of those requirements at 

49 CFR part 674. In accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 5329(e)(4)(iv), State Safety 

Oversight Agencies must have the 

authority to review, approve, oversee, 

and enforce the implementation of the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans of transit agencies operating rail 

fixed guideway public transportation 

systems. 

Section 673.13(b) requires that each 

transit agency or State certify 

compliance with part 673 on an annual 

basis. 

§ 673.15 Coordination with 

Metropolitan, Statewide, and NonMetropolitan Planning Processes 

This section proposes to require a 

State or transit agency to make its safety 

performance targets available to States 

and Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations to aid in the planning 

process. This section also proposes to 

require, to the maximum extent 

practicable, a State or transit agency to 

coordinate with States and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations in the selection 

of State and MPO safety performance 

targets. 

Subpart C—Safety Management 

Systems 

§ 673.21 General Requirements 

This section outlines the SMS 

elements that each transit agency must 

establish in its Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan. Under today’s 

NPRM, each transit agency would be 

required to implement an SMS; 

however, FTA would require that each 

transit agency would scale the SMS to 

the size, scope, and complexity of the 

transit agency’s operations. Each transit 

agency would be required to establish 

its activities to include the four main 

pillars of SMS: (1) Safety Management 

Policy; (2) Safety Risk Management; (3) 

Safety Assurance; and (4) Safety 

Promotion. FTA expects that the scope 

and detail for each activity will vary 

based on the size and complexity of the 

system. FTA anticipates that activities, 

and documentation of those activities, 

for a small bus transit agency will be 

substantially less than those of a large 

multi-modal system. To help clarify 

SMS development and implementation, 

FTA intends to provide guidance to the 

industry, including templates designed 

to accommodate the variance in transit 

system mode, size and complexity. 

§ 673.23 Safety Management Policy 

Under proposed § 673.23(a), a transit 

agency would be required to establish 

the organizational accountabilities and 

responsibilities necessary for 

implementing SMS and capture these 

under the first component of SMS, 

Safety Management Policy. The success 

of a transit agency’s SMS is dependent 

upon the commitment of the entire 

organization and begins with the highest 

levels of transit agency management. 

FTA expects that the level of detail for 

organizational accountabilities and 

responsibilities would be commensurate 

with the size and complexity of the 

transit agency. 

The Safety Management Policy 

statement would contain the transit 

agency’s safety objectives. These 

objectives would include a broad 

description of the agency’s overarching 

safety goals, which would be based on 

that agency’s unique needs. The Safety 

Management Policy statement also 

would include a reference to the 

agency’s safety objectives and 

performance targets. 

Under § 673.23(b), a transit agency 

would need to include in its Safety 

Management Policy statement a process 

that allows employees to report safety 

conditions to senior management. This 

process would provide protections for 

employees who report safety conditions 

to senior management and a description 

of behaviors that are unacceptable and 

that would not be exempt from 

disciplinary actions. This is a critical 

SMS element for ensuring safety. A 

reporting program allows employees 

who identify safety hazards and risks in 

the day-to-day duties to directly notify 

senior personnel, without fear of 

reprisal, so that the hazards and risks 

can be mitigated or eliminated. NTSB 

has emphasized the need for transit 

agencies to have confidential employee 

safety reporting programs,18 and this 

need was discussed at length in NTSB’s 

Investigate Hearing on the WMATA 

Smoke and Electrical Arcing Incident in 

Washington, DC on June 23 and 24, 

2015.19

Section 673.23(c) proposes that the 

Safety Management Policy statement is 

communicated throughout the transit 

agency, as well as to the Board of 

Directors (or equivalent authority), and 

is made readily available to all 

employees of the transit agency and 

contractors. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6362 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

20See FTA’s State Safety Oversight Rule at 49 

CFR 659.19(u). 

Section 673.23(d) proposes that the 

transit agency establish its 

accountabilities and responsibilities 

necessary to meet the established safety 

performance targets. In general, a transit 

agency would need to describe its 

organizational structure and the 

procedures it must adopt in order for it 

to meet its safety performance targets. A 

transit agency would describe the 

authorities, accountabilities, and 

responsibilities for safety management 

as they relate to the development and 

management of the transit agency’s 

SMS. The level of detail in this section 

would be commensurate with the size 

and complexity of transit agency 

operations. At a minimum, a transit 

agency would need to identify an 

Accountable Executive, a Chief Safety 

Officer or SMS Executive, and agency 

leadership, executive management, and 

key staff who would be responsible for 

the implementation of a transit agency’s 

safety plan. 

§ 673.25 Safety Risk Management 

Section 673.25(a) proposes that each 

transit agency establish and implement 

its process for managing safety risk, 

including the identification of hazards, 

analysis of hazards, evaluation of safety 

risk, and mitigation of safety risk, in all 

elements of its public transportation 

system, including changes to its public 

transportation system that may impact 

safety performance. At a minimum, FTA 

would expect a transit agency to apply 

its safety risk management process to 

the design of a new public 

transportation system, changes to its 

existing public transportation system, 

new operations of service to the public, 

new operations or maintenance 

procedures or organizational change, 

and changes to operations or 

maintenance procedures. Additionally, 

FTA would expect a transit agency to 

develop measures to ensure that safety 

principles, requirements, and 

representatives are included in the 

transit agency’s procurement process.20

Section 673.25(b)(1) would require a 

transit agency to establish a process for 

hazard identification and analysis, 

including the identification of the 

sources, both proactive and reactive, for 

identifying hazards. Activities for 

hazard identification analysis could 

include formalized processes where a 

transit agency identifies hazards 

throughout its entire system, logs them 

into a database, performs risk analyses, 

and identifies mitigation measures. 

These activities also could include 

safety focus groups, reviews of safety 

reporting trends, and for smaller bus 

systems, it could mean sitting down 

with a few operators in a room, 

discussing hazards on the system, 

deciding which ones pose the greatest 

risk, and then developing mitigation. 

A transit agency must apply its 

process for hazard identification and 

analysis to all aspects of its system, 

including but not limited to its 

operational activities, system 

expansions, and state of good repair 

activities. A transit agency should 

consider the results of its asset 

condition assessments while performing 

safety hazard identification activities 

within its SMS. The results of the 

condition assessments, and subsequent 

SMS analysis, will inform a transit 

agency’s determination as to whether an 

asset meets the state of good repair 

standards under 49 CFR part 625. 

Section 673.25(b)(2) would require a 

transit agency to include, as a source for 

hazard identification and analysis, data 

and information provided by an 

oversight authority and the FTA. 

FTA proposes that hazard 

identification and analysis activities are 

commensurate with the size of the 

transit agency operations. For example, 

FTA would anticipate that the number 

of identified hazards for a small, rural 

bus system may be less than the number 

of hazards identified for a large, multimodal system. 

Section 673.25(c) proposes that a 

transit agency establish activities for the 

evaluation and prioritization of safety 

risks related to the potential 

consequences of hazards identified and 

analyzed in § 673.25(b). Transit agencies 

would need to evaluate safety risks in 

terms of both probability (the likelihood 

of the hazard producing the potential 

consequences) and severity (the damage, 

or the potential consequences of a 

hazard, that may be caused if the hazard 

is not eliminated or its consequences are 

not successfully mitigated). 

A transit agency also would need to 

establish criteria for the development of 

safety risk mitigations that are necessary 

based on the results of the agency’s 

safety risk evaluation. For example, a 

transit agency may decide that the 

criteria for developing safety risk 

mitigations could be the identification 

of a safety risk, benefit-cost analysis, a 

system level change (such as the 

addition of new technology on a 

vehicle), a change to operational 

procedures, or the expansion of service. 

To further illustrate these examples, a 

transit agency may color code different 

levels of safety risk (‘‘red’’ as high, 

‘‘yellow’’ as medium, and ‘‘green’’ as 

minor) and develop different types of 

safety risk mitigations to correspond to 

those levels. 

§ 673.27 Safety Assurance 

Section 673.27(a) proposes that a 

transit agency develop and implement 

safety assurance activities that include 

safety performance monitoring and 

measurement and continuous 

improvement. FTA would expect that a 

transit agency’s safety assurance 

activities would be scaled to the size 

and complexity of its operations, with 

the objective being that a transit agency 

can accurately determine whether or not 

it is meeting its safety objectives and 

safety performance targets, as well as 

the extent to which its SMS is being 

implemented effectively. 

Each transit agency would be required 

to conduct an annual review of its safety 

risk mitigations. FTA anticipates that 

each transit agency would identify those 

safety risk mitigations that should be 

reviewed each year to ensure they are 

still effective. 

In § 673.27(b), FTA proposes that a 

transit agency identify the data and 

information that it must collect from its 

operations, maintenance, and public 

transportation services so that it may 

monitor the agency’s safety performance 

as well as the effectiveness of its SMS. 

Under this section, a transit agency 

would be responsible for the ongoing 

monitoring of its operations and 

maintenance protocols and procedures, 

and any safety risk mitigations, to assure 

that they are being implemented as 

planned. 

This section proposes that a transit 

agency investigate safety events (as 

defined in this NPRM) and any reports 

from non-compliance with applicable 

regulations, standards, and applicable 

legal authority. Finally, the section 

would require the continuous 

monitoring of information reported 

through the employee safety reporting 

program. 

In § 673.27(c), a transit agency would 

be required to manage changes in its 

system. A transit agency would be 

required to develop a process for 

identifying and assessing changes that 

may introduce new hazards or impact 

the transit agency’s safety performance. 

If a transit agency determines that a 

change might impact safety, then the 

transit agency would need to evaluate 

the change using Safety Risk 

Management activities established 

under § 673.25. 

In § 673.27(d), a transit agency would 

be required to regularly assess its safety 

performance. If a transit agency 

identifies any deficiencies during a 

safety performance assessment, it would 

be required to develop and carry out, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6363 

under the direction of the Accountable 

Executive, a plan to address the 

identified safety deficiencies. FTA 

would expect a transit agency to 

conduct a safety performance 

assessment at least annually, and the 

safety performance assessment can be 

completed in conjunction with the 

annual review and update to its overall 

safety plan in § 673.11(a)(5). 

§ 673.29 Safety Promotion 

This section proposes that a transit 

agency establish competencies and 

training for all agency employees 

directly responsible for the management 

of safety, and establish and maintain the 

means for communicating safety 

performance and SMS information. 

Section 673.29(a) would require a 

transit agency to establish a 

comprehensive safety training program. 

Through the safety training programs, a 

transit agency would require each 

employee, as applicable, to complete 

training to enable the person to meet his 

or her role and responsibilities for safety 

management, and to complete refresher 

training, as necessary, to stay current 

with the agency’s safety management 

practices and procedures. 

Section 673.29(b) would require a 

transit agency to ensure that all 

employees are aware of any policies, 

activities, and procedures that are 

related to their role and safety 

management responsibilities. Safety 

communications would include 

information on hazards and safety risks 

that are relevant to the employee’s role 

and responsibilities; explain reasons 

that a transit agency introduces or 

changes policies, activities or 

procedures; and communicates to an 

employee when actions are taken in 

response to reports submitted by the 

employee through an employee safety 

reporting program. FTA expects that 

each transit agency would define the 

means and mechanisms for effective 

safety communication based on their 

organization, structure, and size of 

operations. 

Subpart D—Safety Plan Documentation 

and Recordkeeping 

§ 673.31 Safety Plan Documentation 

This section proposes that transit 

agencies keep records of their 

documents that meet the requirements 

of this part. FTA would expect a transit 

agency to maintain documents that set 

forth its Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan, including those related to 

the implementation of its SMS, such as 

results from SMS processes and 

activities. For the purpose of reviews, 

investigations, audits, or other purposes, 

the section proposes that these 

documents be made available to FTA, 

State Safety Oversight Agencies in the 

case of rail transit systems, and other 

Federal agencies as appropriate. A 

transit agency would be required to 

maintain any of these documents for a 

minimum of three years. 

§ 673.33 Safety Plan Records 

This section proposes that, in 

addition to the documents indicated 

above, a transit agency must maintain, 

at a minimum, the following records: 

safety risk mitigations, results from a 

transit agency’s safety performance 

assessment, and records of employee 

safety training. FTA anticipates that the 

amount of records maintained by each 

transit agency would vary based on the 

agency’s size and complexity. For 

example, it is reasonable to expect that 

a smaller agency would have fewer 

safety risk mitigations and employee 

training records to maintain, whereas a 

large transit agency may have a robust 

safety management information system 

to track and monitor its safety risk 

mitigations, and perhaps another system 

dedicated to tracking employee safety 

training. For safety performance 

monitoring and measurement, the 

section proposes that the transit agency 

maintain documentation that it would 

use to determine how well it is meeting 

its safety objectives and safety 

performance targets, as well as safety 

performance indicators used to 

determine the effectiveness of SMS 

implementation. 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and USDOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Orders and 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); tailor 

its regulations to impose the least 

burden on society; assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives; and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximizes net 

benefits—including potential economic, 

environmental, public health, and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and equity. 

Executive Order 13563 also emphasizes 

the importance of harmonizing rules 

and promoting flexibility. 

This proposed rule has been drafted 

and reviewed in accordance with the 

principles set forth in Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563. FTA has determined 

that this proposed rule likely is 

‘‘economically significant’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, in that it may 

lead to transit agencies making 

investment and prioritization decisions 

related to mitigation of safety risks that 

would result in economic impacts that 

could exceed $100 million in a year. 

However, as discussed in greater detail 

below, FTA was unable to quantify the 

potential impacts of this rule beyond the 

costs for transit agencies to develop and 

implement Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plans. FTA was able to 

estimate costs of approximately $86 

million in the first year, and $70 million 

per year thereafter. These costs result 

from developing and certifying safety 

plans, documenting the SMS approach, 

implementing SMS, and associated 

recordkeeping. The estimated costs do 

not include the costs of actions that 

transit agencies would be required to 

take to mitigate risk as a result of 

implementing this rule, such as vehicle 

modifications, additional training, 

technology investments, or changes to 

operating procedures. The annualized 

cost of proposed requirements is 

estimated to be approximately $71 

million. FTA requests comment on any 

information that could assist in 

quantifying the costs, benefits, and 

transfers associated with this 

rulemaking. 

FTA has placed in the docket a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that 

analyzes the benefits and costs of the 

proposed regulatory changes in 

accordance with Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563, and United States 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

policy. 

FTA also conducted this analysis to 

satisfy the statutory requirement at 49 

U.S.C. 5329(h)(1) that it take into 

consideration the costs and benefits 

related to each action that it takes under 

49 U.S.C. 5329, including this proposed 

rule. 

The proposed rule would require all 

operators of public transportation 

systems that receive Federal financial 

assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 to 

develop and implement Public 

Transportation Safety Plans as required 

by Section 20021 of the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP–21), now codified at 49 U.S.C. 

5329, using the SMS approach. 

SMS is a flexible, scalable approach to 

safety that has been widely adopted 

across multiple modes of transportation 

in both the public and private sectors. 

It employs a systematic, data-driven 

approach in which risks to safety are 

identified, then controlled or mitigated 

to acceptable levels. SMS brings 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6364 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

business-like methods and principles to 

safety, similar to the ways in which an 

organization manages its finances, 

through safety plans, with targets and 

performance indicators, and continuous 

monitoring of safety performance 

throughout an organization. 

In addition to responding to the 

specific legislative mandate, the 

proposed rule responds to National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

recommendations about expanding the 

use of SMS to reduce the risks of transit 

crashes. From 2004 to 2013, NTSB 

reported on nine transit accidents that, 

collectively, resulted in 15 fatalities, 297 

injuries, and over $30 million in 

property damages. Although transit 

systems have historically been among 

the safest means of surface 

transportation, the transit industry is 

facing increased pressures at a time 

when ridership is growing, 

infrastructure is aging, and large 

numbers of the workforce are retiring. 

During that same 2004–2013 time 

period, transit agencies reported over 

40,000 incidents, more than 2,000 

fatalities, and over 76,000 injuries to 

FTA’s National Transit Database. 

This RIA provides quantitative 

estimates of the expected compliance 

costs associated with the proposed rule. 

Costs for transit agencies were estimated 

based on the staff labor costs associated 

with implementing the requirements of 

the proposed rule, with adjustments for 

agency size and for agencies’ existing 

level of maturity with SMS approaches. 

Three main cost areas were estimated: 

(1) Developing and certifying safety 

plans; (2) implementing and 

documenting the SMS approach; and (3) 

associated recordkeeping. Staff time was 

monetized using data on wage rates and 

benefits in the transit industry. Over the 

20-year analysis period, total costs are 

estimated at $752 million in present 

value (using a 7% discount rate), or the 

equivalent of $71 million per year. 

As previously stated, FTA was unable 

to estimate the cost of actions that 

agencies would take to mitigate or 

eliminate safety problems identified 

through implementation of their safety 

plans. This is because FTA is unaware 

of information sources or methods to 

predict with sufficient confidence the 

number or type of safety problems 

agencies will identify through 

implementation of their safety plans, or 

the number, type, and cost of actions 

that agencies will take to address such 

problems. For similar reasons, FTA also 

is unable to estimate the benefits of 

these actions. FTA seeks information 

from the public for analyzing the 

benefits and costs of actions by agencies 

to mitigate or eliminate safety problems 

such as the number, types, benefits, and 

costs of such actions. 

With respect to State and MPO 

performance target setting, FTA 

forecasted benefits based on the 

estimated impact of the SMS approach 

on reducing transit crashes and their 

associated societal costs, including fatal 

and non-fatal injuries, property damage, 

and other costs. Safety benefits were 

calculated for both bus and rail modes. 

However, since the rail agencies are 

subject to additional safety rules, 

analysis also was undertaken excluding 

the rail modes. Benefits were monetized 

using information on transit crash costs, 

including direct costs and USDOTstandard statistical values for fatality 

and injury prevention. Although many 

other sectors report reductions in safety 

incident after adopting SMS, it is not 

possible to transfer that experience to 

the transit industry due to the 

differences in organizational structures 

and practices. 

FTA could not estimate the benefits of 

this proposed rule. To estimate safety 

benefits, one would need to understand 

the exact causes of the accidents and the 

factors that may cause future accidents. 

This information is generally unknown 

in this sector, given the infrequency and 

diversity of the type of safety incidents 

that occur. Instead, FTA conducted a 

breakeven analysis that compares the 

costs that FTA was able to estimate 

(absent the cost of mitigations) to a pool 

of potential safety benefits. The pool of 

safety benefits is an estimate of the cost 

of bus and rail incidents over a future 

20-year period. The estimate is an 

extrapolation based on the cost of bus 

and rail incidents that occurred from 

2010 to 2014. 

As the table below shows, the amount 

of incident reduction needed to 

breakeven with the costs of the 

proposed rule that were estimated is 

low. However, benefits of SMS 

primarily will result from mitigating 

actions. As previously stated, the 

benefits and costs of such actions are 

not accounted for in this analysis. FTA 

has not estimated the benefits of 

implementing SMS without mitigating 

actions, but expects such benefits are 

unlikely to be large. Estimated costs for 

the Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans include certain activities that 

likely will yield safety improvements, 

such as improved communication, 

identification of hazards, and greater 

employee awareness. It is plausible that 

these changes alone could produce 

accident reductions that surpass 

estimated costs. 

This analysis assumes that benefits 

are realized from reducing both rail and 

bus incidents after adjusting for the 

estimated breakeven threshold for the 

proposed State Safety Oversight and 

Safety Training Rules (RINs 2132–AB19 

and 2132–AB25 respectively), to which 

the rail agencies also will be subject 

when finalized. 

Under the performance management 

framework established by MAP–21, 

States, MPOs, and transit providers 

must establish targets in key national 

performance areas to document 

expectations for future performance. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B)(ii) 

and 5304(d)(2)(B)(ii), States and MPOs 

must coordinate the selection of their 

performance targets, to the maximum 

extent practicable, with performance 

targets set by transit providers under 49 

U.S.C. 5326 (transit asset management) 

and 49 U.S.C. 5329 (safety), to ensure 

consistency. 

In the joint FTA and FHWA Planning 

NPRM, both agencies indicated that 

their performance-related rules would 

implement the basic elements of a 

performance management framework, 

including the establishment of measures 

and associated target setting. Because 

the performance-related rules 

implement these elements and the 

difficulty in estimating costs of target 

setting associated with unknown 

measures, the joint FTA and FHWA 

Planning NPRM did not assess these 

costs. Rather, FTA and FHWA proposed 

that the costs associated with target 

setting at every level would be captured 

in each agency’s respective 

‘‘performance management’’ rules. For 

example, FHWA’s second performance 

management rule NPRM, published 

after the joint FTA and FHWA Planning 

NPRM, assumes that the incremental 

costs to States and MPOs for 

establishing performance targets reflect 

the incremental wage costs for an 

operations manager and a statistician to 

analyze performance-related data. 

The RIA that accompanied the joint 

FTA and FHWA Planning Final Rule 

captured the costs of the effort by States, 

MPOs, and transit providers to 

coordinate in the setting of State and 

MPO transit performance targets for 

state of good repair and safety. FTA 

believes that the cost to MPOs and 

States to set transit performance targets 

is included within the costs of 

coordination. FTA requests comments 

on this point. Will there be any 

additional costs for States and MPOs in 

target setting beyond the coordination 

costs included in the planning rule? If 

so, what would those costs be? To the 

extent that responses to these questions 

cause the agency to adjust any of its cost 

assumptions, those changes will be 

reflected in the final rule and any 

related information collections. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6365 

21The costs and breakeven threshold in this table 

do not account for actions by agencies to mitigate 

or eliminate safety risks identified through 

implementation of their safety plans other than 

those mitigation actions prescribed in the rule, such 

as training. 

A summary of the benefits and costs 

of this proposed rule is provided in 

Table 3 below, which also is included 

in Table 1 above. 

TABLE 3—REDUCTION IN COST OF BUS AND RAIL INCIDENTS NEEDED TO BREAKEVEN WITH ESTIMATED COSTS 21

Current Dollar value 7% Discounted value 3% Discounted value 

Bus Incidents (20-Year Estimate) ............................................................ $86,999,489,120 ....... $40,894,178,605 ....... $58,084,884,054. 

Rail Incidents (20-Year Estimate) ............................................................ $37,680,410,444 ....... $17,711,706,703 ....... $25,157,185,334. 

Total Pool of Benefits (20-Year Estimate) ............................................... $124,679,899,564 ..... $58,605,885,309 ....... $83,242,069,388. 

Estimated Costs (20-Year Estimate) ....................................................... $1,407,680,883 ......... $752,319,890 ............ $1,050,876,643. 

Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Actions ................................................. Not Estimated ............ Not Estimated ............ Not Estimated. 

Estimated Cost (Annualized) ................................................................... .................................... $71,013,675 .............. $70,635,417. 

Breakeven Threshold Including Bus and Rail ......................................... .................................... 1.28% ........................ 1.26%. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C. 

601–612), FTA has evaluated the effects 

of this proposed rule on small entities 

and has determined that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The proposed rule would affect 

roughly 2,125 small entities, most of 

which are small government entities 

and small non-profit organizations that 

operate public transportation systems in 

non-urbanized areas. Compliance costs 

will vary according to agency size and 

complexity, the extent of current SMS 

practices, and the extent of current asset 

management practices. Costs are 

illustrated by an example calculation for 

a small operator of a public 

transportation system that receives 

Formula Grants for Rural Areas under 

49 U.S.C. 5311, for which compliance 

costs range from an average of $12,000 

per Section 5310 agency, to roughly 

$31,000 per small Section 5307 agency 

(these estimates exclude the cost of 

mitigating actions). For the sake of 

comparison, while transit agency 

operations budgets vary significantly, 

the average for small Section 5307 

agencies is around $6.3 million per year, 

and Section 5311 agencies average $1 

million per year. Thus, the estimated 

costs of the rule are around 0.5% to 

1.5% of agency budgets. FTA proposes 

to mitigate the costs for smaller 

operators of public transportation 

systems by requiring the States in which 

they are located to draft and certify 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans on their behalf, unless the 

operator chooses to develop and certify 

its own plan. Additionally, to mitigate 

the costs for smaller operators of public 

transportation systems, FTA is 

proposing to adopt the SMS approach to 

safety, which is scalable and tailored for 

the specific needs of a particular transit 

agency. 

Overall, while the proposed rule 

would affect a substantial number of 

small entities, these impacts would not 

be significant due to the low magnitude 

of the costs. Moreover, FTA has 

designed the proposed rule to allow 

flexibility for small entities. FTA is 

providing additional analysis of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act’s application 

to this proposed rule in Regulatory 

Impact Analysis posted to the docket. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule will not impose 

unfunded mandates as defined by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995, 109 

Stat. 48; codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.). 

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 1501(8), one of 

the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act is to consider ‘‘the effect of 

. . . Federal statutes and regulations 

that impose Federal intergovernmental 

mandates.’’ The term ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandate’’ is defined 

at 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i) to mean ‘‘any 

provision in legislation, statute, or 

regulation that would impose an 

enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, except . . . a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ 

Given the fact that FTA’s authorizing 

statute at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) makes the 

development and implementation of 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plans a condition of FTA Federal 

financial assistance, and given that FTA 

is proposing to require transit agencies 

to annually certify that they have safety 

plans consistent with this rule as a 

condition of that Federal financial 

assistance, this proposed rule will not 

impose unfunded mandates. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria established by Executive Order 

13132, and FTA has determined that 

this proposed rule will not have 

sufficient Federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

assessment. FTA has also determined 

that this proposed rule will not preempt 

any State law or State regulation or 

affect the States’ abilities to discharge 

traditional State governmental 

functions. 

Executive Order 12372 

(Intergovernmental Review) 

The regulations effectuating Executive 

Order 12372 regarding 

intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to 

this proposed rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. et seq.) 

(PRA), and the White House Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

implementing regulation at 5 CFR 

1320.8(d), FTA is seeking approval from 

OMB for the Information Collection 

Request abstracted below. FTA 

acknowledges that this NPRM entails 

the collection of information to 

implement the Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d). Specifically, an operator 

of a public transportation system would 

do the following: (1) Develop and certify 

a Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan; (2) implement and document the 

SMS approach; and (3) associated 

recordkeeping. 

FTA seeks public comment to 

evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of FTA’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

whether the estimation of the burden of 

the proposed information collection is 

accurate, including the validity of the 

methodologies and assumptions used; 

ways in which the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information can be 

enhanced; and whether the burden can 

be minimized, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6366 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

22The total annual cost includes labor and nonlabor costs for travel and information technology. 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Readers should note that the 

information collection would be specific 

to each operator of a public 

transportation system in an effort to 

facilitate and record the operator’s 

safety responsibilities and activities. 

The paperwork burden for each operator 

of a public transportation system would 

be proportionate to the size and 

complexity of its operations. For 

example, an operator of both a rail fixed 

guideway system and a bus system may 

need to generate more documentation 

than an operator of a bus system only. 

Also, readers should note that FTA 

already requires rail fixed guideway 

public transportation systems to 

develop System Safety Program Plans 

and System Security Plans in 

accordance with the requirements of 49 

CFR part 659. FTA collects information 

from States and State Safety Oversight 

Agencies regarding these plans, and 

FTA anticipates that operators of rail 

fixed guideway systems will utilize 

some of this documentation for 

purposes of developing Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 

Please see FTA’s currently approved 

collection, 2132–0558, available at 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAMain. 

Type of Collection: Operators of 

public transportation systems. 

Type of Review: OMB Clearance. New 

Information Collection Request. 

Summary of the Collection: The 

information collection includes (1) the 

development and certification of a 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan; (2) the implementation and 

documentation of the SMS approach; 

and (3) associated recordkeeping. 

Need for and Expected Use of the 

Information to be Collected: Collection 

of information for this program is 

necessary to ensure that operators of 

public transportation systems are 

performing their safety responsibilities 

and activities required by law at 49 

U.S.C. 5329(d). Without the Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

reporting requirements, FTA would be 

unable to determine each State’s 

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). 

Respondents: Respondents include 

operators of public transportation as 

defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302(14), 

which do not provide service that is 

closed to the general public and only 

available for a particular clientele. The 

total number of respondents is 561. This 

figure includes 242 respondents that are 

States, rail fixed guideway systems that 

receive Urbanized Area Formula 

Program funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307, 

and large bus systems that receive 

Urbanized Area Formula Program funds 

under 49 U.S.C. 5307. This figure also 

includes 319 respondents that would 

have their Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plans drafted and certified by the 

State in which they are located, 

including small public transportation 

providers that receive Urbanized Area 

Formula Program funds under 49 U.S.C. 

5307, operate one hundred or fewer 

vehicles in revenue service, and do not 

operate rail fixed guideway service; 

recipients of Formula Grants for Rural 

areas under 49 U.S.C. 5311; and 

operators of public transportation 

systems that receive Formula Grants for 

the Enhanced Mobility of Senior and 

Individuals with Disabilities under 49 

U.S.C. 5310. 

Frequency: Annual. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden of 

Costs and Hours on Respondents: 

TIER I RESPONDENTS (OPERATING OVER 100 VEHICLES AND RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY SERVICE) 

[Total annualized burden hours and costs 22] 

Agency type Agency safety plan item Number of 

respondents 

Annual burden 

hours per 

respondent 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

cost 

($) 

States ................................. Development/Certification ............................... 55 111 6,082 210,010 

Implementation/Documentation ...................... 55 0 0 0 

Recordkeeping ................................................ 55 0 0 0 

5307 Rail .......................... Development/Certification ............................... 60 48 2,862 255,660 

Implementation/Documentation ...................... 60 699 41,956 3,893,019 

Recordkeeping ................................................ 60 238 14,274 2,051,779 

5307 Large Bus ............... Development/Certification ............................... 127 48 6,123 583,332 

Implementation/Documentation ...................... 127 771 97,943 6,856,950 

Recordkeeping ................................................ 127 232 29,520 3,290,570 

Total Tier I ................... ......................................................................... 242 821 198,760 17,141,321 

TIER II RESPONDENTS (OPERATING 100 OR FEWER VEHICLES AND NO RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY SERVICE) 

[Total Annualized burden hours and costs 23] 

Agency type Agency safety plan item Number of 

respondents 

Annual burden 

hours per 

respondent 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

cost 

($) 

5307 Small Bus ............... Development/Certification ............................... 94 19 1,773 $170,092 

Implementation/Documentation ...................... 625 355 221,601 11,724,615 

Recordkeeping ................................................ 625 242 150,938 8,714,824 

5311 Bus .......................... Development/Certification ............................... 195 14 2,767 265,343 

Implementation/Documentation ...................... 1300 279 362,875 19,199,240 

Recordkeeping ................................................ 1300 190 247,163 14,270,660 

5310 Bus .......................... Development/Certification ............................... 30 11 319 30,617 

Implementation/Documentation ...................... 200 227 45,463 2,405,367 

Recordkeeping ................................................ 200 21 4,129 238,386 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6367 

23The total annual cost includes labor and nonlabor costs for travel and information technology. 

TIER II RESPONDENTS (OPERATING 100 OR FEWER VEHICLES AND NO RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY SERVICE)—Continued 

[Total Annualized burden hours and costs 23] 

Agency type Agency safety plan item Number of 

respondents 

Annual burden 

hours per 

respondent 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

cost 

($) 

Total Tier II .................. ......................................................................... 2125 488 1,037,026 57,019,144 

The total PRA cost of the rule would be approximately $74.2 million per year averaged over the first three years and $31,110 per respondent 

per year on average. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National EnvironmentalPolicy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

requires Federal agencies to analyze the 

potential environmental effects of their 

proposed actions either through a 

Categorical Exclusion, an 

Environmental Assessment, or an 

Environmental Impact Statement. This 

proposed rule is categorically excluded 

under FTA’s NEPA implementing 

regulations at 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), 

which covers planning and 

administrative activities that do not 

involve or lead directly to construction, 

such as the promulgation of rules, 

regulations, directives, and program 

guidance. FTA has determined that no 

unusual circumstances exist and that 

this Categorical Exclusion is applicable. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) 

Executive Order 12898 directs every 

Federal agency to make environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying 

and addressing the effects of all 

programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income 

populations. The DOT’s environmental 

justice initiatives accomplish this goal 

by involving the potentially affected 

public in developing transportation 

projects that fit harmoniously within 

their communities without sacrificing 

safety or mobility. FTA has developed a 

program circular addressing 

environmental justice in transit projects, 

Circular 4703.1, Environmental Justice 

Policy Guidance for Federal Transit 

Administration Recipients. The Circular 

is designed to provide a framework to 

assist recipients as they integrate 

principles of environmental justice into 

their transit decision-making process. 

The Circular contains recommendations 

for State DOTs, MPOs, and transit 

providers on (1) how to fully engage 

environmental justice populations in 

the transportation decision-making 

process; (2) how to determine whether 

environmental justice populations 

would be subjected to 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of a public transportation project, 

policy, or activity; and (3) how to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate these effects. This 

proposed rule will not cause adverse 

environmental impacts, and as a result, 

minority populations and low-income 

populations will not be 

disproportionately impacted. 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

This proposed rule will not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

FTA has analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. FTA certifies that this proposed 

rule will not cause an environmental 

risk to health or safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

FTA has analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 

2000), and has determined that it will 

not have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes; will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on Indian tribal governments; and 

will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, 

a tribal summary impact statement is 

not required. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

FTA has analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). 

FTA has determined that this proposed 

rule is not a significant energy action 

under that Executive Order because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. Therefore, a Statement of 

Energy Effects is not required. 

Privacy Act 

Any individual is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received on any FTA docket by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, or other entity). 

You may review USDOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477). 

Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

This rulemaking is issued under the 

authority of section 20021 of MAP–21, 

which requires public transportation 

agencies to develop and implement 

comprehensive safety plans. This 

authority was reauthorized under the 

FAST Act. The authority is codified at 

49 U.S.C. 5329(d). 

Regulation Identification Number 

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN set forth 

in the heading of this document can be 

used to cross-reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 673 

Mass transportation, Safety. 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.91. 

Therese McMillan, 

Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, and under the authority of 49 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6368 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

U.S.C. 5329(d), 5334, and the 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, 

FTA hereby proposes to amend Chapter 

VI of Title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations by adding part 673 to read 

as follows: 

Title 49—Transportation 

PART 673—PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SAFETY 

PLANS 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

673.1 Applicability 

673.3 Policy 

673.5 Definitions 

Subpart B—Safety Plans 

673.11 General requirements 

673.13 Certification of compliance 

673.15 Coordination with metropolitan, 

statewide, and non-metropolitan 

planning processes 

Subpart C—Safety Management Systems 

673.21 General requirements 

673.23 Safety management policy 

673.25 Safety Risk Management 

673.27 Safety assurance 

673.29 Safety promotion 

Subpart D—Safety Plan Documentation and 

Recordkeeping 

673.31 Safety plan documentation 

673.33 Safety plan records 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), 5334; 49 CFR 

1.91. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 673.1 Applicability. 

This part applies to any State, local 

governmental authority, and any other 

operator of a public transportation 

system that receives Federal financial 

assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. 

§ 673.3 Policy. 

The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) has adopted the principles and 

methods of Safety Management Systems 

(SMS) as the basis for enhancing the 

safety of public transportation in the 

United States. All rules, regulations, 

policies, guidance, best practices, and 

technical assistance administered under 

FTA’s safety authority will, to the extent 

practicable and consistent with legal 

and other applicable requirements, 

follow the principles and methods of 

SMS. This part sets standards for the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan, which will be responsive to FTA’s 

Public Transportation Safety Program, 

and reflect the specific safety objectives, 

standards, and priorities of each transit 

agency. Each Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan will incorporate 

SMS principles and methods tailored to 

the size, complexity, and scope of the 

public transportation system and the 

environment in which it operates. 

§ 673.5 Definitions. 

As used in this part: 

Accident means an Event that 

involves any of the following: A loss of 

life; a report of a serious injury to a 

person; a collision of public 

transportation vehicles; a runaway train; 

an evacuation for life safety reasons; or 

any derailment of a rail transit vehicle, 

at any location, at any time, whatever 

the cause. 

Accountable Executive means a 

single, identifiable person who has 

ultimate responsibility and 

accountability for the implementation 

and maintenance of the Safety 

Management System of a public 

transportation agency; responsibility for 

carrying out the agency’s Transit Asset 

Management Plan; and control or 

direction over the human and capital 

resources needed to develop and 

maintain both the agency’s Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan, in 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and 

the agency’s Transit Asset Management 

Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326. 

Chief Safety Officer means an 

adequately trained individual who has 

responsibility for safety and reports 

directly to a transit agency’s chief 

executive officer, general manager, 

president, or equivalent officer. A Chief 

Safety Officer may not serve in other 

operational or maintenance capacities, 

unless the Chief Safety Officer is 

employed by a transit agency that is a 

small public transportation provider as 

defined in this part, or a public 

transportation provider that does not 

operate a rail fixed guideway public 

transportation system. 

Equivalent Authority means an entity 

that carries out duties similar to that of 

a Board of Directors, for a recipient or 

subrecipient of FTA funds under 49 

U.S.C. Chapter 53, including sufficient 

authority to review and approve a 

recipient or subrecipient’s Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan. 

Event means any Accident, Incident, 

or Occurrence. 

FTA means the Federal Transit 

Administration, an operating 

administration within the United States 

Department of Transportation. 

Hazard means any real or potential 

condition that can cause injury, illness, 

or death; damage to or loss of the 

facilities, equipment, rolling stock, or 

infrastructure of a public transportation 

system; or damage to the environment. 

Incident means an event that involves 

any of the following: a personal injury 

that is not a serious injury; one or more 

injuries requiring medical transport; or 

damage to facilities, equipment, rolling 

stock, or infrastructure that disrupts the 

operations of a transit agency. 

Investigation means the process of 

determining the causal and contributing 

factors of an accident, incident, or 

hazard, for the purpose of preventing 

recurrence and mitigating risk. 

National Public Transportation Safety 

Plan means the plan to improve the 

safety of all public transportation 

systems that receive Federal financial 

assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. 

Occurrence means an Event without 

any personal injury in which any 

damage to facilities, equipment, rolling 

stock, or infrastructure does not disrupt 

the operations of a transit agency. 

Operator of a public transportation 

system means a provider of public 

transportation as defined under 49 

U.S.C. 5302(14), and which does not 

provide service that is closed to the 

general public and only available for a 

particular clientele. 

Performance criteria means categories 

of measures indicating the level of safe 

performance within a transit agency. 

Performance target means a specific 

level of performance for a given 

performance measure over a specified 

timeframe. 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan means the documented 

comprehensive agency safety plan for a 

transit agency that is required by 49 

U.S.C. 5329 and this part. 

Rail transit agency means any entity 

that provides services on a rail fixed 

guideway public transportation system. 

Risk mitigation means a method or 

methods to eliminate or reduce the 

effects of hazards. 

Safety Assurance means processes 

within a transit agency’s Safety 

Management System that functions to 

ensure the implementation and 

effectiveness of safety risk mitigation, 

and to ensure that the transit agency 

meets or exceeds its safety objectives 

through the collection, analysis, and 

assessment of information. 

Safety Management Policy means a 

transit agency’s documented 

commitment to safety, which defines 

the transit agency’s safety objectives and 

the accountabilities and responsibilities 

of its employees in regard to safety. 

Safety Management System (SMS) 

means the formal, top-down, 

organization-wide approach to 

managing safety risk and assuring the 

effectiveness of a transit agency’s safety 

risk mitigation. SMS includes 

systematic procedures, practices, and 

policies for managing risks and hazards. 

Safety Management System (SMS) 

Executive means a Safety Officer or an 

equivalent. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6369 

Safety performance target means a 

Performance Target related to safety 

management activities. 

Safety Promotion means a 

combination of training and 

communication of safety information to 

support SMS as applied to the transit 

agency’s public transportation system. 

Safety risk means the assessed 

probability and severity of the potential 

consequence(s) of a hazard, using as 

reference the worst foreseeable, but 

credible, outcome. 

Safety risk evaluation means the 

formal activity whereby a transit agency 

determines Safety Risk Management 

priorities by establishing the 

significance or value of its safety risks. 

Safety Risk Management means a 

process within a transit agency’s Safety 

Management System for identifying 

hazards and analyzing, assessing, and 

mitigating safety risk. 

Serious injury means any injury 

which: 

(1) Requires hospitalization for more 

than 48 hours, commencing within 7 

days from the date of the injury was 

received; 

(2) Results in a fracture of any bone 

(except simple fractures of fingers, toes, 

or noses); 

(3) Causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, 

muscle, or tendon damage; 

(4) Involves any internal organ; or 

(5) Involves second- or third-degree 

burns, or any burns affecting more than 

5 percent of the body surface. 

Small public transportation provider 

means a recipient or subrecipient of 

Urbanized Area Formula Program funds 

under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that has one 

hundred (100) or fewer vehicles in 

revenue service and does not operate a 

rail fixed-guideway public 

transportation system. 

State means a State of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, 

Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin 

Islands. 

State of Good Repair means the 

condition in which a capital asset is 

able to operate at a full level of 

performance. 

State Safety Oversight Agency means 

an agency established by a State that 

meets the requirements and performs 

the functions specified by 49 U.S.C. 

5329(e) and the regulations set forth in 

49 CFR part 674. 

Transit agency means an operator of 

a public transportation system that 

receives Federal financial assistance 

under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. 

Transit Asset Management Plan 

means a plan developed by a recipient 

or Group Plan pursuant to 49 CFR part 

625 that includes, at minimum, capital 

asset inventories and condition 

assessments, decision support tools, and 

investment prioritization. 

Subpart B—Safety Plans 

§ 673.11 General requirements. 

(a) A transit agency must within one 

calendar year after publication of the 

final rule, establish a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan that 

meets the requirements of this part and, 

at a minimum, consists of the following 

elements: 

(1) The Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan, and subsequent updates, 

must be signed by the Accountable 

Executive and approved by the agency’s 

Board of Directors, or an entity 

equivalent to a Board of Directors. 

(2) The Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan must document the 

processes and activities related to Safety 

Management System (SMS) 

implementation, as required under 

Subpart C of this Part. 

(3) The Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan must include performance 

targets based on the safety performance 

criteria established under the National 

Public Transportation Safety Plan, and 

the state of good repair standards 

established in the regulations that 

implement the National Transit Asset 

Management System and are included 

in the National Public Transportation 

Safety Plan. 

(4) The Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan must address all applicable 

requirements and standards as set forth 

in FTA’s Public Transportation Safety 

Program and the National Public 

Transportation Safety Plan. Compliance 

with the minimum safety performance 

standards authorized under 49 U.S.C. 

5329(b)(2)(C) is not required until 

standards have been established through 

the rulemaking process. 

(5) Each transit agency must establish 

a process and timeline for conducting 

an annual review and update of the 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan. 

(6) A rail transit agency also must 

include in its Public Transportation 

Agency Safety Plan an emergency 

preparedness and response plan or 

procedures that addresses, at a 

minimum, the assignment of employee 

responsibilities during an emergency; 

and coordination with Federal, State, 

regional, and local officials with roles 

and responsibilities for emergency 

preparedness and response in the transit 

agency’s service area. 

(b) A transit agency may develop one 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan for all modes of service, or may 

develop a Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan for each mode of service not 

subject to safety regulation by another 

Federal entity. 

(c) A transit agency must maintain its 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan in accordance with the 

recordkeeping requirements in subpart 

D of this part. 

(d) A State must draft and certify a 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan on behalf of any transit agency that 

receives Federal financial assistance 

under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, 

and any small public transportation 

provider located in that State. A State is 

not required to draft a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a 

particular transit agency that receives 

Federal financial assistance under 49 

U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or a small 

public transportation provider, if that 

agency notifies the State that it will 

draft its own plan. In each instance, the 

transit agency must carry out the plan. 

If a State drafts and certifies a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan on 

behalf of a transit agency, and the transit 

agency later opts to draft and certify its 

own Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Plan, then the transit agency 

must notify the State. The transit agency 

has one year from the date of the 

notification to draft and certify a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan that 

is compliant with this part. 

(e) Any rail fixed guideway public 

transportation system that had a System 

Safety Program Plan compliant with 49 

CFR part 659 as of October 1, 2012, may 

keep that plan in effect until [one year 

after the effective date of the final rule]. 

(f) Agencies that operate passenger 

ferries regulated by the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) or commuter rail 

service regulated by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) are not 

required to develop agency safety plans 

for those modes of service. 

§ 673.13 Certification of compliance. 

(a) Each transit agency, or State as 

authorized in § 673.11(d), must certify 

that it has established a Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan 

meeting the requirements of this part by 

[one year after the effective date of the 

final rule]. A State Safety Oversight 

Agency must review and approve a 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan developed by rail fixed guideway 

system, as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 

5329(e) and its implementing 

regulations at 49 CFR part 674. 

(b) On an annual basis, a transit 

agency or State must certify its 

compliance with this part. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

6370 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

§ 673.15 Coordination with metropolitan, 

statewide, and non-metropolitan planning 

processes. 

(a) A State or transit agency must 

make its safety performance targets 

available to States and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations to aid in the 

planning process. 

(b) To the maximum extent 

practicable, a State or transit agency 

must coordinate with States and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations in 

the selection of State and MPO safety 

performance targets. 

Subpart C—Safety Management Systems 

§ 673.21 General requirements. 

Each transit agency must establish 

and implement a Safety Management 

System under this part. A transit agency 

Safety Management System must be 

appropriately scaled to the size, scope 

and complexity of transit agency and 

include the following elements: 

(a) Safety Management Policy as 

described in § 673.23 of this subpart; 

(b) Safety Risk Management as 

described in § 673.25 of this subpart; 

(c) Safety Assurance as described in 

§ 673.27 of this subpart; and 

(d) Safety Promotion as described in 

§ 673.29 of this subpart. 

§ 673.23 Safety management policy. 

(a) A transit agency must establish its 

organizational accountabilities and 

responsibilities and have a written 

statement of safety management policy 

that includes the agency’s safety 

objectives and safety performance 

targets. 

(b) A transit agency must establish a 

process that allows employees to report 

safety conditions to senior management, 

protections for employees who report 

safety conditions to senior management, 

and a description of employee behaviors 

that may result in disciplinary action. 

(c) The safety management policy 

must be communicated throughout the 

agency’s organization. 

(d) The transit agency must establish 

the necessary authorities, 

accountabilities, and responsibilities for 

the management of safety amongst the 

following individuals within its 

organization, as they relate to the 

development and management of the 

transit agency’s Safety Management 

System (SMS): 

(1) Accountable Executive. The transit 

agency must identify an Accountable 

Executive. The Accountable Executive 

is accountable for ensuring that the 

agency’s SMS is effectively 

implemented, throughout the agency’s 

public transportation system. The 

Accountable Executive is accountable 

for ensuring action is taken, as 

necessary, to address substandard 

performance in the agency’s SMS. The 

Accountable Executive may delegate 

specific responsibilities, but the 

ultimate accountability for the transit 

agency’s safety performance cannot be 

delegated and always rests with the 

Accountable Executive. 

(2) Chief Safety Officer or Safety 

Management System (SMS) Executive. 

The Accountable Executive may 

designate a Chief Safety Officer or SMS 

Executive who may be given authority 

and responsibility for day-to-day 

implementation and operation of an 

agency’s SMS. The Chief Safety Officer 

or SMS Executive must hold a direct 

line of reporting to the Accountable 

Executive. A transit agency may allow 

the Accountable Executive to also serve 

as the Chief Safety Officer or SMS 

Executive. 

(3) Agency leadership and executive 

management. A transit agency must 

identify those members of its leadership 

or executive management, other than an 

Accountable Executive, Safety Officer, 

or SMS Executive, who have authorities 

or responsibilities for day-to-day 

implementation and operation of an 

agency’s SMS. 

(4) Key staff. A transit agency may 

designate key staff, groups of staff, or 

committees to support the Accountable 

Executive, Chief Safety Officer, or SMS 

Executive in developing, implementing, 

and operating the agency’s SMS. 

§ 673.25 Safety Risk Management. 

(a) Safety Risk Management process. 

A transit agency must develop and 

implement a Safety Risk Management 

process for all elements of its public 

transportation system. The Safety Risk 

Management process must be comprised 

of the following activities: Identification 

of safety hazards, analysis of safety 

hazards, safety risk evaluation, and 

safety risk mitigation. 

(b) Safety hazard identification and 

analysis. (1) A transit agency must 

establish a process for hazard 

identification and analysis. 

(2) A transit agency must include, as 

a source for hazard identification and 

analysis, data, and information provided 

by an oversight authority and the FTA. 

(c) Safety risk evaluation and 

mitigation. (1) A transit agency must 

establish activities to evaluate and 

prioritize the safety risk associated with 

the potential consequences of safety 

hazards. Safety risks must be evaluated 

in terms of probability and severity and 

take into account mitigations already in 

place to reduce the probability or 

severity of the potential consequence(s) 

analyzed. 

(2) A transit agency must establish 

criteria for the development of safety 

risk mitigations that are necessary based 

on the results of the agency’s safety risk 

evaluation. 

§ 673.27 Safety assurance. 

(a) Safety assurance process. A transit 

agency must develop and implement a 

safety assurance process, consistent 

with this subpart. 

(b) Safety performance monitoring 

and measurement. A transit agency 

must establish activities to: 

(1) Monitor its system for compliance 

with, and sufficiency of, the agency’s 

procedures for operations and 

maintenance; 

(2) Monitor its operations to identify 

hazards not identified through the 

Safety Risk Management process 

established in § 673.25 of this subpart; 

(3) Monitor its operations to identify 

any safety risk mitigations that may be 

ineffective, inappropriate, or were not 

implemented as intended; 

(4) Investigate safety events to identify 

causal factors; and 

(5) Monitor information reported 

through any internal safety reporting 

programs. 

(c) Management of change. (1) A 

transit agency must establish a process 

for identifying and assessing changes 

that may introduce new hazards or 

impact the transit agency’s safety 

performance. 

(2) If a transit agency determines that 

a change may impact its safety 

performance, then the transit agency 

must evaluate the proposed change 

through its Safety Risk Management 

process. 

(d) Continuous improvement. (1) A 

transit agency must establish a process 

to assess its safety performance. 

(2) If a transit agency identifies any 

deficiencies as part of its safety 

performance assessment, then the 

transit agency must develop and carry 

out, under the direction of the 

Accountable Executive, a plan to 

address the identified safety 

deficiencies. 

§ 673.29 Safety promotion. 

(a) Competencies and training. A 

transit agency must establish a 

comprehensive safety training program 

for all agency employees and 

contractors directly responsible for the 

management of safety in the agency’s 

public transportation system. The 

training program must include refresher 

training, as necessary. 

(b) Safety communication. A transit 

agency must communicate safety and 

safety performance information 

throughout the agency’s organization 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 6371 

that, at a minimum, conveys 

information on hazards and safety risks 

relevant to employees’ roles and 

responsibilities and informs employees 

of safety actions taken in response to 

reports submitted through an employee 

safety reporting program. 

Subpart D—Safety Plan Documentation and 

Recordkeeping 

§ 673.31 Safety plan documentation. 

At all times, a transit agency must 

maintain documents that set forth its 

Public Transportation Agency Safety 

Plan, including those related to the 

implementation of its Safety 

Management System (SMS), and results 

from SMS processes and activities. A 

transit agency must maintain documents 

that are included in whole, or by 

reference, that describe the programs, 

policies, and procedures that the agency 

uses to carry out its Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan. 

These documents must be made 

available upon request by the Federal 

Transit Administration or other Federal 

entity, or a State Safety Oversight 

Agency having jurisdiction. A transit 

agency must maintain these documents 

for a minimum of three years. 

§ 673.33 Safety plan records. 

In addition to any documents or 

records required elsewhere in this part, 

a transit agency must maintain records 

of the following items: 

(a) Safety risk mitigations developed 

in accordance with § 673.25; 

(b) Results from the transit agency’s 

safety performance assessments as 

required under § 673.27; and 

(c) Employee safety training taken for 

purposes of compliance with this part 

and the Public Transportation Agency 

Safety Training Certification Program. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02017 Filed 2–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2