Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program, 75639-75656 [2015-30466]
Download as PDF
75639
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 232
Thursday, December 3, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1408
[Docket No. CPSC–2015–0033]
Petition for Labeling Requirements
Regarding Slip Resistance of Floor
Coverings; Request for Comments
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) received a petition
requesting that the Commission initiate
rulemaking under the Consumer
Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) to require
that manufacturers of floor coverings,
floor coverings with coatings, and
treated floor coverings label their
products’ slip resistance in accordance
with the applicable American National
Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) standard.
The Commission invites written
comments concerning the petition.
DATES: The Office of the Secretary must
receive comments on the petition by
February 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CPSC–2015–
0033, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
(email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission
encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written
submissions by mail/hand delivery/
courier to: Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–7923.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed
rulemaking. All comments received may
be posted without change, including
any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal
information provided, to: https://
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If
furnished at all, such information
should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC–2015–0033, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts. A copy of the petition is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. CPSC–2015–0033,
Supporting and Related Materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Stevenson, Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301) 504–6833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission received a petition
requesting that manufacturers of floor
coverings, floor coverings with coatings,
and treated floor coverings (herein
abbreviated as ‘‘floor coverings’’) be
required to label their products to
provide point-of-sale information
regarding such products’ degree of slip
resistance, in accordance with the
labeling requirements of ANSI B101.5–
2014.1 Specifically, petitioner requests a
rule that would require a label
indicating the slip resistance (also
known as ‘‘coefficient of friction’’ or
‘‘COF’’) for floor coverings based on
tests described in ANSI B101.1 and
B101.3. The required label would
provide a graphic of a traction scale and
indicate the COF value for the product.
The petition was filed by the National
Floor Safety Institute. Petitioner notes
that manufacturers of floor coverings
currently are not required to provide
consumers with information relating to
slip resistance of their products.
Petitioner asserts that because different
1 The
petition does not apply to floor coatings,
such as waxes, that are sold separately or to
coverings such as carpets, rugs, mats, runners or
artificial turf.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
types of floor coverings have
pronounced differences in slip
resistance, many flooring materials will
be inappropriate for specific uses.
Petitioner states that the primary focus
of the petition is to protect the elderly,
a population petitioner believes to be
most vulnerable to the risk of slip and
fall events. As an example, petitioner
cites that in 2014, more than 23,000
elderly Americans died as a result of
accidental falls. Furthermore, petitioner
notes that the CDC stated that in 2013,
the direct medical costs of older adult
falls was approximately $34 billion.
Petitioner states that slip resistance
labeling would be analogous to the
requirements for labeling nutritional
content in food, noting that labeling
regarding flooring slip resistance would
allow consumers to make more
informed decisions when selecting a
flooring product, enabling elderly
consumers to select flooring that offers
higher slip resistance, potentially
reducing the risk of accidental slip and
fall events.
By this notice, the Commission seeks
comments concerning this petition.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of
the petition by writing or calling the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Room 820,
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. A
copy of the petition is also available for
viewing under ‘‘Supporting and Related
Materials’’ in www.regulations.gov,
under Docket No. CPSC–2015–0033.
Dated: November 25, 2015.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–30440 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. FTA–2015–0014]
RIN 2132–AB25
Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
75640
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for comments.
ACTION:
The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) seeks public
comment on a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for safety
certification training. FTA proposes to
adopt the current interim safety
certification training provisions as the
initial regulatory training requirements
for public transportation industry
personnel responsible for safety
oversight of public transportation
systems. The NPRM defines to whom
the training requirements apply,
describes recordkeeping requirements,
provides administrative provisions, and
compliance requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received by
February 1, 2016. FTA will accept latefiled comments to the extent
practicable.
SUMMARY:
Please submit your
comments by only one of the following
methods:
• Online: Use the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. Mail: Send your comments to
the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Go to
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the West Building, U.S. Department of
Transportation headquarters, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through
Friday except Federal holidays.
• Telefax: Send your comments to
202–493–2251.
Instructions: All comments must
include the docket number for this
rulemaking: FTA–2015–0014. Submit
two copies of your comments if you
submit them by mail. For confirmation
that FTA received your comments,
include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard. All comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading under
‘‘Supplementary Information,’’ below,
for Privacy Act information pertinent to
any submitted comments or materials,
and you may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement published in the
Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at
65 FR 19477.
Docket Access: For access to
background documents and comments
received in the rulemaking docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov or to the
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590 between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
program issues, contact Ruth Lyons,
FTA, Office of Safety and Oversight,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–
366–2233 or email: Ruth.Lyons@
dot.gov). For legal issues, contact Bruce
Walker, FTA, Office of Chief Counsel,
same address, (telephone: 202–366–
9109 or email: Bruce.Walker@dot.gov).
Office hours are Monday through Friday
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST), except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Overview of the Proposed Rule
IV. Interim Program Curriculum and
Technical Training Requirements
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Cost-Benefit Analysis
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
In the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP–21; Pub. L.
112–141, July 6, 2012), Congress
directed FTA to establish a
comprehensive Public Transportation
Safety Program (codified at 49 U.S.C.
5329), one element of which is the
Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program
(PTSCTP). The purpose of today’s
NPRM is to carry out the statutory
mandate to provide a framework to
enhance the technical proficiency of
those directly responsible for safety
oversight of public transportation
systems.
This proposed rulemaking would
incorporate the curriculum promulgated
recently for the interim provisions for
safety certification training (interim
program) as the training requirements
for the PTSCTP. The interim program
curriculum and training requirements
may be found in Section V of the
Federal Register notice promulgating
the interim program at: https://
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/
02/27/2015-03842/interim-safetycertification-training-programprovisions.
The NPRM provides a regulatory
framework for safety certification
training for personnel who are directly
responsible for safety oversight of public
transportation systems and the State
personnel who conduct safety audits
and examinations of rail transportation
systems. Besides incorporating the
interim program curriculum and
training requirements, this proposal
would: (1) Permit participants to request
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
evaluation of non-FTA sponsored safety
training for credit towards applicable
PTSCTP requirements; (2) require
designated personnel to complete a
minimum of one hour of refresher safety
training every two years as determined
by his or her employer; (3) require
recipients to maintain administrative
records and ensure a participant’s
curriculum completion status is
updated periodically; and (4) require
SSOAs and recipients that operate rail
fixed guideway systems not regulated by
the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) to annually certify compliance
with the rule as a condition of receiving
Chapter 53 funding.
Legal Authority
This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) which
requires the Secretary of Transportation
to prescribe a public transportation
safety certification training program for
Federal and State employees, or other
designated personnel, who conduct
safety audits and examinations of public
transportation systems, as well as
employees of public transportation
agencies directly responsible for safety
oversight. The Secretary is authorized to
issue regulations to carry out the general
provisions of this statutory requirement
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7).
Summary of Key Provisions
Similar to the interim program, the
focus of the proposed rule would be on
enhancing the technical proficiency of
safety oversight professionals in the rail
transit industry. To that end, this
proposed rule would incorporate the
curriculum set forth in Section V of the
Federal Register notice promulgating
the interim program. FTA may
periodically update the curriculum
following a period for public notice and
comment. This approach is similar to
that of the National Transit Database
(NTD) rule at 49 CFR part 630 in which
the Reporting Manuals set forth
reporting requirements. FTA
periodically updates the manuals with
public notice and an opportunity for
stakeholders to comment. FTA believes
this proposal would provide for a
consistent and stable curriculum as the
public transportation industry
acclimates to the requirement for safety
oversight training.
The proposed rule would reflect the
interim program in that mandatory
participants would continue to be State
Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA)
personnel and contractors, and
designated personnel of rail transit
agencies not otherwise regulated by
another Federal agency. Employees or
contractors of entities providing safety
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
oversight of bus operations would be
permitted to participate on a voluntary
basis. Participants would continue to
have three years to complete the initial
requirements for the PTSCTP.
Participation in the interim program
would be credited towards meeting the
initial three-year PTSCTP completion
requirements. The three-year timeframe
for new participants would commence
upon their enrollment in the PTSCTP.
Another key proposal is the
requirement for SSOAs and recipients
that operate rail fixed guideway systems
not regulated by the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to ensure its
designated personnel are enrolled in the
PTSCTP electronic database maintained
by FTA and to monitor their
participation towards completing
applicable training requirements. In
addition, SSOAs would be required to
maintain administrative records of the
participation of its designated personnel
in applicable technical training as
outlined in the SSOA’s FTA-approved
technical training plan.
Unlike the interim program, FTA is
proposing a process for participants to
request review of documented training
obtained from sources other than FTA
for credit towards the equivalent
PTSCTP training. In addition, FTA is
proposing that mandatory participants
be required to undertake at least one
hour of refresher training every two
years on a safety subject determined by
his or her employer. The timeframe for
determining the two-year refresher
training period would commence
following completion of the initial
PTSCTP.
Lastly, each SSOA and recipient that
operates a rail fixed guideway system
not regulated by the FRA would be
required to certify compliance with the
PTSCTP requirements as part of FTA’s
procedures for annual grant certification
and assurances. Should FTA determine
an SSOA or recipient is not in
compliance with the PTSCTP, the
Administrator would have discretion to
withhold Chapter 53 funds following
notice and an opportunity for the
recipient to respond.
With this NPRM, FTA is seeking
comment on its proposal to incorporate
the interim program curriculum and
technical training requirements as the
initial training requirements for the
PTSCTP. Additionally, FTA seeks
comments of its proposed regulatory
framework for the PTSCTP.
Costs and Benefits
As discussed in greater detail below,
FTA reviewed data from the
Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), the
entity that provides substantial safety
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
training to the transit industry, albeit on
a voluntary basis. Using this data and
our familiarity with how SSOAs are
organized, we developed a maximum
and minimum number of personnel, to
include employees and contractors that
would be affected by the PTSCTP. Next,
using the same data from TSI, we
determined the number of rail transit
personnel that would be affected by the
PTSCTP. We also reviewed the number
of FTA personnel who participate in
safety audits and examinations and
determined the number of FTA
personnel that would be required to
undergo some level of training and
certification. In developing annual costs
for personnel that would attend the
PTSCTP, we assumed a minimum and
maximum case scenario.
For the minimum case, we assumed
that all designated personnel under this
program already had completed the
Transit Safety and Security Program
(TSSP) Certificate and would require
only the safety management system
(SMS) portion of the coursework
described in Section IV of this notice.
For the maximum case, we assumed that
no one subject to the NPRM has a TSSP
Certificate. In this case, all designated
personnel would have to take and
complete both the TSSP and SMS
coursework over the allotted 3-year
period. Using these assumptions, we
estimate an approximate maximum cost
of $2.6 million per year, of which up to
80 percent may be funded with FTA
funds.
To assess the benefits for the PTSCTP,
we considered how other transportation
modes that are in the process of
implementing SMS or similar
systematic approaches to safety have
estimated the benefits of their programs
in reducing incidents, adverse
outcomes, and improving the industry’s
safety culture. It is difficult to quantify
the effects of a positive safety culture as
a safety culture will develop over time.
Characteristics of a positive safety
culture include: Actively seeking out
information on hazards; employee
training; information exchanges; and
understanding that responsibility for
safety is shared. While the returns on
investment in training should be fairly
quick, establishing, promoting, and
increasing safety, even in an industry
that is very safe, is difficult to predict
with any certainty. Consistent with
other recent rulemakings issued by the
Department on SMS, we conducted a
breakeven analysis. As explained
further in Section VI, for the State Safety
Oversight (SSO) NPRM published in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2015
at 80 FR 11002, FTA estimated that the
SSO program revisions realistically
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75641
would garner a 2 percent reduction in
costs associated with fatalities and
‘‘serious’’ injuries. Based on the analysis
for the, SSO NPRM, for the benefits to
break even with the costs to both SSOs
and rail transit agencies, the rule only
would require a 1.23 percent reduction
of the accident costs per year, which did
not include potentially significant
unquantified costs related to property
damage and disruption. The SSO
program is reliant on the PTSCTP for
part of its safety improvements. While
the SSO NPRM proposed to improve
SSO and rail transit agency processes,
the PTSCTP improves the requisite
human capital within the SSO program
by improving the training and by
making mandatory training for those
designated personnel charged with
safety oversight at SSO and rail transit
agencies.
II. Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal
Register on all aspects of FTA’s safety
authority, including the training
program. (See 78 FR 61251, https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/
pdf/2013-23921.pdf).
In the ANPRM, FTA noted that there
are discrete and different skill-sets
required for those who perform safety
audit and examination functions
compared to those who are directly
responsible for safety oversight. For
example, at the Federal level, FTA’s
responsibilities include ensuring that
SSOA personnel are properly trained
and adequately resourced to regulate
rail transit systems within their
respective jurisdictions. At the State
level, SSOA personnel are responsible
for direct safety oversight of those rail
transit systems under their jurisdiction.
And on the local level, public
transportation agency personnel are
directly responsible for developing and
implementing safety oversight within
their respective agencies. Recognizing
this distinction, FTA outlined its vision
for the PTSCTP which included a
wholly new FTA-sponsored training
curriculum to enhance the technical
proficiency of safety oversight
professionals in the public
transportation industry.
In the ANPRM, FTA noted that
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2), it
would promulgate an interim program
for safety certification training prior to
developing a proposed rule for the
PTSCTP. On April 30, 2014, FTA
published a Federal Register notice
requesting comment on its proposed
requirements for the interim program. A
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75642
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
number of the proposed requirements
for the interim program were based in
part, on recommendations provided by
commenters on the ANPRM (see 79 FR
24363).
FTA evaluated comments received in
response to the proposed interim
program notice and promulgated the
final interim program requirements in a
Federal Register notice dated February
27, 2015, with an effective date of May
28, 2015 (see 80 FR 10619). Since the
interim program was implemented only
recently, FTA has not had sufficient
opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness
of the program, nor assess lessons
learned. However, to implement the
requirement of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) via
a regulatory framework, FTA is
proposing with this rule that the
curriculum for the PTSCTP remain the
same as that of the interim program.
Some comments on the ANPRM were
outside the scope of the questions posed
and, therefore, are not addressed in this
notice. However, many of the comments
and recommendations were instructive
for developing both the interim program
and this NPRM. What follows is a
discussion of relevant ANPRM
comments, development of the interim
program requirements, and the
regulatory framework proposed for the
PTSCTP.
Question 48. In the ANPRM, FTA
proposed organizing the training around
a series of competencies and basic skills
that Federal, State, and public transit
agency safety oversight personnel need
to perform their respective
responsibilities. To that end, FTA
proposed a wholly new FTA-sponsored
safety training curriculum, provided a
list of competencies and technical
capabilities supported by the
curriculum, and sought comment
regarding what other safety-related
competency areas or training outcomes
should be identified for the PTSCTP.
Thirty commenters responded
directly to the question or provided
comments relative to the issue. A few
commenters indicated that the FTA list
sufficiently covered all safety-related
competency areas. Several commenters
identified safety-related competency
areas for inclusion in the PTSCTP, such
as: Incident investigation, emergency
response, fundamental safety
management concepts and processes,
methods for the identification,
assessment and evaluation of hazards,
safety assurance methods, measurement
and evaluation of safety management
processes and mitigation strategies,
National Incident Management System
(NIMS) training, and Occupational
Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Some commenters suggested that FTA
focus on developing a safety program
that recognizes the six key functions of
bus safety identified in the 2003
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
signed by FTA and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA).
Those functions include management,
operations and maintenance, human
resources, safety activities, security
activities, and emergency/all hazards
management. A few commenters stated
that FTA should develop clear and
workable guidelines for safety
certification training and accommodate
the differing needs of small, medium
and large agencies in those
requirements.
Three commenters indicated that the
PTSCTP called for in MAP–21 only
applies to the SSO program and does
not require specific training
requirements for State Department of
Transportation (State DOT) staff
involved in managing federal funds.
Two commenters stated that defining
training outcomes and competency
areas is not an appropriate role for FTA
and should be left up to the
determination of a transit agency and
based on the scope, scale and
complexity of fixed facilities, systems
and operating environment.
Commenters also suggested the
following:
• Since a culture of safety already
exists in rural transit, FTA should
consider flexible, scalable approaches
that use training programs that have a
proven track record for driver training,
vehicle maintenance, and drug and
alcohol compliance;
• there needs to be a concerted effort
to drill down on safety concerns that
cause the greatest risk in cost and life
and focus on improving those areas;
• the FTA Safety Certification
Program requirement should allow FRAregulated properties the flexibility to
comply with FRA safety training
regulations without requiring
additional, redundant training and
certification requirements.
FTA response: As discussed further in
Section IV of this notice, FTA is
undertaking this proposed rulemaking
in accordance with the authority
granted under 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1). FTA
recognizes that one size will not fit all;
therefore, the curriculum proposed for
the PTSCTP is designed to be scalable
and flexible, especially for State DOTs
and the bus transit industry.
In response to the commenters who
provided a list of safety-related
competency areas for consideration,
FTA notes that many of those
competency areas are included in the
current curriculum for the TSSP, which
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
is a requirement for the interim program
and a proposed requirement for the
PTSCTP. However, FTA does not
believe the initial requirements for the
PTSCTP should include NIMS or OSHA
training standards because a primary
objective of the initial requirements is to
promote a common framework for
developing SMS principles across the
industry.
The curriculum proposed for the
PTSCTP would include a risk-based
approach for analyzing and mitigating
safety risks. It also would leverage
existing FTA-sponsored training for all
recipients including State DOTs, and
both rural and urban bus transit
providers. Accordingly, FTA concurs
with the commenters who indicated that
bus safety training should include the
six key functions of bus safety as
identified in the FTA/FMCSA MOU
signed in 2003. FTA proposes to
continue offering the Bus Safety
program and other bus safety-related
course offerings as a voluntary
component of the PTSCTP.
FTA also concurs with the
commenters who indicated that
personnel who may be subject to both
FRA and FTA training requirements
should not be subject to redundant
training. Accordingly, the PTSCTP
would not apply to personnel of rail
transit agencies subject to the
jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad
Administration (e.g., commuter
railroads).
FTA agrees that State DOT personnel
involved in managing federal funds that
are passed on to subrecipients are not
likely to be charged with safety
oversight responsibilities. But the State
DOT is responsible for ensuring that
subrecipients adhere to all applicable
Federal requirements. We emphasize
that this rule does not propose
mandatory training requirements for
State DOT personnel who perform
safety oversight roles for non-rail public
transportation systems.
Question 49. FTA next asked whether
all of the competencies listed in the
ANPRM are necessary for personnel
with safety oversight responsibilities.
Twenty-nine commenters responded
directly to the question or provided
comments related to the issue. Several
commenters agreed that the
competencies identified in the ANPRM
are necessary to craft a comprehensive
safety training program that addresses
the various hazards and threats faced by
public transportation systems. A couple
of these commenters added that the
current FTA-sponsored training is not
sufficient and transit agencies will need
more than the current training programs
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
in order to successfully comply with
new safety requirements.
Two commenters indicated that the
competencies identified were
unnecessary. One of the commenters
stated the current program is overly
broad and beyond the capacity of many
small operators. The other commenter
recommended that FTA utilize safety
training offered through the American
Public Transportation Association
(APTA). Another commenter indicated
that training should cover the four SMS
principles and strategies for controlling
risk. Several commenters indicated that
the competencies required for a small,
rural, bus-only agency are far different
than those required in a large, urban,
multi-modal agency. They noted that
agencies with fewer risk factors should
be allowed to work within standards
appropriate to their risk profile. A few
commenters stated they do not see a
need for the rules to prescribe specific
training requirements for State DOT
staff involved in managing federal funds
that are passed on to subrecipients.
Other commenters suggested the
following:
• Advanced SMS Principles for Rail
Transit can probably be combined with
Level 100 SMS Principles for Rail
Transit, and Level 300 SMS Risk
Control Strategies can probably be
combined with Level 201 Advanced
SMS Risk Management;
• public transportation agencies
should determine which competencies
are necessary for the scope, scale and
complexity of their fixed facilities,
systems and operating environments;
• many transit safety professionals
already have the majority of the specific
competencies listed. Emphasis may be
placed on specific SMS areas where
gaps exist based on the transit agency’s
safety risk analysis.
FTA response. A similar question was
posed in the Federal Register notice for
the interim program dated April 30,
2014. Commenters to both notices
indicated that the existing FTAsponsored training already includes
many of the competencies FTA
identified as necessary to implement a
safety certification training program.
Consequently, FTA reviewed the TSI
curriculum and concurs that the courses
for the TSSP Certificate sufficiently
cover many of the competency areas
that FTA identified; therefore, FTA will
leverage the curriculum for the TSSP
program instead of developing a wholly
new curriculum for the PTSCTP.
As suggested by commenters
however, FTA agrees that the existing
TSSP curriculum should be revised to
better reflect SMS principles.
Accordingly, as noted in Section IV, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
TSSP curriculum is being updated and
FTA is proposing additional courses for
the PTSCTP that focus on SMS
principles. This approach aligns with
FTA’s adoption of the SMS framework
to enhance safety while effectively
leveraging a curriculum and training
model familiar to the industry. FTA
believes its approach to the interim
program and the proposed
implementation of the PTSCTP
adequately addresses commenter’s
concerns regarding costs, scalability and
flexibility for the transit industry.
Question 50. In the ANPRM, FTA did
not propose a timeframe for safety
oversight personnel to complete the
safety certification training
requirements. However, the following
question was posed to obtain the
industry’s perspective on the issue:
Should personnel be required to obtain
certification prior to starting a position,
or should they be given a specific
timeframe to obtain safety certification
after starting a position?
Forty-seven commenters responded
directly to the question or provided
comments relative to the question. Forty
commenters indicated they do not
believe personnel should be required to
obtain certification prior to starting a
position, and a new hire should be
given a period of time to obtain
necessary certifications. Many of the
commenters noted that it would be more
effective to attend required safety
certification training concurrently with
on-the-job training. Otherwise, it would
limit the pool of qualified candidates for
safety positions if personnel were
required to obtain certification prior to
starting a position. Commenters also
noted that agencies should have the
flexibility to customize training to
address their unique safety concerns,
size, and management structure.
Further, commenters noted that
currently it is difficult to recruit and
hire safety professionals; therefore,
requiring certification prior to starting a
position would only increase the
difficulty.
A few commenters stated that
personnel should be required to obtain
all safety certification prior to starting a
position because lack of appropriate
training could potentially put the public
at risk. One commenter stated that both
options should be available depending
on the position occupied. For instance,
at the director level and higher, an
individual should have experience with
the principles of SMS and program
development. At lower levels, a certain
amount of on-the-job training could be
incorporated in an individual’s
development plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75643
One commenter indicated that it
would be costly to require a person to
complete the training before a recipient
could hire that person. Another
commenter stated that both approaches
have problems. The commenter noted
that if an agency hires inexperienced
people with no training and provides
the training once aboard, the agency
will have trained but inexperienced
people. On the other hand, an employee
needs to learn the details of the transit
business which cannot be taught
entirely in the classroom. The
commenter noted that if a state agency
hires only those that have the requisite
training, the agency will have people
with the minimum qualifications to do
the job but may still require
considerable on-the-job training in order
to prepare them to actually perform the
requirements of a regulator.
Lastly, a commenter stated that since
there are no current certification
requirements for bus transit, time to
obtain the certification would be
appropriate. The commenter also stated
that personnel performing any specific
function or task in a rail system should
be certified before being allowed to
independently perform in that capacity.
FTA response. The objective of safety
certification training is to enhance the
technical proficiency of those
responsible for safety oversight of public
transportation systems. FTA recognizes
that in order for any proposed
regulatory requirements to be
implemented practically, issues of
resource allocation and availability
must be considered. To that end, FTA
concurs with those commenters who
indicated that it could be overly
burdensome to limit the pool of
available applicants to only those that
have completed the proposed training
requirements. For this reason, the
interim program provides designated
personnel three years from the date of
the recipient’s initial designation to
complete the interim program
requirements. FTA is proposing the
same three-year timeframe to complete
the initial PTSCTP requirements. FTA
believes this approach adequately
balances concerns with personnel
training requirements and the
recipient’s resource management
requirements.
Question 51. In the ANPRM, FTA did
not propose a specific timeframe for
how often safety oversight personnel
should be required to undergo refresher
training requirements. However, we did
ask the following question to obtain the
public’s perspective on the needed
frequency: How often should personnel
be required to receive refresher training?
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75644
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Forty-seven commenters responded
directly to the question or provided
comments relative to the issue. Several
commenters indicated that personnel
should be required to receive refresher
training either every two or three years.
Some commenters recommended
refresher training every three to five
years. A few commenters thought
refresher training should be conducted
annually. Two commenters stated that
depending on the number of courses
required and the length of the training
curriculum, refresher training should
occur somewhere between every one to
five years.
A few commenters indicated that
personnel should receive refresher
training on an as-needed basis to keep
them up-to-date on new safety standards
and changes to existing safety standards.
Some commenters suggested that the
primary concern should be the quality,
not the quantity or frequency of
refresher training. In addition,
commenters suggested the following:
• Frequency of training should be left
to the discretion of the recipient;
• FTA should regularly convene
those responsible for public
transportation safety oversight at the
Federal, State, and agency level to
discuss safety critical risks. These
discussions should focus on trends in
public transportation safety risks, safety
risk management practices and risk
control strategies;
• the frequency of refresher training
should be based on several factors,
including, but not limited to the scope
of job functions, frequency of
application of the functions, and
experience with the specific function for
which the individual is responsible;
• frequency of refresher training is
dependent on the employee’s position
and safety responsibilities;
• the question is premature and
cannot be addressed until the final
requirements are adopted and the
number of professionals requiring
training can be assessed;
• training standards and timing
should evolve as the requirements are
adopted and implemented. Overlaying
refresher training requirements on an
already strained training system would
further slow training of new safety
professionals.
FTA response. FTA is taking a
comprehensive approach as it considers
the safety training requirements
proposed here, as well as those that will
be proposed in other rules to implement
the Public Transportation Safety
Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329.
FTA recognizes that proposed training
and refresher requirements should align
and support the objectives of the SMS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
framework adopted by FTA. To that
end, proposed training requirements
will be driven by safety data in
conjunction with safety trend analysis.
FTA will periodically review safety data
and trends which may indicate a need
for FTA to revise refresher training
requirements. However, any revisions
will be subject to notice and comment
prior to becoming effective.
FTA agrees with the commenters who
indicated that refresher training should
occur every two years following the
initial three-year timeframe for
completing safety certification training
requirements. Since any refresher
training should be relevant to a
recipient’s specific circumstances, the
recipient will be in the best position to
determine the subject matter and
timeframe that should be allotted for
refresher training. However, FTA
believes that at minimum, one hour of
refresher training every two years
should be required. The minimum
requirement of one hour of biannual
refresher training strikes an appropriate
balance that reinforces safety oversight
training while recognizing that each
recipient can best determine refresher
training that is appropriate for its safety
oversight personnel.
Questions 52 and 53. In the ANPRM,
FTA posed a series of questions to assist
with identifying the universe of
potential personnel that may be subject
to the PTSCPT requirements. Question
52 sought to identify which transit
agency positions are directly
responsible for safety oversight.
Question 53 sought to identify specific
operations personnel who are directly
responsible for safety, their duties, and
the training they receive. The questions,
as phrased in the ANPRM, did not
clearly reflect this functional
distinction; however, responses from
many of the commenters indicated an
awareness of the distinction. The point
is noted here because both the interim
program and this NPRM would apply
only to transit personnel with direct
safety oversight responsibilities
(emphasis added) as distinguished from
operations personnel who are
responsible for safety (oversight
omitted). FTA’s proposed approach to
the training requirements for operations
personnel who are responsible for safety
will be included in the NPRM for the
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan to be issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
5329(d).
Twenty-eight commenters responded
to the question of which transit agency
positions are directly responsible for
safety oversight. Several commenters
listed various transit agency positions as
being directly responsible for safety
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
oversight including: The entire System
Safety Department and the divisions
under it; agency leadership, operations
managers, supervisors, and safety staff;
the Director of Safety, the Risk
Management Department and various
safety departments and trainers that are
contractor specific; Safety Managers;
Bus and Rail Managers; the responsible
Executive; Safety Operations Manager;
and Safety Administrators (Bus, Rail).
Some commenters noted that in their
organizations every employee has a
responsibility for safety. A number of
the commenters also noted that overall
authority and responsibility was vested
in a number of individuals, including
the General Manager/Transit Director,
Chief Operating Officer/Operations
Manager, Facilities Managers,
Maintenance Manager, and the Chief
Safety Officer and staff. A few
commenters stated that FTA already has
a process for identifying safety-sensitive
personnel subject to its Drug and
Alcohol Testing program requirements
and recommended that FTA adopt a
similar process to identify those subject
to the safety rules. Two commenters
noted that this decision should be at the
discretion of the transit agency as some
agencies, because of size, may have a
person serving as the safety person in
addition to other duties. Two other
commenters stated that it varies
depending on the size of the agency and
the position should be identified by the
transit agency General Manager.
With regard to the series of questions
about operations personnel, thirty-one
commenters responded. Many of the
comments were similar to responses to
the question above; however, a number
of commenters specifically addressed
operations personnel. These
commenters identified widely varied
and diverse operations positions that are
directly responsible for safety oversight
to include: Operations Supervisors,
Department Managers/Supervisors,
Safety Department personnel/Safety
Managers/Director of Safety, Safety/
Training Officer, all supervisory and
management personnel, Chief Operating
Officer, Operations Managers,
Maintenance Directors, and
Transportation Safety Specialist.
Comments regarding the duties of
operations positions were just as varied
and diverse. Duty descriptions
included, but were not limited to,
contract management, research,
development, implementation and
maintenance of programs and
procedures, policy development,
observations, inspections, audits,
investigations and liaison. One
commenter stated that Bus and Rail
Transit Operations Supervisors are
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
directly responsible for overseeing the
operational safety of the agency by
conducting efficiency tests, rules
compliance line rides, post-accident
line rides, accident investigations,
verifying compliance with Roadway
Worker Protection (RWP) requirements,
and investigating reported hazards.
Commenters noted that the Operations
Supervisors are trained in all of the
above either by internal staff or by
attending courses offered by TSI.
One commenter stated that all
operations managers and supervisors are
directly responsible for safety oversight
and their duties vary, but include
development, implementation, training
and enforcement of policies/procedures;
inspection and observation; hazard
management; tool box safety meetings;
and assuring compliance with all local,
state and federal regulations governing
the safe operation of vehicles.
Responses to the question of training
received by operations personnel also
varied but TSI and OSHA training were
mentioned most frequently. A number
of commenters indicated that they have
received training such as university
level safety training courses,
fundamentals of bus collision
investigation, fatigue and sleep apnea
awareness for transit employees, transit
industrial safety management, and
transit rail incident investigation.
FTA response. The responses to both
questions clearly indicate the universe
of transit agency personnel responsible
for safety oversight, and operations
personnel responsible for safety vary
among transit agencies. As discussed
further in Section V of this notice, FTA
believes that each recipient, with
guidance from FTA, is better situated to
determine which of its personnel are
directly responsible for safety oversight.
As noted earlier, training requirements
for operations personnel will be
addressed in the rulemaking for the
Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan.
Question 54. FTA asked whether
members of a transit agency board of
directors or other equivalent entity
currently receive any type of safety or
risk management training; if so, what
does the training cover?
Thirty commenters responded, with
twenty-three stating that their Boards or
the equivalent do not receive safety/risk
management training. In general, several
commenters noted that Boards should
not be required to receive this type of
training. A few commenters indicated
that Boards receive some type of
training, ranging from informal or
familiarization training to training
provided by insurance companies or
executive staff.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
One commenter stated that the
Board’s involvement with safety/risk
issues is at a policy level while two
other commenters indicated that the
General Manager is responsible for
ensuring that board members, or their
equivalents, understand the safety
culture of the agency. Two commenters
stated that the Board receives informal
safety training. One of these
commenters noted that this training is a
part of their service on a Subcommittee
for Safety and another responded that
the Board is instructed on the
definitions related to safety reporting
and how to interpret safety data to
improve their understanding of the
monthly safety data presented to them.
One commenter responded that when
members first come onto the Board they
are provided familiarization training on
FTA safety requirements under 49 CFR
part 659. Another commenter noted that
board members might receive this
training through an agency’s insurance
company. Another noted that their
agency is currently writing a new safety
plan that incorporates SMS principles;
since the Board of Directors will be
required to review and approve the plan
they will receive a presentation that will
explain SMS principles and processes,
including risk management.
FTA response. The information
provided by the commenters to this
question will be reviewed as FTA
considers appropriate methods to
increase SMS awareness for the Board of
Directors or those with equivalent
executive oversight functions.
Question 55. FTA asked questions
about the availability of industry
training specifically for personnel with
transit safety oversight responsibility;
the effectiveness and accessibility of
such training; and what other types of
training oversight personnel need but
that may not be readily available to
them.
Twenty-nine commenters responded
to this question. Several commenters
listed the various training that safety
oversight personnel currently receive,
with the common thread being
federally-sponsored training programs
offered by the National Transit Institute
(NTI), the National Transportation
Safety Board, the National Safety
Council, TSI, and OSHA. Some
commenters responded that most of
their training was developed and/or
provided in-house or through on-the-job
training. A few commenters noted the
availability of the following training for
bus small urban and rural operators:
Community Transportation Association
of America’s Certified Safety and
Security Officer Training Program and
FTA’s Bus Safety Program Orientation
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75645
Seminar. One commenter noted that
Colorado has a robust program offering
two full-day safety-related training
sessions at their spring and fall transit
conferences. Two commenters
mentioned classes conducted by local
safety personnel such as police, fire,
sheriffs, emergency management
organizations, and the risk manager.
Commenters noted that the
effectiveness of the training is evaluated
using the following methods: Internal
safety audits; facility safety inspections;
on the job evaluations by departmental
managers, the General Manager,
insurance pool staff, or State DOT staff;
ride checks; efficiency tests; and SSO
triennial audits. In addition, one
commenter noted that regulatory audits
and written tests are used to measure
training effectiveness.
Comments on the types of training
that oversight personnel need but is not
readily available included SMS training,
risk assessment training, reactive
training programs that address changes
to strategic safety philosophy, and
tactical issue-specific initiatives. A few
commenters recommended that FTA
develop this training specifically for the
public transportation industry.
FTA response. The comments indicate
the availability of an array of relevant
safety training for safety oversight
professionals. As noted in Section V of
this notice, the comments support
FTA’s proposal to develop a process to
evaluate safety training obtained from
other competent organizations for credit
towards PTSCTP requirements.
III. Overview of the Proposed Rule
FTA considered the recommendations
submitted by commenters on the
ANPRM while developing both the
interim program and this proposed rule.
Many of those recommendations are
reflected in the requirements proposed
for this rule.
To implement this rule, FTA proposes
to leverage the interim program training
requirements as the foundation for the
PTSCTP. FTA recognizes that the
interim program was implemented only
recently; therefore, a reasonable period
of time should pass to allow FTA to
assess its effectiveness before proposing
new or additional requirements. The
interim program curriculum and
technical training requirements are
republished in Section IV of this notice
for clarity. FTA invites public comment
on its proposed implementation of the
PTSCTP as noted herein.
As with the interim program, FTA
proposes the initial focus of the PTSCTP
will be on enhancing the technical
proficiency of safety oversight
professionals in the rail transit industry.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
75646
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In addition, public transportation safety
is a priority for all public transit
providers; therefore, safety oversight
professionals of other modes of public
transportation are encouraged to
participate voluntarily. The initial
mandatory PTSCTP requirements
would provide SMS training for Federal
and SSOA personnel and their
contractor support, as well as rail transit
agency personnel who are directly
responsible for safety oversight of rail
transit systems. Safety oversight
personnel of recipients such as State
DOTs and bus transit providers would
continue as voluntary participants. FTA
believes this initial approach of
mandatory training for SSOAs and rail
transit agencies, and voluntary training
for bus only systems, allows for
optimum utilization of Federal and local
resources while providing flexibility to
revise the training requirements as
appropriate. However, FTA notes that
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), it has
discretion to promulgate mandatory
training requirements for all public
transportation systems—not just rail.
In response to commenters who
recommended that the PTSCTP program
requirements be flexible and scalable
and take into consideration the varying
needs and sizes of different public
transit agencies, FTA notes that the
PTSCTP’s mandatory training would
apply only to SSOAs and rail transit
agencies with minimum training
requirements necessary to enhance
technical proficiency. State DOT and
bus transit personnel would be
voluntary participants. Further, FTA
recognizes the value of leveraging its
published safety toolkits, best practices
guides, and providing technical
assistance as the PTSCTP is
implemented. Therefore, before FTA
would propose new training
requirements, existing FTA-sponsored
training would be reviewed for
applicability and scalability relative to
the diverse universe of public transit
providers.
FTA also proposes flexibility with
regard to how personnel would be
identified as participants for the
PTSCTP. FTA agrees with commenters
who indicated the recipient should have
discretion to identify which of its
personnel perform safety oversight
functions. Comments to the ANPRM
indicated that position titles and
functions in the public transportation
industry are not universal. In general, it
would be impractical for FTA to
identify the specific positions or titles of
those directly responsible for safety
oversight or those who conduct audits
and examinations. Therefore, the
proposed rule includes definitions for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
the terms ‘‘directly responsible for safety
oversight,’’ ‘‘safety audits,’’ and ‘‘safety
examinations’’ in order to assist public
transit agencies with identifying
personnel who will need to complete
the training.
FTA is proposing flexibility with
developing the curriculum for the
PTSCTP. Specifically, FTA would use a
process similar to that used to identify
National Transit Database (NTD)
reporting requirements under 49 CFR
part 630. To illustrate, FTA periodically
publishes revisions to the NTD
Reporting Manuals (defined in part 630
as reference documents) following
notice and comment. For the PTSCTP,
FTA would issue and update the
training requirements for the PTSCTP in
a similar manner. After FTA issues a
final PTSCTP rule, FTA would
periodically review the training
requirements to determine if any
modifications should be made to
improve the effectiveness of the
program. If warranted, revised
requirements would be published in the
Federal Register for notice and
comment before taking effect. The
requirements then would be made
available via the FTA Web site as the
reference document noted in sections
672.5, 672.11 and 672.13 of the
proposed regulatory text. The flexibility
of this process would align with FTA’s
periodic review of safety data and
trends to determine if the reference
document warrants revisions. FTA
believes this proposed approach
provides the public transportation
industry with predictable training
requirements yet allows flexibility to
respond to emerging safety trends
within a reasonable timeframe.
The proposed PTSCTP is also flexible
with regard to its application. FTA is
not proposing that a recipient only can
hire personnel that have completed the
initial training requirements. As
suggested by a number of commenters,
FTA proposes that personnel would
have three years from the date the
recipient identifies him or her as
designated personnel to complete the
initial requirements. FTA believes this
measured approach promotes the
legislative intent of enhancing the
technical proficiency of safety oversight
personnel while recognizing the
recipient’s need to prudently manage its
human capital and resources.
Additionally, FTA agrees with
commenters who indicated that
refresher training should occur every
two years following the initial threeyear timeframe for completing safety
certification training requirements.
Topics for refresher training would be at
the discretion of the SSOA or rail transit
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
agency, but would likely align with the
training requirements to be proposed for
the Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan. Refresher training would likely
place greater emphasis on advanced
areas or topics that often lead to
accidents, injuries, or non-compliance.
This process would allow both FTA and
the public transportation industry to
analyze safety data and identify risks
before recommending risk mitigation
strategies. FTA believes a two-year
refresher cycle following the initial
three-year training period reasonably
permits designated personnel to train on
relevant safety issues while not
significantly impacting operations.
Although each SSOA and rail transit
agency would have discretion with
regard to the subject matter for refresher
training, the proposed rule would
require designated personnel to
participate in at least one hour of
refresher training. FTA emphasizes that
this proposal would provide the SSOAs
and rail transit agencies with discretion
to require more than one hour of
refresher training based on the specific
safety oversight training needs of the
SSOA or rail transit agency.
FTA also agrees with those ANPRM
commenters who indicated that FTA
should recognize relevant safety training
and certification that designated
personnel already have obtained. To
that end, FTA is proposing to allow
designated personnel to have their
previous training evaluated by FTA to
determine if the training competencies
are equivalent to the competencies of
the curriculum proposed for the
PTSCTP. FTA would have the
discretion to determine whether specific
PTSCTP training requirements should
be waived for the designated personnel.
FTA believes the regulatory construct
described above balances flexibility and
scalability for recipients while
achieving the objective of enhancing the
technical proficiency of public
transportation personnel. FTA invites
public comment on the flexible and
scalable approach proposed to
implement the PTSCTP.
IV. Interim Program Curriculum and
Technical Training Requirements
FTA is providing the following
requirements of the interim program
here to assist stakeholders with
understanding the curriculum and
requirements proposed for this rule. As
stated previously, FTA adopted these
requirements through a notice and
comment process and is not seeking
comments on the requirements
themselves. FTA believes the
curriculum and technical training
requirements developed for the interim
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
program provide a sufficient baseline for
enhancing the technical competency of
those directly responsible for safety
oversight. However, since these
requirements only became effective in
May of this year, FTA is interested in
receiving comments on the effectiveness
of the curriculum and technical training
requirements noted herein.
For purposes of consistency, FTA has
changed ‘‘covered personnel’’ to
‘‘designated personnel’’ as that is the
term proposed for use in the rule. All
other text is the same as that published
in the February 27, 2015, Federal
Register notice (80 FR 10619), available
at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2015-02-27/pdf/2015-03842.pdf.
A. Required Curriculum Over a ThreeYear Period
• FTA/SSOA personnel and
contractor support, and rail transit
agency personnel with direct
responsibility for safety oversight of rail
transit systems not subject to FRA
regulation:
Æ One (1) hour course on SMS
Awareness—e-learning delivery (all
required participants)
Æ Two (2) hour course on Safety
Assurance—e-learning delivery (all
required participants)
Æ Two (2) hour SMS Gap course (elearning for existing TSSP Certificate
holders)
Æ SMS Principles for Rail Transit (2
days—all required participants)
Æ SMS Principles for SSO Programs (2
days—FTA/SSOA/contractor support
personnel only)
Æ Revised TSSP with SMS Principles
Integration (not required of current
TSSP Certificate holders—17.5 days
for all other designated personnel)
Æ Rail System Safety
Æ Effectively Managing Transit
Emergencies
Æ Transit System Security
Æ Rail Incident Investigation
• FTA/SSOA/contractor support
personnel (technical training
component):
Each SSOA shall develop a technical
training plan for designated personnel
and contractor support personnel who
perform safety audits and examinations.
The SSOA will submit its proposed
technical training plan to FTA for
review and evaluation as part of the
SSOA certification program in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(7).
This review and approval process will
support the consultation required
between FTA and SSOAs regarding the
staffing and qualification of the SSOAs’
employees and other designated
personnel in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(e)(3)(D).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Recognizing that each rail fixed
guideway public transportation system
has unique characteristics, each SSOA
will identify the tasks related to
inspections, examinations, and audits,
and all activities requiring sign-off,
which must be performed by the SSOA
to carry out its safety oversight
requirements, and identify the skills and
knowledge necessary to perform each
task at that system. At a minimum, the
technical training plan will describe the
process for receiving technical training
from the rail transit agencies in the
following competency areas appropriate
to the specific rail fixed guideway
system(s) for which safety audits and
examinations are conducted:
• Agency organizational structure
• System Safety Program Plan and
Security Program Plan
• Knowledge of agency:
Æ Territory and revenue service
schedules
Æ Current bulletins, general orders,
and other associated directives that
ensure safe operations
Æ Operations and maintenance rule
books
Æ Safety rules
Æ Standard Operating Procedures
Æ Roadway Worker Protection
Æ Employee Hours of Service and
Fatigue Management program
Æ Employee Observation and Testing
Program (Efficiency Testing)
Æ Employee training and certification
requirements
Æ Vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs, schedules
and records
Æ Track inspection and maintenance
programs, schedules and records
Æ Tunnels, bridges, and other
structures inspection and
maintenance programs, schedules
and records
Æ Traction power (substation,
overhead catenary system, and third
rail), load dispatching, inspection
and maintenance programs,
schedules and records
Æ Signal and train control inspection
and maintenance programs,
schedules and records
The SSOA will determine the length
of time for the technical training based
on the skill level of the designated
personnel relative to the applicable rail
transit agency(s). FTA will provide a
template on its Web site to assist the
SSOA with preparing and monitoring its
technical training plan and will provide
technical assistance as requested. Each
SSOA technical training plan that is
submitted to FTA for review will:
Æ Require designated personnel to
successfully:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75647
D Complete training that covers the
skills and knowledge the designated
personnel will need to effectively
perform his or her tasks.
D Pass a written and/or oral
examination covering the skills and
knowledge required for the designated
personnel to effectively perform his or
her tasks.
D Demonstrate hands-on capability to
perform his or her tasks to the
satisfaction of the appropriate SSOA
supervisor or designated instructor.
Æ Establish equivalencies or written
and oral examinations to allow
designated personnel to demonstrate
that they possess the skill and
qualification required to perform their
tasks.
Æ Require biennial refresher training
to maintain technical skills and abilities
which includes classroom and hands-on
training, as well as testing. Observation
and evaluation of actual performance of
duties may be used to meet the handson portion of this requirement, provided
that such testing is documented.
Æ Require that training records be
maintained to demonstrate the current
qualification status of designated
personnel assigned to carry out the
oversight program. Records may be
maintained either electronically or in
writing and must be provided to FTA
upon request.
Æ Records must include the following
information concerning each designated
personnel:
D Name;
D The title and date each training
course was completed and the
proficiency test score(s) where
applicable;
D The content of each training course
successfully completed;
D A description of the designated
personnel’s hands-on performance
applying the skills and knowledge
required to perform the tasks that the
employee will be responsible for
performing and the factual basis
supporting the determination;
D The tasks the designated personnel
is deemed qualified to perform; and
D Provide the date that the designated
personnel’s status as qualified to
perform the tasks expires, and the date
in which biennial refresher training is
due.
Æ Ensure the qualification of
contractors performing oversight
activities. SSOAs may use
demonstrations, previous training and
education, and written and oral
examinations to determine if contractors
possess the skill and qualification
required to perform their tasks.
Æ Periodically assess the effectiveness
of the technical training. One method of
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
75648
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
validation and assessment could be
through the use of efficiency tests or
periodic review of employee
performance.
B. Voluntary Curriculum
• Bus transit system personnel with
direct safety oversight responsibility
and State DOTs overseeing safety
programs for subrecipients
Æ FTA-sponsored Bus Safety
Programs
Æ One (1) hour course on SMS
Awareness—e-learning delivery
Æ SMS for Bus Operations
Æ TSSP Certificate (Bus)
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section explains the
requirements proposed to implement
the Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1).
Section 672.1
Purpose
This part proposes to implement 49
U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) by establishing a
uniform curriculum of safety
certification training to enhance the
technical proficiency of individuals
who are directly responsible for safety
oversight of public transportation
systems not subject to the safety
oversight requirements of another
Federal agency. This part would not
preempt a State from implementing its
own safety certification training
requirements for public transportation
systems subject to its jurisdiction.
Section 672.3
Scope and Applicability
In general, the proposed rule would
apply to all recipients of Federal public
transportation funding under Chapter 53
of Title 49 of the United States Code.
However, the mandatory requirements
would apply specifically to SSOA
personnel and their contractor support
who conduct safety audits and
examinations. In addition, the
mandatory requirements would apply to
rail transit agency personnel who are
directly responsible for safety oversight
of rail transit systems that are not
subject to the requirements of FRA. All
other recipients of Chapter 53 funding
would have discretion to participate
voluntarily in the training requirements
proposed for the PTSCTP.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 672.5
Definitions
This section would set forth the
definitions of some key terms for the
proposed rule. Although this would be
a new rule, many of the terms used for
this section will carry the same or
similar meaning as the terms are used in
other documents issued by FTA.
Specifically, they are ‘‘Administrator,’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
‘‘Contractor,’’ ‘‘FTA,’’ ‘‘Recipient,’’
‘‘Public Transportation Agency,’’ ‘‘Rail
Fixed Guideway System,’’ ‘‘State,’’ and
‘‘State Safety Oversight Agency.’’
In addition, there are some new terms
proposed for this rulemaking with
definitions that are consistent with the
common sense use as they appear in the
proposed rule text. They are:
‘‘Designated Personnel,’’ ‘‘Directly
Responsible for Safety Oversight,’’
‘‘Reference Documents,’’ ‘‘Safety
Audits,’’ and ‘‘Safety Examinations.’’
Section 672.11 Designated Personnel
Who Conduct Safety Audits and
Examinations
With paragraph (a) of this section,
FTA is proposing that the State entity
authorized by the Governor to perform
public transportation safety oversight
functions should identify its personnel
who conduct safety audits and
examinations of the public
transportation systems for mandatory
participation in training requirements of
this part. In general, those identified
would be SSOA personnel and the
contractor support whose functions
include on-site safety audits and
examinations of rail public
transportation systems. This section also
would apply to the managers and
supervisors who have direct authority
over such personnel. FTA is proposing
this approach because each SSOA is
better situated to determine which of its
personnel and contractors perform
safety audit and examination functions
as those terms are proposed in the
Definitions section for this rule.
Paragraph (b) proposes that personnel
designated by the SSOA would have
three years to complete the applicable
training noted in the Reference
Document as the term is defined in
proposed section 672.5. To implement
this rule, the interim program training
requirements listed in Section IV of this
notice would be listed in the Reference
Document. Paragraph (b) also would
require the SSOA to ensure that
designated personnel complete at least
one-hour of refresher training every two
years after the initial three-year period
above. The SSOA would have discretion
to determine the subject area and time
for such training. Paragraph (c) would
identify the FTA web address for
locating the current version of the safety
certification training requirements.
Section 672.13 Designated Personnel
of Public Transportation Agencies
This section would require a recipient
to identify its employees whose job
function is ‘‘directly responsible for
safety oversight’’ of the public
transportation system. FTA understands
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that the unique organizational
framework of public transit systems
does not reasonably allow for uniform
designation of the same position or
function as being ‘‘directly responsible
for safety oversight.’’ FTA believes each
transit agency is better situated to
determine which of its personnel should
be designated for participation in the
PTSCTP, whether mandatory or
voluntary.
Paragraph (a) would require each
recipient that operates a rail transit
system not subject to FRA requirements
to identify its designated personnel for
mandatory participation in the PTSCTP.
Paragraph (b) would allow recipients of
other modes of public transportation
with personnel who are directly
responsible for safety oversight to
participate voluntarily. In general, these
recipients would be State DOTs, transit
agencies with both bus and rail transit
systems, as well as bus only systems.
These recipients would have discretion
to scale their training requirements
based on their safety risks, as well as
guidance issued by FTA. FTA would
continue to provide technical assistance
for training through its Safety Training
and Resource Web site which can be
located at: https://safety.fta.dot.gov/.
Paragraph (c) would provide
mandatory participants up to three years
from the time of his or her initial
designation to complete the initial
training requirements. The recipient
would then ensure that each mandatory
participant completes at least one-hour
of refresher training every two years
thereafter. However, the recipient may
require additional time for such
training. As noted in paragraph (d), the
FTA web address for locating the
current version of the safety certification
training requirements is identified.
627.15 Evaluation of Prior
Certification and Training
FTA recognizes the existence of other
competent organizations that provide
relevant safety training and certification
for public transportation safety
professionals. Therefore, paragraph (a)
of this section would allow a participant
to request that FTA review other nonFTA sponsored safety training the
participant has completed for the
purpose of receiving credit toward
equivalent elements of PTSCTP training
requirements.
Paragraph (b) would require the
participant to provide official
documentation from the organization
that conducted the training for which
credit is being requested. The
documentation should indicate the
date(s) and subject matter of the
completed training. In addition, the
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
participant would be required to
provide a narrative summary of the
training objectives and the
competencies obtained through that
training.
In accordance with paragraph (c),
FTA would evaluate the submission to
determine if the previously completed
safety training conforms to the training
objectives and competencies of the FTA
curriculum. If approved, FTA would
provide the participant credit for the
previous training and waive completion
of the equivalent element of the PTSCTP
requirement. However, the waiver
would not exempt a participant from
having to comply with any applicable
refresher training or technical training
requirements.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 672.21
Records
An essential requirement of any
training program is the maintenance of
adequate records to document that the
training was completed. To that end, as
noted in paragraph (a), FTA proposes to
maintain an electronic record of each
PTSCTP participant. The electronic
record would be created when the
participant registers online for the
program at: https://safety.fta.dot.gov/.
FTA would maintain and administer
the online database; however, paragraph
(b) would require that each recipient be
responsible for ensuring that its
designated personnel are properly
registered and completing the
curriculum for their position (e.g., safety
oversight function, or conducting safety
audits and examinations). The database
would allow participants to update his
or her status as training requirements
are completed.
Paragraph (c) would require each
SSOA develop a technical training plan
based on applicable requirements
identified in the technical training
component of Section IV of this notice.
Each SSOA would maintain training
records that document the technical
training undertaken by its designated
personnel and contractors who conduct
audits and examinations of rail transit
systems under its jurisdiction. This
documentation would be retained by the
SSOA for at least five years from the
date the record is created. This
documentation process would assist the
SSOA in complying with the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(E),
as it would provide supporting
documents that show designated SSOA
personnel and contractor support are
have received training to perform
requisite safety oversight functions. As
with the interim program, FTA would
provide templates and guidance to assist
the SSOA with this process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
With regard to contractors that
provide audit and examination services
to SSOAs, the SSOA would be
responsible for ensuring that any
contractor it engages to perform a safety
oversight function is qualified to
perform the service as contracted.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the SSOA,
working with its contractor, to maintain
training records of those providing
contract services.
Section 672.23
Availability of Records
With this section, FTA is proposing
requirements for the safekeeping and
limited release of information
maintained in accordance with the
proposed requirements of this part.
Paragraph (a) would require that
information maintained in applicable
training records not be released without
the consent of the participant for whom
the record is maintained, except in
those limited instances as prescribed by
law or as indicated in paragraphs (b), (c)
and (d).
Paragraph (b) would allow a
participant to receive a copy of his or
her training records without cost to the
participant. To assist with safety
oversight activities, paragraph (c) would
require a recipient to provide
appropriate Federal and SSOA
personnel access to all of the recipient’s
facilities where required training is
conducted. In addition, the recipient
would be required to grant access to all
training records required to be
maintained by this part to appropriate
Department of Transportation personnel
and appropriate State officials who are
responsible for safety oversight of public
transportation systems. Paragraph (d)
would require a recipient to provide
information regarding a participant’s
training when requested by the National
Transportation Safety Board when such
request is made as part of an accident
investigation.
Section 672.31
Compliance
Requirement To Certify
Recipients are required to annually
certify their compliance with Federal
grant requirements as a condition for
receiving funding. Paragraph (a) would
require recipients for whom the training
requirements are mandatory to selfcertify compliance with this part
through the annual FTA certification
and assurances. Paragraph (b) would
require the recipient to identify the
person(s) within its organization
authorized to certify the status of the
recipient’s compliance.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75649
Section 672.33 Compliance as a
Condition of Financial Assistance
This section would define actions
available to the Administrator if a
recipient for whom the training
requirements are mandatory does not
comply with the requirements of this
part. Paragraph (a) would indicate that
the Administrator has discretion to
withhold Federal public transportation
funds should the Administrator find
that a recipient is not complying with
the requirements of this part. Paragraph
(b) would provide the recipient with
written notice of the Administrator’s
decision and the factual basis for the
Administrator’s finding of
noncompliance. Paragraph (c) would
provide the recipient an opportunity to
respond to the Administrator within 30
days of receiving written notice of the
finding of noncompliance. Paragraph (d)
provides actions the Administrator may
undertake at his or her discretion.
VI. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Section 5329(h) of title 49, United
States Code requires FTA to ‘‘take into
consideration the costs and benefits of
each action the Secretary proposes to
take’’ under section 5329. To assess the
costs for the PTSCTP, we first reviewed
data from the Transportation Safety
Institute (TSI). Using this data and our
familiarity with how SSOAs are
organized, we developed a maximum
and minimum number of personnel, to
include employees and contractors that
would be affected by the PTSCTP. Next,
using the same data from TSI, we
determined the number of rail transit
personnel that would be affected by the
PTSCTP. We also reviewed the number
of FTA personnel who participate in
safety audits and examinations and
determined the number of FTA
personnel that would be required to
undergo the some level of training and
certification. In developing annual costs
for personnel that would attend the
PTSCTP, we assumed a minimum and
maximum case scenario.
For the minimum case, we assumed
that all designated personnel under this
program had already completed the
TSSP Certificate Program and would
require only the SMS portion of the
coursework described in Section IV of
this notice. This assumption is
supported given the popularity of the
TSSP Certificate Program within the
industry. This assumption is supported
further by the level of voluntary
participation by transit industry
personnel obtained from current
graduation/attendance data at TSI. For
the maximum case, we assume that no
one subject to the NPRM has a TSSP
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
75650
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Certificate. In this case, all designated
personnel would have to take and
complete both the TSSP and SMS
coursework over the allotted 3-year
period. The table below shows the
estimated counts used in our analysis.
To simplify the analysis, we assumed
that the total designated personnel
under this NPRM would undertake onethird of the total coursework each year.
While affected employees will have
three years to complete the
coursework—it would be unreasonable
to expect an employee to be away from
a duty station for training purposes for
over four consecutive weeks. As noted
in the comments received on the
ANPRM, many commenters suggested
that we harness the existing voluntary
training offered by TSI and build upon
that base.
ESTIMATED UNIVERSE OF POTENTIAL SSOA, RAIL TRANSIT AGENCY, AND FTA PERSONNEL
Minimum
Maximum
SSOA Personnel ......................................................................................................................................................
Rail Transit Agency Personnel ................................................................................................................................
FTA Personnel .........................................................................................................................................................
70
200
40
120
340
40
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
310
500
Next, we determined the training, by
course, that would be required of each
person within the scope of the PTSCTP.
The TSSP Certificate Program consists
of four courses.1 The Table below lists
the courses and duration.
TSSP COURSEWORK REQUIRED
[Completed within a 3-year period]
TSSP courses
Days
Rail Safety ............................
Rail Incident Investigation ....
Rail Security .........................
Managing Emergencies ........
4.5
4.5
4.5
4
Total ..................................
sessions. While SSO personnel will be
required to take 5.125 days of total
training, rail transit agency personnel
will not be required to take the two-day
SMS Principles Course. However, we
assume here that all rail transit agency
personnel will take all 5.125 days. This
approach is conservative and potentially
over counts the total costs by about $65–
110,000.00 per year but does not
complicate this analysis. The Table
below lists the courses and duration.
17.5
The SMS Coursework consists of two
courses and three online training
SMS COURSEWORK—IN-CLASS AND
ONLINE REQUIRED
[Completed within a 3-year period]
SMS courses
Days
SMS Awareness ...................
0.125
SMS COURSEWORK—IN-CLASS AND
ONLINE REQUIRED—Continued
[Completed within a 3-year period]
SMS courses
Days
Safety Assurance .................
SMS Gap ..............................
SMS Principles Rail Transit ..
SMS Principles SSO Programs ................................
0.25
0.25
2.5
Total ..................................
5.125
2
Using the 2013 Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) average wage rate of
$40.84 for those taking training under
this program, we developed the
following Lower Bound and Upper
Bound costs for attendance as depicted
in the table below.
COSTS FOR ATTENDANCE OF SSOA, RAIL TRANSIT AGENCY, AND FTA PERSONNEL WITHIN A 3-YEAR PERIOD
Number of
personnel
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Lower Bound Mandatory Costs/Yr ..................................................................
Upper Bound Mandatory Costs/Yr ..................................................................
310
500
Hourly rate
$40.84
40.84
Training time
(days)
5.125
22.625
Attendance
costs
$172,467.32
1,234,470.68
Next, we developed costs associated
with developing, managing, and
administering the coursework for the
PTSCTP. First, we reviewed the course
catalog for TSI and determined the
percentage of courses required by the
PTSCTP of the total courses offered—a
little more than one-fourth (six courses
plus three online courses out of 21 total
courses or about 28 percent) of the total
course offerings would be required of
the combined TSSP/SMS training under
this NPRM. Furthermore, of the total
days of coursework offered by TSI, 30
percent were attributable to the TSSP/
SMS coursework. To be conservative,
we used 30 percent for weighting for
unattributable costs and allocated full
costs where we were able to identify
cost resulting from the TSSP and/or
SMS training components. Using data
from FTA’s budget for TSI, the cost for
the administration of courses, contract
costs, and costs for the development of
new coursework we developed the
program costs. We factored no facility
costs as regional transit agencies or FTA
Regional Offices host courses. Hence,
we also do not account for travel costs
because courses are hosted locally—
travel for those attending would be
included within normal commuting
parameters. Lastly, there is no cost
associated with taking the coursework
for public agency employees. Using this
information, we developed the costs
presented in the following table.
1 The TSSP Certificate Program has two tracks,
one for rail and one for bus-based transport. Since
the PTSCTP is optional for bus-based transit we do
not address those costs or benefits in the instant
analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TSI PROGRAM COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH TSSP AND SMS COURSEWORK
Federal Salaries and Benefits * ....................................
Contract Services .................
Equipment, Supplies, Space,
Other * ...............................
Travel (Other than Course
Delivery) * ..........................
Course Delivery ....................
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
$210,212
368,000
58,260
13,800
462,866
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
costs for the PTSCTP. We note here
TSI PROGRAM COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH
TSSP
AND
SMS again that we have been very
conservative in aggregating costs, so in
COURSEWORK—Continued
fact the aggregate cost estimates are
greater than we expect to be the case.
We have not removed costs for rail
97,570
transit agency personnel that do not
Total Program ...................
1,422,204 have to take the SMS SSO Principles
course. We have assumed in the
* Weighted Cost Allocation.
Maximum scenario, in an
Using the costs presented above, the
overabundance of caution, that everyone
table below presents the total annual
has not taken the TSSP Certificate
Indirect at 19% .....................
Est. Materials Fee Recovery * ...................................
211,496
75651
coursework, which is a weak
assumption given the level of voluntary
participation and popularity of the
program. Moreover, we have used a
weighting that over estimates
unattributable costs given the level of
presence in the TSI course load. While
we present data for both a Maximum
Cost and Minimum Cost scenarios, the
actual experience for costs should be
closer to the Minimum scenario than to
the Maximum scenario.
TOTAL COSTS FOR THE PTSCTP OVER A 3-YEAR CERTIFICATION PERIOD
Attendance
costs
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Aggregate Costs MIN ..................................................................................................................
Aggregate Costs MAX .................................................................................................................
As the interim provisions only have
been in effect for a short time, we were
unable to generate any estimate of their
benefits. Thus, to assess the benefits for
the PTSCTP, we considered how other
transportation modes that are in the
process of implementing SMS or similar
systematic approaches to safety have
estimated the benefits of their programs
in reducing incidents, adverse
outcomes, and improving training
programs. For example, although no two
programs are identical, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) in its
final rule implementing its Training
Standards issued November 7, 2014 at
79 FR 66460, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR-2012-02-07/html/20122148.htm, provided evidence that
training programs for the railroad
industry would yield a breakeven point
with a 7 percent reduction in human
factor-caused accidents. Moreover, FRA
in its proposed rules to implement its
System Safety Program (SSP) (see 80 FR
10950) and its Risk Reduction Program
(RRP) (see 77 FR 55372) provided
anecdotal evidence that both programs
could lead to meaningful reductions in
serious crashes, and conducted
breakeven analyses that found that a
less than 1 percent reduction in the
incidents and accidents under
consideration would lead to a costneutral SSP rule and an approximately
2 percent reduction for the RRP rule.
Additionally, the Federal Aviation
Administration estimated that its SMS
program could yield a 20 percent
reduction in crashes.
Enhancements brought about by SMS
have also supported transportation and
oversight agencies in mitigating the
impacts of those events that do occur.
For the SSO program NPRM issued
February 27, 2015, at 80 FR 11002–30,
FTA considered what percentage of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
potential safety benefits that rule would
need to achieve in order to achieve a
‘‘break even’’ point with the costs based
on two different estimates of the
potential benefit pool. (FTA noted,
therein, that the analysis was not
intended to be a full analysis of the
potential benefits of SMS for transit
safety—rather it was intended to
provide some quantified estimate of the
potential benefits of the changes to the
SSO program proposed in that rule).
FTA also noted that the analysis may
understate the potential benefits
because of the lack of data on some noninjury related costs associated with
many incidents, particularly regarding
property damage and travel delays. For
the SSO NPRM, FTA estimated that the
SSO program revisions would
realistically garner a 2 percent reduction
in costs associated with fatalities and
‘‘serious’’ injuries. FTA performed
analyzed the potential safety benefits of
the SSO NPRM by reviewing the rail
transit incidents specifically identified
by the NTSB as related to inadequate
safety oversight programs. Of the 19
major rail transit accidents the NTSB
has investigated (or preliminarily
investigated) since 2004, five had
probable causes that included
inadequate safety oversight on the part
of the rail transit agency or FTA. Based
on the analysis for the SSO NPRM, for
the benefits to breakeven with the costs
to both SSOs and rail transit agencies,
the rule would only require a 1.23
percent reduction of the accidents costs
per year, which did not include
potentially significant unquantified
costs related to property damage and
disruption.
At base, the SSO NPRM increases the
frequency and/or comprehensiveness of
activities that are already performed,
such as reviews, inspections, field
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$172,467
1,234,471
TSI costs
$1,422,204
1,422,204
Total costs
$1,594,671
2,656,674
observations, investigations, safety
studies, data analysis activities, and
hazard management. The SSO NPRM
focuses its efforts on process
improvements to achieve its benefits.
The SSO program is reliant on the
PTSCTP for part of its safety
improvements. While the SSO NPRM
proposed to improve SSO and rail
transit agencies processes, the PTSCTP
improves the requisite human capital
within the SSO program by improving
the training and by making mandatory
training for those designated personnel
charged with safety oversight at SSO
and rail transit agencies.
We were very confident that a 2
percent reduction, which is in line with
FRA estimates, could be achieved with
the SSO NPRM—in fact, our
calculations showed the breakeven
point to be a reduction of 1.23 percent.
This leaves about .77 percent or nearly
$14.3 million in benefits that have been
unallocated. FTA believes that training
for those charged with safety oversight
at SSO and rail transit agencies is an
imperative to achieve estimated
reductions in incidents and accidents.
To this end, we calculated the
breakeven point for the PTSCTP. The
breakeven point for the maximum case
of $2.6 million in annual costs is 0.14
percent and .09 percent for the
minimum case of $1.6 million in annual
costs. This level of reduction in
fatalities and serious injuries is likely to
be extremely conservative and we are
highly confident that it is easily
attainable when complemented with the
changes proposed in the SSO NPRM.
As an alternative and to cross-check
the benefits of training, we reviewed
literature on returns derived from
investments in training and training
programs. Bartel conducts a panel study
that analyzed large firms, studies that
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
75652
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
focused on one or two firms, and
company sponsored studies.2 Bartel
finds that employer’s return on
investments in training may well be
greater than was previously believed.
We partially reproduce the table below
from Bartel.
ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF LARGE SAMPLES OF FIRMS
Author
Response rate
Sample size
Performance measure
Findings
Bishop ...........................
75% ..............................
2594
Productivity ...................
6.5% .............................
155
Value-Added ................
Holzer et al. ...................
32% ..............................
157
Scrap Rate ...................
Black and Lynch ............
72% ..............................
617
Net Sales .....................
Tan and Batra ...............
Random Sample ..........
300–56000
Value-Added ................
Huselid ..........................
28% ..............................
968
ROI on 100 hours of new hire training ranged
from 11% to 38%.
Implementation of formal training raised productivity by 6% per year.
Doubling of worker training reduced scrap rate
by 7%, using fixed-effects model.
Percentage of formal training that occurs off the
job has significant effect in cross section but
no effect on the establishment-specific residual.
Predicted training has positive effect on valueadded; effects range from 2.8% to 71% per
year.
High-performance practices had significant effect in cross section that disappeared in
fixed-effects model.
Bartel .............................
Tobin’s q and Rate of
Return on Capital.
Source: Bartel PP. 506.
hopes to unify and harmonize the
provision of safety-related activities
across SSOAs and rail transit agencies.
In this way, this pool of employees will
gain knowledge to identify and control
hazards with the ultimate goal of
decreasing incidents. Additionally, FTA
expects that the codification of the
PTSCTP will help promote a safety
culture within the transit industry. This
safety culture should help instill a
transit agency-wide appreciation for
shared goals, shared beliefs, best
practices, and positive and vigilant
attitudes towards safety.
We are unsure how to quantify the
effects of a positive safety culture as a
safety culture will develop over time.
Characteristics of a positive safety
culture include: Actively seeking out
information on hazards; employee
training; information exchanges; and
understanding that responsibility for
safety is shared. While the returns on
investment in training should be fairly
quick, establishing, promoting, and
increasing safety in an industry that is
already very safe, is difficult to predict
with any certainty.
Qualitative Factors
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
While these results from Bartel’s
study are not transportation or even
transit related, it still gives a clear
picture of the benefits that firms across
industries have experienced when they
have invested in training. We also
reviewed a study by Almedia and
Carneiro on firm-provided training, in
which they estimate the rate of return
for firms that invest in human capital
(training).3 Conducting a panel study of
firms with detailed data on training,
they estimate that firms that do not
provide training yield a negative 7
percent return while those that provide
training accomplish a 24 percent return.
They conclude that training is ‘‘a good
investment for many firms and the
economy, possibly yielding higher
returns than either investments in
physical capital or investments in
schooling.’’ 4
The literature generally shows that
returns on investment for training are
positive and usually greater than is
typically thought. This comports with
the conservative assumptions that we
have made and use to assess the
PTSCTP program.
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
While the TSSP Certificate Program
has been available for some time, it had
been an optional certification that some
SSOA, rail, and bus safety oversight
personnel sought out of self-initiative.
With the delineation of a mandatory
pool of safety oversight employees, FTA
All comments received on or before
the close of business on the comment
closing date will be considered and will
be available for examination in the
docket at the above address. Comments
received after the comment closing date
will be filed in the docket and will be
2 Bartel, Ann P. ‘‘Measuring the Employer’s
Return on Investments in Training: Evidence from
the Literature’’ Online: https://
www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/abartel/papers/
measuring_employer.pdf.
3 Almeida, Rita and Pedro Carneiro. ‘‘Costs,
Benefits and the Intenal Rate of Return to Firm
Provided Training’’ Online: https://
siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/
AlmeidaCarneiroUpdatedWP3851.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
considered to the extent practicable. In
addition, FTA may continue to file
relevant information in the docket as it
becomes available after the comment
period closing date, and interested
persons should continue to examine the
docket for new material. A final rule
may be published at any time after close
of the comment period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct Federal agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits—
including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility.
FTA has determined this rulemaking
is not a significant regulatory action
within the meaning of Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, and the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s
regulatory policies and procedures
(DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980,
44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). FTA has
determined that this rulemaking is not
4 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
economically significant. The proposals
set forth in this NPRM will not result in
an effect on the economy of $100
million or more. The proposals set forth
in the NPRM will not adversely affect
the economy, interfere with actions
taken or planned by other agencies, or
generally alter the budgetary impact of
any entitlements, grants, user fees, or
loan programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
This proposed rule was developed in
accordance with Executive Order 13272
(Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency rulemaking) and DOT’s
policies and procedures to promote
compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
which requires an agency to review
regulations to assess the impact on
small entities. In compliance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, FTA has
evaluated the likely effects of the
proposals set forth in this NPRM on
small entities.
As noted in the cost benefit analysis
for this rule, FTA developed a
maximum and minimum number of
employees of recipients that would be
affected by the PTSCTP. FTA believes
that approximately 70 to 120 SSOA
personnel and contractors would be
subject to the mandatory PTSCTP
training requirements while
approximately 340 personnel of rail
transit agencies would be mandatory
participants. Further, FTA believes that
approximately 2,000 personnel may be
voluntary participants. Section
5329(e)(6) permits recipients of rural
and urbanized area formula funds to use
Federal funds to cover up to 80 percent
of the PTSCTP costs. Additionally, FTA
believes many of the PTSCPT
participants will be eligible to receive
credit for prior safety training which
will further reduce the cost and impact
associated with this proposed
rulemaking. For these reasons, FTA
certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Unfunded Mandates
This proposed rulemaking would not
impose unfunded mandates as defined
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995,
109 Stat. 48). The cost of training to
comply with this NPRM would be an
eligible expenditure of Federal financial
assistance provided to recipients under
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. This proposed
rule will not result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
of $143.1 million or more in any one
year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed rulemaking has been
analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria established by
Executive Order 13132, and FTA has
determined that the proposed action
would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism assessment. FTA has
also concluded that this proposed action
would 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 rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.; ‘‘PRA’’) and the OMB regulation
at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA is seeking
approval from OMB for the Information
Collection Request abstracted below. In
order to comply with the requirements
proposed to implement the PTSCTP in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1),
this NPRM would require recipients to
provide information to FTA regarding
the participation of their respective
designated personnel as abstracted
below. Designated personnel would
provide enrollment information,
periodically update compliance with
PTSCTP training requirements, and
where applicable, submit supporting
documentation of prior training for
credit towards PTSCTP training
requirements. All recipients of
mandatory PTSCTP requirements would
annually certify compliance with the
PTSCTP requirements. Additionally,
SSOAs would be required to develop
annual technical training plans for FTA
approval. The plans would support the
SSOA requirement to demonstrate that
applicable SSOA personnel are
qualified to perform safety audits and
examinations.
The information collection would be
different for each type of recipient
(Federal government personnel, Federal
contractors, SSOAs and their
contractors, and rail transit agencies).
Therefore, the paperwork burden would
vary. For example, the burden on
SSOAs would be proportionate to the
number of rail transit agencies within
that State, and the size and complexity
of those rail transit systems. This would
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75653
affect the number of personnel
designated for participation. FTA
proposes to bear the cost associated
with the development and maintenance
of the Web site. FTA is seeking
comment on whether the information
collected will have practical utility;
whether its estimation of the burden of
the proposed information collection is
accurate; whether the burden can be
minimized through the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology;
and for ways in which the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information
can be enhanced.
Type of Review: OMB Clearance. New
information collection request.
Respondents: Currently there are 30
States with 60 rail fixed guideway
public transportation systems in
engineering, construction, and
operations. The PRA estimate is based
on participation in the PTSCTP by a
total of 30 States and 60 rail transit
agencies. In addition, we estimate
participation by 35–45 SSOA
contractors and approximately 30
Federal personnel and contractors.
Frequency: Information will be
collected through the Web site on an
ongoing basis throughout the year.
Participants must complete training
requirements within 3 years and
refresher training every 2 years.
Certification of compliance will be
required annually.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: In the first year of the program,
we estimate a total burden of between
5,209 (minimum) and 5,909 (maximum)
hours, depending on how many
individuals are required to participate.
Annually, each SSOA would devote
between 88–91 hours to information
collection activities including the
development and submission of training
plans to FTA. SSOA contractors would
devote approximately 140–180 hours to
information collection activities. These
activities would have a combined total
of 2,780–2,920 hours, depending on
how many individuals are required to
participate. The mandatory participants
affected by 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) and
today’s rulemaking include 60 rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems
which would spend an estimated
annual total of between 2,060
(minimum) and 2,620 (maximum) hours
on information collection activities in
the first year, or approximately 34–44
hours each. Finally, FTA is expected to
expend approximately 249 hours in
furtherance of the PTSCTP in the first
year, and Federal contractors will spend
an estimated four (4) hours each, for a
combined total of approximately 369
hours in the first year.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
75654
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Additional documentation detailing
FTA’s Paperwork Reduction Act
Information Collection Request,
including FTA’s Justification Statement,
will be posted in the docket for this
rulemaking. OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in
this proposed rule within 60 days after
receiving the information collection
request submission from FTA. FTA will
summarize and respond to any
comments on the proposed information
collection request from OMB and the
public in the preamble to the final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to analyze the
potential environmental effects of their
proposed actions in the form of a
categorical exclusion, environmental
assessment, or environmental impact
statement. This proposed rulemaking is
categorically excluded under FTA’s
environmental impact procedure at 23
CFR 771.118(c)(4), pertaining to
planning and administrative activities
that do not involve or lead directly to
construction, such as the promulgation
of rules, regulations, and directives.
FTA has determined that no unusual
circumstances exist in this instance, and
that a categorical exclusion is
appropriate for this rulemaking.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
This rulemaking will not affect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630.
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 USDOT environmental
justice initiatives accomplish this goal
by involving the potentially affected
public in developing transportation
projects that fit harmoniously within
their communities without
compromising safety or mobility.
Additionally, FTA has issued a program
circular addressing environmental
justice in public transportation,
C 4703.1, Environmental Justice Policy
Guidance for Federal Transit
Administration Recipients. This circular
provides a framework for FTA grantees
as they integrate principles of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
environmental justice into their transit
decision-making processes. The Circular
includes recommendations for State
Departments of Transportation,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
and public transportation systems 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.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This action meets the applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988 to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
FTA has analyzed this proposed
rulemaking under Executive Order
13045. 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
rulemaking under Executive Order
13175 and finds that the action will not
have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes; will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments; will not
preempt tribal laws; and will not
impose any new consultation
requirements on Indian tribal
governments. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not
required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FTA has analyzed this proposed
rulemaking under Executive Order
13211 and has determined that this
action is not a significant energy action
under the Executive Order, given that
the action 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
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of FTA’s dockets by
the name of the individual submitting
the comment or signing the comment if
submitted on behalf of an association,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
business, labor union, or any other
entity. You may review USDOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement
published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477–8.
Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–
21; Pub. L. 112–141), and the statutory
provision codified at 49 U.S.C.
5329(c)(1), which requires the Secretary
of Transportation to prescribe a public
transportation safety certification
training program for Federal and State
employees, or other designated
personnel, who conduct safety audits
and examinations of public
transportation systems and employees
of public transportation agencies
directly responsible for safety oversight.
The Secretary is authorized to issue
regulations to carry out the general
provisions of this statutory requirement
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7).
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number
(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 672
Transportation, Mass transportation,
Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, under the
authority delegated at 49 CFR 1.91.
Therese McMillan,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, and under the authority of 49
U.S.C. 5329(c), 5329(f), and the
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.91,
the Federal Transit Administration
proposes to amend chapter VI of Title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, by
adding part 672 to read as follows:
PART 672—PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
CERTIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM
Subpart A—General Provisions
Sec.
672.1 Purpose.
672.3 Scope and applicability.
672.5 Definitions.
Subpart B—Training Requirements
672.11 Designated personnel who conduct
safety audits and examinations.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
672.13 Designated personnel of public
transportation agencies.
672.15 Evaluation of prior certification and
training.
Subpart C—Administrative Requirements
672.21 Records.
672.23 Availability of records.
Subpart D—Compliance and Certification
Requirements
672.31 Requirement to certify compliance.
672.33 Compliance as a condition of
financial assistance.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(c), 49 U.S.C.
5329(f), 49 CFR 1.91.
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 672.1
Purpose.
(a) This part implements a uniform
safety certification training curriculum
and requirements that will enhance the
technical proficiency of individuals
who are directly responsible for safety
oversight of public transportation
agencies not subject to the safety
oversight requirements of another
Federal agency.
(b) This part does not preempt any
safety certification training
requirements required by a State for
public transportation agencies within its
jurisdiction.
§ 672.3
Scope and applicability.
(a) In general, this part applies to all
recipients of Federal financial assistance
under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
(b) The mandatory requirements of
this part will apply only to State Safety
Oversight Agency personnel and
contractor support, and designated
personnel of recipients that operate rail
fixed guideway systems that are not
subject to the requirements of the
Federal Railroad Administration.
(c) Other FTA recipients may
participate voluntarily in accordance
with this part.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 672.5
Definitions.
As used in this part:
Administrator means the Federal
Transit Administrator or the
Administrator’s designee.
Contractor means an entity that
performs tasks on behalf of FTA or a
State Safety Oversight Agency through
contract or other agreement.
Designated personnel means:
(1) Employees identified by a
recipient whose job function requires
them to be directly responsible for
safety oversight of public transportation
provided by the agency; or
(2) Employees and contractors of a
State Safety Oversight Agency whose
job function requires them to conduct
safety audits and examinations of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
public transportation systems subject to
the jurisdiction of the agency.
Directly responsible for safety
oversight means a public transportation
agency designated personnel whose job
function includes the development,
implementation and review of the
recipient’s safety plan.
FTA means the Federal Transit
Administration, an agency within the
United States Department of
Transportation.
Public transportation agency means
an entity that provides public
transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C.
5302 and that has one or more modes
of service not subject to the safety
oversight requirements of another
Federal agency.
Rail fixed guideway public
transportation system means any fixed
guideway system that uses rail, is
operated for public transportation, is
within the jurisdiction of a State, and is
not subject to the jurisdiction of the
Federal Railroad Administration, or any
such system in engineering or
construction. Rail fixed guideway
public transportation systems include
but are not limited to rapid rail, heavy
rail, light rail, monorail, trolley,
inclined plane, funicular, and
automated guideway.
Recipient means an entity, including
a State or local governmental authority
that receives Federal funds pursuant to
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Reference Document means the
current edition of the Public
Transportation Safety Certification
Training Program training requirements
and curriculum. The curriculum and
training requirements are subject to
periodic revision through a notice-andcomment process. Recipients are
responsible for using the current edition
of the Reference Document.
Safety audit means an examination of
a recipient’s safety records and related
materials.
Safety examination means a process
for gathering facts or information, or an
analysis of facts or information
previously collected.
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 Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA)
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 659.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
75655
Subpart B—Training Requirements
§ 672.11 Designated personnel who
conduct safety audits and examinations.
(a) Each State Safety Oversight
Agency (SSOA) shall designate its
personnel and contractors who conduct
safety audits and examinations of public
transportation systems, including the
managers and supervisors of such
personnel, and ensure such designated
personnel comply with the applicable
training requirements in the current
Reference Document.
(b) Designated personnel and
contractors shall complete applicable
training requirements of this part within
three (3) years of their initial
designation. Thereafter, refresher
training shall be completed every two
(2) years. The SSOA will determine
refresher training requirements which
shall include at a minimum, one (1)
hour of safety oversight training.
(c) Copies. Copies of the current
Reference Document are available from
the FTA Web site located at https://
safety.fta.dot.gov.
§ 672.13 Designated personnel of public
transportation agencies.
(a) Each recipient that operates a rail
fixed guideway public transportation
system not subject to the safety
oversight of another Federal agency
shall designate its personnel who are
directly responsible for safety oversight
and ensure that they comply with the
applicable training requirements as set
forth in the current Reference
Document.
(b) Each recipient that operates a bus
or other public transportation system
not subject to the safety oversight of
another Federal agency may designate
its personnel who are directly
responsible for safety oversight. Such
personnel may participate in the
applicable training requirements as set
forth in the current Reference
Document.
(c) Personnel designated under
paragraph (a) of this section shall
complete applicable training
requirements of this part within three
(3) years of their initial designation.
Thereafter, refresher training shall be
completed every two (2) years. The
recipient will determine refresher
training requirements which will
include at a minimum, one (1) hour of
safety oversight training.
(d) Copies. Copies of the current
Reference Document are available from
the FTA Web site located at https://
safety.fta.dot.gov.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
75656
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
§ 672.15 Evaluation of prior certification
and training.
(a) Designated personnel subject to
this part may request that FTA evaluate
safety training or certification
previously obtained from another entity
to determine if the training satisfies an
applicable training requirement of this
part.
(b) Designated personnel must
provide FTA with an official transcript
or certificate of the training, a
description of the curriculum and
competencies obtained, and a brief
statement detailing how the training or
certification satisfies the applicable
requirement of this part.
(c) FTA will evaluate the submission
and determine if any of the applicable
training requirements of this part will be
credited for waiver. If a waiver is
granted, designated personnel are
responsible for completing all other
applicable requirements of this part.
Subpart C—Administrative
Requirements
§ 672.21
Records.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) General requirement. FTA will
maintain an electronic database for
designated personnel to register and
enroll in the Public Transportation
Safety Certification Training Program at
https://safety.fta.dot.gov.
(b) General requirement. Each
recipient shall ensure that its designated
personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP
via the electronic database. Designated
personnel shall update their training
profile as the applicable training
requirements of this part are completed.
(c) SSOA Requirement. Each SSOA
will maintain a record of the technical
training completed by its designated
personnel and contractors in accordance
with the technical training requirements
of this part. Such records shall be
maintained by the SSOA for at least five
(5) years from the date the record is
created. Each record shall include the
following information at minimum:
(1) The name of the designated
personnel or contractor;
(2) The title of the training, the date
the training was completed and the
proficiency test score(s), where
applicable;
(3) The content of each training
course or curriculum successfully
completed and an indication of whether
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:10 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
the participant passed or failed any
associated tests;
(4) The tasks the participant is
deemed qualified to perform; and
(5) The date the designated
personnel’s status as qualified to
perform the task(s) expires, and the date
in which biennial refresher training is
due.
§ 672.23
Availability of records.
(a) Except as required by law, or
expressly authorized or required by this
part, a recipient may not release
information pertaining to designated
personnel that is required to be
maintained by this part without the
written consent of the designated
personnel.
(b) Designated personnel are entitled,
upon written request, to obtain copies of
any records pertaining to his or her
training that is required to be
maintained by this part. The recipient
shall promptly provide the records
requested by designated personnel and
access shall not be contingent upon the
recipient’s receipt of payment for the
production of such records.
(c) A recipient shall permit access to
all facilities utilized and records
compiled in accordance with the
requirements of this part to the
Secretary of Transportation, the Federal
Transit Administration, or any State
agency with jurisdiction for public
transportation safety oversight authority
over the recipient.
(d) When requested by the National
Transportation Safety Board as part of
an accident investigation, a recipient
shall disclose information related to the
training of designated personnel.
Subpart D—Compliance and
Certification Requirements
§ 672.31 Requirement to certify
compliance.
(a) A recipient of FTA financial
assistance described in § 672.3(b) of this
part shall annually certify compliance
with this part in accordance with FTA’s
procedures for annual grant certification
and assurances.
(b) A certification must be authorized
by the recipient’s governing board or
other authorizing official, and must be
signed by a party specifically authorized
to do so.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
§ 672.33 Compliance as a condition of
financial assistance.
(a) General requirement. A recipient
may not be eligible for Federal financial
assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53,
in whole or in part, if the Administrator
determines the recipient has failed to
comply with the requirements of this
part.
(b) Notice. If the Administrator
determines that Federal financial
assistance should be withheld, the
Administrator will issue a notice of
violation and the amount proposed to be
withheld at least ninety (90) days prior
to the date from when the funds will be
withheld. The notice must contain—
(1) A statement of the legal authority
for issuance;
(2) A statement of the regulatory
provision(s) the recipient is believed to
have violated;
(3) A statement of the factual
allegations upon which the notice of
violation is based; and
(4) A statement of the remedial action
sought to correct the violation.
(c) Reply. Within thirty (30) days of
service of a notice of violation, a
recipient may file a written reply with
the Administrator. Upon written
request, the Administrator may extend
the time for filing for good cause shown.
The reply must be in writing, and
signed by the Accountable Executive or
equivalent entity. A written response
may include an explanation for the
alleged violation, provide relevant
information or materials in response to
the alleged violation or in mitigation
thereof, or recommend alternative
means of compliance for consideration
by the Administrator.
(d) Decision. Within thirty (30) days
of receipt of a reply from a recipient, the
Administrator will issue a written reply
to the recipient. The Administrator may
consider the recipient’s response,
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section,
in determining whether to dismiss the
notice of violation in whole or in part.
If the notice of violation is not
dismissed, the Administrator may
undertake any other enforcement action
he or she deems appropriate, including
withholding funds as stated in the
notice of violation.
[FR Doc. 2015–30466 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 232 (Thursday, December 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75639-75656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30466]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. FTA-2015-0014]
RIN 2132-AB25
Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
[[Page 75640]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) seeks public comment
on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for safety certification
training. FTA proposes to adopt the current interim safety
certification training provisions as the initial regulatory training
requirements for public transportation industry personnel responsible
for safety oversight of public transportation systems. The NPRM defines
to whom the training requirements apply, describes recordkeeping
requirements, provides administrative provisions, and compliance
requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 1, 2016. FTA will accept
late-filed comments to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Please submit your comments by only one of the following
methods:
Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
U.S. Mail: Send your comments to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Go to Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation
headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
Telefax: Send your comments to 202-493-2251.
Instructions: All comments must include the docket number for this
rulemaking: FTA-2015-0014. Submit two copies of your comments if you
submit them by mail. For confirmation that FTA received your comments,
include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under
``Supplementary Information,'' below, for Privacy Act information
pertinent to any submitted comments or materials, and you may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register
on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477.
Docket Access: For access to background documents and comments
received in the rulemaking docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, contact Ruth
Lyons, FTA, Office of Safety and Oversight, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-2233 or email:
Ruth.Lyons@dot.gov). For legal issues, contact Bruce Walker, FTA,
Office of Chief Counsel, same address, (telephone: 202-366-9109 or
email: Bruce.Walker@dot.gov). Office hours are Monday through Friday
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST), except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Overview of the Proposed Rule
IV. Interim Program Curriculum and Technical Training Requirements
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Cost-Benefit Analysis
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21;
Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012), Congress directed FTA to establish a
comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program (codified at 49
U.S.C. 5329), one element of which is the Public Transportation Safety
Certification Training Program (PTSCTP). The purpose of today's NPRM is
to carry out the statutory mandate to provide a framework to enhance
the technical proficiency of those directly responsible for safety
oversight of public transportation systems.
This proposed rulemaking would incorporate the curriculum
promulgated recently for the interim provisions for safety
certification training (interim program) as the training requirements
for the PTSCTP. The interim program curriculum and training
requirements may be found in Section V of the Federal Register notice
promulgating the interim program at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/02/27/2015-03842/interim-safety-certification-training-program-provisions.
The NPRM provides a regulatory framework for safety certification
training for personnel who are directly responsible for safety
oversight of public transportation systems and the State personnel who
conduct safety audits and examinations of rail transportation systems.
Besides incorporating the interim program curriculum and training
requirements, this proposal would: (1) Permit participants to request
evaluation of non-FTA sponsored safety training for credit towards
applicable PTSCTP requirements; (2) require designated personnel to
complete a minimum of one hour of refresher safety training every two
years as determined by his or her employer; (3) require recipients to
maintain administrative records and ensure a participant's curriculum
completion status is updated periodically; and (4) require SSOAs and
recipients that operate rail fixed guideway systems not regulated by
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to annually certify
compliance with the rule as a condition of receiving Chapter 53
funding.
Legal Authority
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
5329(c)(1) which requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
a public transportation safety certification training program for
Federal and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct
safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems, as
well as employees of public transportation agencies directly
responsible for safety oversight. The Secretary is authorized to issue
regulations to carry out the general provisions of this statutory
requirement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7).
Summary of Key Provisions
Similar to the interim program, the focus of the proposed rule
would be on enhancing the technical proficiency of safety oversight
professionals in the rail transit industry. To that end, this proposed
rule would incorporate the curriculum set forth in Section V of the
Federal Register notice promulgating the interim program. FTA may
periodically update the curriculum following a period for public notice
and comment. This approach is similar to that of the National Transit
Database (NTD) rule at 49 CFR part 630 in which the Reporting Manuals
set forth reporting requirements. FTA periodically updates the manuals
with public notice and an opportunity for stakeholders to comment. FTA
believes this proposal would provide for a consistent and stable
curriculum as the public transportation industry acclimates to the
requirement for safety oversight training.
The proposed rule would reflect the interim program in that
mandatory participants would continue to be State Safety Oversight
Agency (SSOA) personnel and contractors, and designated personnel of
rail transit agencies not otherwise regulated by another Federal
agency. Employees or contractors of entities providing safety
[[Page 75641]]
oversight of bus operations would be permitted to participate on a
voluntary basis. Participants would continue to have three years to
complete the initial requirements for the PTSCTP. Participation in the
interim program would be credited towards meeting the initial three-
year PTSCTP completion requirements. The three-year timeframe for new
participants would commence upon their enrollment in the PTSCTP.
Another key proposal is the requirement for SSOAs and recipients
that operate rail fixed guideway systems not regulated by the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) to ensure its designated personnel are
enrolled in the PTSCTP electronic database maintained by FTA and to
monitor their participation towards completing applicable training
requirements. In addition, SSOAs would be required to maintain
administrative records of the participation of its designated personnel
in applicable technical training as outlined in the SSOA's FTA-approved
technical training plan.
Unlike the interim program, FTA is proposing a process for
participants to request review of documented training obtained from
sources other than FTA for credit towards the equivalent PTSCTP
training. In addition, FTA is proposing that mandatory participants be
required to undertake at least one hour of refresher training every two
years on a safety subject determined by his or her employer. The
timeframe for determining the two-year refresher training period would
commence following completion of the initial PTSCTP.
Lastly, each SSOA and recipient that operates a rail fixed guideway
system not regulated by the FRA would be required to certify compliance
with the PTSCTP requirements as part of FTA's procedures for annual
grant certification and assurances. Should FTA determine an SSOA or
recipient is not in compliance with the PTSCTP, the Administrator would
have discretion to withhold Chapter 53 funds following notice and an
opportunity for the recipient to respond.
With this NPRM, FTA is seeking comment on its proposal to
incorporate the interim program curriculum and technical training
requirements as the initial training requirements for the PTSCTP.
Additionally, FTA seeks comments of its proposed regulatory framework
for the PTSCTP.
Costs and Benefits
As discussed in greater detail below, FTA reviewed data from the
Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), the entity that provides
substantial safety training to the transit industry, albeit on a
voluntary basis. Using this data and our familiarity with how SSOAs are
organized, we developed a maximum and minimum number of personnel, to
include employees and contractors that would be affected by the PTSCTP.
Next, using the same data from TSI, we determined the number of rail
transit personnel that would be affected by the PTSCTP. We also
reviewed the number of FTA personnel who participate in safety audits
and examinations and determined the number of FTA personnel that would
be required to undergo some level of training and certification. In
developing annual costs for personnel that would attend the PTSCTP, we
assumed a minimum and maximum case scenario.
For the minimum case, we assumed that all designated personnel
under this program already had completed the Transit Safety and
Security Program (TSSP) Certificate and would require only the safety
management system (SMS) portion of the coursework described in Section
IV of this notice. For the maximum case, we assumed that no one subject
to the NPRM has a TSSP Certificate. In this case, all designated
personnel would have to take and complete both the TSSP and SMS
coursework over the allotted 3-year period. Using these assumptions, we
estimate an approximate maximum cost of $2.6 million per year, of which
up to 80 percent may be funded with FTA funds.
To assess the benefits for the PTSCTP, we considered how other
transportation modes that are in the process of implementing SMS or
similar systematic approaches to safety have estimated the benefits of
their programs in reducing incidents, adverse outcomes, and improving
the industry's safety culture. It is difficult to quantify the effects
of a positive safety culture as a safety culture will develop over
time. Characteristics of a positive safety culture include: Actively
seeking out information on hazards; employee training; information
exchanges; and understanding that responsibility for safety is shared.
While the returns on investment in training should be fairly quick,
establishing, promoting, and increasing safety, even in an industry
that is very safe, is difficult to predict with any certainty.
Consistent with other recent rulemakings issued by the Department on
SMS, we conducted a breakeven analysis. As explained further in Section
VI, for the State Safety Oversight (SSO) NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 27, 2015 at 80 FR 11002, FTA estimated that the
SSO program revisions realistically would garner a 2 percent reduction
in costs associated with fatalities and ``serious'' injuries. Based on
the analysis for the, SSO NPRM, for the benefits to break even with the
costs to both SSOs and rail transit agencies, the rule only would
require a 1.23 percent reduction of the accident costs per year, which
did not include potentially significant unquantified costs related to
property damage and disruption. The SSO program is reliant on the
PTSCTP for part of its safety improvements. While the SSO NPRM proposed
to improve SSO and rail transit agency processes, the PTSCTP improves
the requisite human capital within the SSO program by improving the
training and by making mandatory training for those designated
personnel charged with safety oversight at SSO and rail transit
agencies.
II. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on all aspects of FTA's
safety authority, including the training program. (See 78 FR 61251,
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf).
In the ANPRM, FTA noted that there are discrete and different
skill-sets required for those who perform safety audit and examination
functions compared to those who are directly responsible for safety
oversight. For example, at the Federal level, FTA's responsibilities
include ensuring that SSOA personnel are properly trained and
adequately resourced to regulate rail transit systems within their
respective jurisdictions. At the State level, SSOA personnel are
responsible for direct safety oversight of those rail transit systems
under their jurisdiction. And on the local level, public transportation
agency personnel are directly responsible for developing and
implementing safety oversight within their respective agencies.
Recognizing this distinction, FTA outlined its vision for the PTSCTP
which included a wholly new FTA-sponsored training curriculum to
enhance the technical proficiency of safety oversight professionals in
the public transportation industry.
In the ANPRM, FTA noted that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2), it
would promulgate an interim program for safety certification training
prior to developing a proposed rule for the PTSCTP. On April 30, 2014,
FTA published a Federal Register notice requesting comment on its
proposed requirements for the interim program. A
[[Page 75642]]
number of the proposed requirements for the interim program were based
in part, on recommendations provided by commenters on the ANPRM (see 79
FR 24363).
FTA evaluated comments received in response to the proposed interim
program notice and promulgated the final interim program requirements
in a Federal Register notice dated February 27, 2015, with an effective
date of May 28, 2015 (see 80 FR 10619). Since the interim program was
implemented only recently, FTA has not had sufficient opportunity to
evaluate the effectiveness of the program, nor assess lessons learned.
However, to implement the requirement of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) via a
regulatory framework, FTA is proposing with this rule that the
curriculum for the PTSCTP remain the same as that of the interim
program.
Some comments on the ANPRM were outside the scope of the questions
posed and, therefore, are not addressed in this notice. However, many
of the comments and recommendations were instructive for developing
both the interim program and this NPRM. What follows is a discussion of
relevant ANPRM comments, development of the interim program
requirements, and the regulatory framework proposed for the PTSCTP.
Question 48. In the ANPRM, FTA proposed organizing the training
around a series of competencies and basic skills that Federal, State,
and public transit agency safety oversight personnel need to perform
their respective responsibilities. To that end, FTA proposed a wholly
new FTA-sponsored safety training curriculum, provided a list of
competencies and technical capabilities supported by the curriculum,
and sought comment regarding what other safety-related competency areas
or training outcomes should be identified for the PTSCTP.
Thirty commenters responded directly to the question or provided
comments relative to the issue. A few commenters indicated that the FTA
list sufficiently covered all safety-related competency areas. Several
commenters identified safety-related competency areas for inclusion in
the PTSCTP, such as: Incident investigation, emergency response,
fundamental safety management concepts and processes, methods for the
identification, assessment and evaluation of hazards, safety assurance
methods, measurement and evaluation of safety management processes and
mitigation strategies, National Incident Management System (NIMS)
training, and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
standards.
Some commenters suggested that FTA focus on developing a safety
program that recognizes the six key functions of bus safety identified
in the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by FTA and the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA). Those functions
include management, operations and maintenance, human resources, safety
activities, security activities, and emergency/all hazards management.
A few commenters stated that FTA should develop clear and workable
guidelines for safety certification training and accommodate the
differing needs of small, medium and large agencies in those
requirements.
Three commenters indicated that the PTSCTP called for in MAP-21
only applies to the SSO program and does not require specific training
requirements for State Department of Transportation (State DOT) staff
involved in managing federal funds. Two commenters stated that defining
training outcomes and competency areas is not an appropriate role for
FTA and should be left up to the determination of a transit agency and
based on the scope, scale and complexity of fixed facilities, systems
and operating environment. Commenters also suggested the following:
Since a culture of safety already exists in rural transit,
FTA should consider flexible, scalable approaches that use training
programs that have a proven track record for driver training, vehicle
maintenance, and drug and alcohol compliance;
there needs to be a concerted effort to drill down on
safety concerns that cause the greatest risk in cost and life and focus
on improving those areas;
the FTA Safety Certification Program requirement should
allow FRA-regulated properties the flexibility to comply with FRA
safety training regulations without requiring additional, redundant
training and certification requirements.
FTA response: As discussed further in Section IV of this notice,
FTA is undertaking this proposed rulemaking in accordance with the
authority granted under 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1). FTA recognizes that one
size will not fit all; therefore, the curriculum proposed for the
PTSCTP is designed to be scalable and flexible, especially for State
DOTs and the bus transit industry.
In response to the commenters who provided a list of safety-related
competency areas for consideration, FTA notes that many of those
competency areas are included in the current curriculum for the TSSP,
which is a requirement for the interim program and a proposed
requirement for the PTSCTP. However, FTA does not believe the initial
requirements for the PTSCTP should include NIMS or OSHA training
standards because a primary objective of the initial requirements is to
promote a common framework for developing SMS principles across the
industry.
The curriculum proposed for the PTSCTP would include a risk-based
approach for analyzing and mitigating safety risks. It also would
leverage existing FTA-sponsored training for all recipients including
State DOTs, and both rural and urban bus transit providers.
Accordingly, FTA concurs with the commenters who indicated that bus
safety training should include the six key functions of bus safety as
identified in the FTA/FMCSA MOU signed in 2003. FTA proposes to
continue offering the Bus Safety program and other bus safety-related
course offerings as a voluntary component of the PTSCTP.
FTA also concurs with the commenters who indicated that personnel
who may be subject to both FRA and FTA training requirements should not
be subject to redundant training. Accordingly, the PTSCTP would not
apply to personnel of rail transit agencies subject to the jurisdiction
of the Federal Railroad Administration (e.g., commuter railroads).
FTA agrees that State DOT personnel involved in managing federal
funds that are passed on to subrecipients are not likely to be charged
with safety oversight responsibilities. But the State DOT is
responsible for ensuring that subrecipients adhere to all applicable
Federal requirements. We emphasize that this rule does not propose
mandatory training requirements for State DOT personnel who perform
safety oversight roles for non-rail public transportation systems.
Question 49. FTA next asked whether all of the competencies listed
in the ANPRM are necessary for personnel with safety oversight
responsibilities.
Twenty-nine commenters responded directly to the question or
provided comments related to the issue. Several commenters agreed that
the competencies identified in the ANPRM are necessary to craft a
comprehensive safety training program that addresses the various
hazards and threats faced by public transportation systems. A couple of
these commenters added that the current FTA-sponsored training is not
sufficient and transit agencies will need more than the current
training programs
[[Page 75643]]
in order to successfully comply with new safety requirements.
Two commenters indicated that the competencies identified were
unnecessary. One of the commenters stated the current program is overly
broad and beyond the capacity of many small operators. The other
commenter recommended that FTA utilize safety training offered through
the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Another
commenter indicated that training should cover the four SMS principles
and strategies for controlling risk. Several commenters indicated that
the competencies required for a small, rural, bus-only agency are far
different than those required in a large, urban, multi-modal agency.
They noted that agencies with fewer risk factors should be allowed to
work within standards appropriate to their risk profile. A few
commenters stated they do not see a need for the rules to prescribe
specific training requirements for State DOT staff involved in managing
federal funds that are passed on to subrecipients. Other commenters
suggested the following:
Advanced SMS Principles for Rail Transit can probably be
combined with Level 100 SMS Principles for Rail Transit, and Level 300
SMS Risk Control Strategies can probably be combined with Level 201
Advanced SMS Risk Management;
public transportation agencies should determine which
competencies are necessary for the scope, scale and complexity of their
fixed facilities, systems and operating environments;
many transit safety professionals already have the
majority of the specific competencies listed. Emphasis may be placed on
specific SMS areas where gaps exist based on the transit agency's
safety risk analysis.
FTA response. A similar question was posed in the Federal Register
notice for the interim program dated April 30, 2014. Commenters to both
notices indicated that the existing FTA-sponsored training already
includes many of the competencies FTA identified as necessary to
implement a safety certification training program. Consequently, FTA
reviewed the TSI curriculum and concurs that the courses for the TSSP
Certificate sufficiently cover many of the competency areas that FTA
identified; therefore, FTA will leverage the curriculum for the TSSP
program instead of developing a wholly new curriculum for the PTSCTP.
As suggested by commenters however, FTA agrees that the existing
TSSP curriculum should be revised to better reflect SMS principles.
Accordingly, as noted in Section IV, the TSSP curriculum is being
updated and FTA is proposing additional courses for the PTSCTP that
focus on SMS principles. This approach aligns with FTA's adoption of
the SMS framework to enhance safety while effectively leveraging a
curriculum and training model familiar to the industry. FTA believes
its approach to the interim program and the proposed implementation of
the PTSCTP adequately addresses commenter's concerns regarding costs,
scalability and flexibility for the transit industry.
Question 50. In the ANPRM, FTA did not propose a timeframe for
safety oversight personnel to complete the safety certification
training requirements. However, the following question was posed to
obtain the industry's perspective on the issue: Should personnel be
required to obtain certification prior to starting a position, or
should they be given a specific timeframe to obtain safety
certification after starting a position?
Forty-seven commenters responded directly to the question or
provided comments relative to the question. Forty commenters indicated
they do not believe personnel should be required to obtain
certification prior to starting a position, and a new hire should be
given a period of time to obtain necessary certifications. Many of the
commenters noted that it would be more effective to attend required
safety certification training concurrently with on-the-job training.
Otherwise, it would limit the pool of qualified candidates for safety
positions if personnel were required to obtain certification prior to
starting a position. Commenters also noted that agencies should have
the flexibility to customize training to address their unique safety
concerns, size, and management structure. Further, commenters noted
that currently it is difficult to recruit and hire safety
professionals; therefore, requiring certification prior to starting a
position would only increase the difficulty.
A few commenters stated that personnel should be required to obtain
all safety certification prior to starting a position because lack of
appropriate training could potentially put the public at risk. One
commenter stated that both options should be available depending on the
position occupied. For instance, at the director level and higher, an
individual should have experience with the principles of SMS and
program development. At lower levels, a certain amount of on-the-job
training could be incorporated in an individual's development plan.
One commenter indicated that it would be costly to require a person
to complete the training before a recipient could hire that person.
Another commenter stated that both approaches have problems. The
commenter noted that if an agency hires inexperienced people with no
training and provides the training once aboard, the agency will have
trained but inexperienced people. On the other hand, an employee needs
to learn the details of the transit business which cannot be taught
entirely in the classroom. The commenter noted that if a state agency
hires only those that have the requisite training, the agency will have
people with the minimum qualifications to do the job but may still
require considerable on-the-job training in order to prepare them to
actually perform the requirements of a regulator.
Lastly, a commenter stated that since there are no current
certification requirements for bus transit, time to obtain the
certification would be appropriate. The commenter also stated that
personnel performing any specific function or task in a rail system
should be certified before being allowed to independently perform in
that capacity.
FTA response. The objective of safety certification training is to
enhance the technical proficiency of those responsible for safety
oversight of public transportation systems. FTA recognizes that in
order for any proposed regulatory requirements to be implemented
practically, issues of resource allocation and availability must be
considered. To that end, FTA concurs with those commenters who
indicated that it could be overly burdensome to limit the pool of
available applicants to only those that have completed the proposed
training requirements. For this reason, the interim program provides
designated personnel three years from the date of the recipient's
initial designation to complete the interim program requirements. FTA
is proposing the same three-year timeframe to complete the initial
PTSCTP requirements. FTA believes this approach adequately balances
concerns with personnel training requirements and the recipient's
resource management requirements.
Question 51. In the ANPRM, FTA did not propose a specific timeframe
for how often safety oversight personnel should be required to undergo
refresher training requirements. However, we did ask the following
question to obtain the public's perspective on the needed frequency:
How often should personnel be required to receive refresher training?
[[Page 75644]]
Forty-seven commenters responded directly to the question or
provided comments relative to the issue. Several commenters indicated
that personnel should be required to receive refresher training either
every two or three years. Some commenters recommended refresher
training every three to five years. A few commenters thought refresher
training should be conducted annually. Two commenters stated that
depending on the number of courses required and the length of the
training curriculum, refresher training should occur somewhere between
every one to five years.
A few commenters indicated that personnel should receive refresher
training on an as-needed basis to keep them up-to-date on new safety
standards and changes to existing safety standards. Some commenters
suggested that the primary concern should be the quality, not the
quantity or frequency of refresher training. In addition, commenters
suggested the following:
Frequency of training should be left to the discretion of
the recipient;
FTA should regularly convene those responsible for public
transportation safety oversight at the Federal, State, and agency level
to discuss safety critical risks. These discussions should focus on
trends in public transportation safety risks, safety risk management
practices and risk control strategies;
the frequency of refresher training should be based on
several factors, including, but not limited to the scope of job
functions, frequency of application of the functions, and experience
with the specific function for which the individual is responsible;
frequency of refresher training is dependent on the
employee's position and safety responsibilities;
the question is premature and cannot be addressed until
the final requirements are adopted and the number of professionals
requiring training can be assessed;
training standards and timing should evolve as the
requirements are adopted and implemented. Overlaying refresher training
requirements on an already strained training system would further slow
training of new safety professionals.
FTA response. FTA is taking a comprehensive approach as it
considers the safety training requirements proposed here, as well as
those that will be proposed in other rules to implement the Public
Transportation Safety Program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329. FTA
recognizes that proposed training and refresher requirements should
align and support the objectives of the SMS framework adopted by FTA.
To that end, proposed training requirements will be driven by safety
data in conjunction with safety trend analysis. FTA will periodically
review safety data and trends which may indicate a need for FTA to
revise refresher training requirements. However, any revisions will be
subject to notice and comment prior to becoming effective.
FTA agrees with the commenters who indicated that refresher
training should occur every two years following the initial three-year
timeframe for completing safety certification training requirements.
Since any refresher training should be relevant to a recipient's
specific circumstances, the recipient will be in the best position to
determine the subject matter and timeframe that should be allotted for
refresher training. However, FTA believes that at minimum, one hour of
refresher training every two years should be required. The minimum
requirement of one hour of biannual refresher training strikes an
appropriate balance that reinforces safety oversight training while
recognizing that each recipient can best determine refresher training
that is appropriate for its safety oversight personnel.
Questions 52 and 53. In the ANPRM, FTA posed a series of questions
to assist with identifying the universe of potential personnel that may
be subject to the PTSCPT requirements. Question 52 sought to identify
which transit agency positions are directly responsible for safety
oversight. Question 53 sought to identify specific operations personnel
who are directly responsible for safety, their duties, and the training
they receive. The questions, as phrased in the ANPRM, did not clearly
reflect this functional distinction; however, responses from many of
the commenters indicated an awareness of the distinction. The point is
noted here because both the interim program and this NPRM would apply
only to transit personnel with direct safety oversight responsibilities
(emphasis added) as distinguished from operations personnel who are
responsible for safety (oversight omitted). FTA's proposed approach to
the training requirements for operations personnel who are responsible
for safety will be included in the NPRM for the Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan to be issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
Twenty-eight commenters responded to the question of which transit
agency positions are directly responsible for safety oversight. Several
commenters listed various transit agency positions as being directly
responsible for safety oversight including: The entire System Safety
Department and the divisions under it; agency leadership, operations
managers, supervisors, and safety staff; the Director of Safety, the
Risk Management Department and various safety departments and trainers
that are contractor specific; Safety Managers; Bus and Rail Managers;
the responsible Executive; Safety Operations Manager; and Safety
Administrators (Bus, Rail).
Some commenters noted that in their organizations every employee
has a responsibility for safety. A number of the commenters also noted
that overall authority and responsibility was vested in a number of
individuals, including the General Manager/Transit Director, Chief
Operating Officer/Operations Manager, Facilities Managers, Maintenance
Manager, and the Chief Safety Officer and staff. A few commenters
stated that FTA already has a process for identifying safety-sensitive
personnel subject to its Drug and Alcohol Testing program requirements
and recommended that FTA adopt a similar process to identify those
subject to the safety rules. Two commenters noted that this decision
should be at the discretion of the transit agency as some agencies,
because of size, may have a person serving as the safety person in
addition to other duties. Two other commenters stated that it varies
depending on the size of the agency and the position should be
identified by the transit agency General Manager.
With regard to the series of questions about operations personnel,
thirty-one commenters responded. Many of the comments were similar to
responses to the question above; however, a number of commenters
specifically addressed operations personnel. These commenters
identified widely varied and diverse operations positions that are
directly responsible for safety oversight to include: Operations
Supervisors, Department Managers/Supervisors, Safety Department
personnel/Safety Managers/Director of Safety, Safety/Training Officer,
all supervisory and management personnel, Chief Operating Officer,
Operations Managers, Maintenance Directors, and Transportation Safety
Specialist.
Comments regarding the duties of operations positions were just as
varied and diverse. Duty descriptions included, but were not limited
to, contract management, research, development, implementation and
maintenance of programs and procedures, policy development,
observations, inspections, audits, investigations and liaison. One
commenter stated that Bus and Rail Transit Operations Supervisors are
[[Page 75645]]
directly responsible for overseeing the operational safety of the
agency by conducting efficiency tests, rules compliance line rides,
post-accident line rides, accident investigations, verifying compliance
with Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) requirements, and investigating
reported hazards. Commenters noted that the Operations Supervisors are
trained in all of the above either by internal staff or by attending
courses offered by TSI.
One commenter stated that all operations managers and supervisors
are directly responsible for safety oversight and their duties vary,
but include development, implementation, training and enforcement of
policies/procedures; inspection and observation; hazard management;
tool box safety meetings; and assuring compliance with all local, state
and federal regulations governing the safe operation of vehicles.
Responses to the question of training received by operations
personnel also varied but TSI and OSHA training were mentioned most
frequently. A number of commenters indicated that they have received
training such as university level safety training courses, fundamentals
of bus collision investigation, fatigue and sleep apnea awareness for
transit employees, transit industrial safety management, and transit
rail incident investigation.
FTA response. The responses to both questions clearly indicate the
universe of transit agency personnel responsible for safety oversight,
and operations personnel responsible for safety vary among transit
agencies. As discussed further in Section V of this notice, FTA
believes that each recipient, with guidance from FTA, is better
situated to determine which of its personnel are directly responsible
for safety oversight. As noted earlier, training requirements for
operations personnel will be addressed in the rulemaking for the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
Question 54. FTA asked whether members of a transit agency board of
directors or other equivalent entity currently receive any type of
safety or risk management training; if so, what does the training
cover?
Thirty commenters responded, with twenty-three stating that their
Boards or the equivalent do not receive safety/risk management
training. In general, several commenters noted that Boards should not
be required to receive this type of training. A few commenters
indicated that Boards receive some type of training, ranging from
informal or familiarization training to training provided by insurance
companies or executive staff.
One commenter stated that the Board's involvement with safety/risk
issues is at a policy level while two other commenters indicated that
the General Manager is responsible for ensuring that board members, or
their equivalents, understand the safety culture of the agency. Two
commenters stated that the Board receives informal safety training. One
of these commenters noted that this training is a part of their service
on a Subcommittee for Safety and another responded that the Board is
instructed on the definitions related to safety reporting and how to
interpret safety data to improve their understanding of the monthly
safety data presented to them.
One commenter responded that when members first come onto the Board
they are provided familiarization training on FTA safety requirements
under 49 CFR part 659. Another commenter noted that board members might
receive this training through an agency's insurance company. Another
noted that their agency is currently writing a new safety plan that
incorporates SMS principles; since the Board of Directors will be
required to review and approve the plan they will receive a
presentation that will explain SMS principles and processes, including
risk management.
FTA response. The information provided by the commenters to this
question will be reviewed as FTA considers appropriate methods to
increase SMS awareness for the Board of Directors or those with
equivalent executive oversight functions.
Question 55. FTA asked questions about the availability of industry
training specifically for personnel with transit safety oversight
responsibility; the effectiveness and accessibility of such training;
and what other types of training oversight personnel need but that may
not be readily available to them.
Twenty-nine commenters responded to this question. Several
commenters listed the various training that safety oversight personnel
currently receive, with the common thread being federally-sponsored
training programs offered by the National Transit Institute (NTI), the
National Transportation Safety Board, the National Safety Council, TSI,
and OSHA. Some commenters responded that most of their training was
developed and/or provided in-house or through on-the-job training. A
few commenters noted the availability of the following training for bus
small urban and rural operators: Community Transportation Association
of America's Certified Safety and Security Officer Training Program and
FTA's Bus Safety Program Orientation Seminar. One commenter noted that
Colorado has a robust program offering two full-day safety-related
training sessions at their spring and fall transit conferences. Two
commenters mentioned classes conducted by local safety personnel such
as police, fire, sheriffs, emergency management organizations, and the
risk manager.
Commenters noted that the effectiveness of the training is
evaluated using the following methods: Internal safety audits; facility
safety inspections; on the job evaluations by departmental managers,
the General Manager, insurance pool staff, or State DOT staff; ride
checks; efficiency tests; and SSO triennial audits. In addition, one
commenter noted that regulatory audits and written tests are used to
measure training effectiveness.
Comments on the types of training that oversight personnel need but
is not readily available included SMS training, risk assessment
training, reactive training programs that address changes to strategic
safety philosophy, and tactical issue-specific initiatives. A few
commenters recommended that FTA develop this training specifically for
the public transportation industry.
FTA response. The comments indicate the availability of an array of
relevant safety training for safety oversight professionals. As noted
in Section V of this notice, the comments support FTA's proposal to
develop a process to evaluate safety training obtained from other
competent organizations for credit towards PTSCTP requirements.
III. Overview of the Proposed Rule
FTA considered the recommendations submitted by commenters on the
ANPRM while developing both the interim program and this proposed rule.
Many of those recommendations are reflected in the requirements
proposed for this rule.
To implement this rule, FTA proposes to leverage the interim
program training requirements as the foundation for the PTSCTP. FTA
recognizes that the interim program was implemented only recently;
therefore, a reasonable period of time should pass to allow FTA to
assess its effectiveness before proposing new or additional
requirements. The interim program curriculum and technical training
requirements are republished in Section IV of this notice for clarity.
FTA invites public comment on its proposed implementation of the PTSCTP
as noted herein.
As with the interim program, FTA proposes the initial focus of the
PTSCTP will be on enhancing the technical proficiency of safety
oversight professionals in the rail transit industry.
[[Page 75646]]
In addition, public transportation safety is a priority for all public
transit providers; therefore, safety oversight professionals of other
modes of public transportation are encouraged to participate
voluntarily. The initial mandatory PTSCTP requirements would provide
SMS training for Federal and SSOA personnel and their contractor
support, as well as rail transit agency personnel who are directly
responsible for safety oversight of rail transit systems. Safety
oversight personnel of recipients such as State DOTs and bus transit
providers would continue as voluntary participants. FTA believes this
initial approach of mandatory training for SSOAs and rail transit
agencies, and voluntary training for bus only systems, allows for
optimum utilization of Federal and local resources while providing
flexibility to revise the training requirements as appropriate.
However, FTA notes that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), it has
discretion to promulgate mandatory training requirements for all public
transportation systems--not just rail.
In response to commenters who recommended that the PTSCTP program
requirements be flexible and scalable and take into consideration the
varying needs and sizes of different public transit agencies, FTA notes
that the PTSCTP's mandatory training would apply only to SSOAs and rail
transit agencies with minimum training requirements necessary to
enhance technical proficiency. State DOT and bus transit personnel
would be voluntary participants. Further, FTA recognizes the value of
leveraging its published safety toolkits, best practices guides, and
providing technical assistance as the PTSCTP is implemented. Therefore,
before FTA would propose new training requirements, existing FTA-
sponsored training would be reviewed for applicability and scalability
relative to the diverse universe of public transit providers.
FTA also proposes flexibility with regard to how personnel would be
identified as participants for the PTSCTP. FTA agrees with commenters
who indicated the recipient should have discretion to identify which of
its personnel perform safety oversight functions. Comments to the ANPRM
indicated that position titles and functions in the public
transportation industry are not universal. In general, it would be
impractical for FTA to identify the specific positions or titles of
those directly responsible for safety oversight or those who conduct
audits and examinations. Therefore, the proposed rule includes
definitions for the terms ``directly responsible for safety
oversight,'' ``safety audits,'' and ``safety examinations'' in order to
assist public transit agencies with identifying personnel who will need
to complete the training.
FTA is proposing flexibility with developing the curriculum for the
PTSCTP. Specifically, FTA would use a process similar to that used to
identify National Transit Database (NTD) reporting requirements under
49 CFR part 630. To illustrate, FTA periodically publishes revisions to
the NTD Reporting Manuals (defined in part 630 as reference documents)
following notice and comment. For the PTSCTP, FTA would issue and
update the training requirements for the PTSCTP in a similar manner.
After FTA issues a final PTSCTP rule, FTA would periodically review the
training requirements to determine if any modifications should be made
to improve the effectiveness of the program. If warranted, revised
requirements would be published in the Federal Register for notice and
comment before taking effect. The requirements then would be made
available via the FTA Web site as the reference document noted in
sections 672.5, 672.11 and 672.13 of the proposed regulatory text. The
flexibility of this process would align with FTA's periodic review of
safety data and trends to determine if the reference document warrants
revisions. FTA believes this proposed approach provides the public
transportation industry with predictable training requirements yet
allows flexibility to respond to emerging safety trends within a
reasonable timeframe.
The proposed PTSCTP is also flexible with regard to its
application. FTA is not proposing that a recipient only can hire
personnel that have completed the initial training requirements. As
suggested by a number of commenters, FTA proposes that personnel would
have three years from the date the recipient identifies him or her as
designated personnel to complete the initial requirements. FTA believes
this measured approach promotes the legislative intent of enhancing the
technical proficiency of safety oversight personnel while recognizing
the recipient's need to prudently manage its human capital and
resources.
Additionally, FTA agrees with commenters who indicated that
refresher training should occur every two years following the initial
three-year timeframe for completing safety certification training
requirements. Topics for refresher training would be at the discretion
of the SSOA or rail transit agency, but would likely align with the
training requirements to be proposed for the Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan. Refresher training would likely place greater
emphasis on advanced areas or topics that often lead to accidents,
injuries, or non-compliance. This process would allow both FTA and the
public transportation industry to analyze safety data and identify
risks before recommending risk mitigation strategies. FTA believes a
two-year refresher cycle following the initial three-year training
period reasonably permits designated personnel to train on relevant
safety issues while not significantly impacting operations.
Although each SSOA and rail transit agency would have discretion
with regard to the subject matter for refresher training, the proposed
rule would require designated personnel to participate in at least one
hour of refresher training. FTA emphasizes that this proposal would
provide the SSOAs and rail transit agencies with discretion to require
more than one hour of refresher training based on the specific safety
oversight training needs of the SSOA or rail transit agency.
FTA also agrees with those ANPRM commenters who indicated that FTA
should recognize relevant safety training and certification that
designated personnel already have obtained. To that end, FTA is
proposing to allow designated personnel to have their previous training
evaluated by FTA to determine if the training competencies are
equivalent to the competencies of the curriculum proposed for the
PTSCTP. FTA would have the discretion to determine whether specific
PTSCTP training requirements should be waived for the designated
personnel.
FTA believes the regulatory construct described above balances
flexibility and scalability for recipients while achieving the
objective of enhancing the technical proficiency of public
transportation personnel. FTA invites public comment on the flexible
and scalable approach proposed to implement the PTSCTP.
IV. Interim Program Curriculum and Technical Training Requirements
FTA is providing the following requirements of the interim program
here to assist stakeholders with understanding the curriculum and
requirements proposed for this rule. As stated previously, FTA adopted
these requirements through a notice and comment process and is not
seeking comments on the requirements themselves. FTA believes the
curriculum and technical training requirements developed for the
interim
[[Page 75647]]
program provide a sufficient baseline for enhancing the technical
competency of those directly responsible for safety oversight. However,
since these requirements only became effective in May of this year, FTA
is interested in receiving comments on the effectiveness of the
curriculum and technical training requirements noted herein.
For purposes of consistency, FTA has changed ``covered personnel''
to ``designated personnel'' as that is the term proposed for use in the
rule. All other text is the same as that published in the February 27,
2015, Federal Register notice (80 FR 10619), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-27/pdf/2015-03842.pdf.
A. Required Curriculum Over a Three-Year Period
FTA/SSOA personnel and contractor support, and rail
transit agency personnel with direct responsibility for safety
oversight of rail transit systems not subject to FRA regulation:
[cir] One (1) hour course on SMS Awareness--e-learning delivery (all
required participants)
[cir] Two (2) hour course on Safety Assurance--e-learning delivery (all
required participants)
[cir] Two (2) hour SMS Gap course (e-learning for existing TSSP
Certificate holders)
[cir] SMS Principles for Rail Transit (2 days--all required
participants)
[cir] SMS Principles for SSO Programs (2 days--FTA/SSOA/contractor
support personnel only)
[cir] Revised TSSP with SMS Principles Integration (not required of
current TSSP Certificate holders--17.5 days for all other designated
personnel)
[cir] Rail System Safety
[cir] Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies
[cir] Transit System Security
[cir] Rail Incident Investigation
FTA/SSOA/contractor support personnel (technical training
component):
Each SSOA shall develop a technical training plan for designated
personnel and contractor support personnel who perform safety audits
and examinations. The SSOA will submit its proposed technical training
plan to FTA for review and evaluation as part of the SSOA certification
program in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(7). This review and
approval process will support the consultation required between FTA and
SSOAs regarding the staffing and qualification of the SSOAs' employees
and other designated personnel in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
5329(e)(3)(D).
Recognizing that each rail fixed guideway public transportation
system has unique characteristics, each SSOA will identify the tasks
related to inspections, examinations, and audits, and all activities
requiring sign-off, which must be performed by the SSOA to carry out
its safety oversight requirements, and identify the skills and
knowledge necessary to perform each task at that system. At a minimum,
the technical training plan will describe the process for receiving
technical training from the rail transit agencies in the following
competency areas appropriate to the specific rail fixed guideway
system(s) for which safety audits and examinations are conducted:
Agency organizational structure
System Safety Program Plan and Security Program Plan
Knowledge of agency:
[cir] Territory and revenue service schedules
[cir] Current bulletins, general orders, and other associated
directives that ensure safe operations
[cir] Operations and maintenance rule books
[cir] Safety rules
[cir] Standard Operating Procedures
[cir] Roadway Worker Protection
[cir] Employee Hours of Service and Fatigue Management program
[cir] Employee Observation and Testing Program (Efficiency Testing)
[cir] Employee training and certification requirements
[cir] Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and
records
[cir] Track inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and
records
[cir] Tunnels, bridges, and other structures inspection and
maintenance programs, schedules and records
[cir] Traction power (substation, overhead catenary system, and
third rail), load dispatching, inspection and maintenance programs,
schedules and records
[cir] Signal and train control inspection and maintenance programs,
schedules and records
The SSOA will determine the length of time for the technical
training based on the skill level of the designated personnel relative
to the applicable rail transit agency(s). FTA will provide a template
on its Web site to assist the SSOA with preparing and monitoring its
technical training plan and will provide technical assistance as
requested. Each SSOA technical training plan that is submitted to FTA
for review will:
[cir] Require designated personnel to successfully:
[ssquf] Complete training that covers the skills and knowledge the
designated personnel will need to effectively perform his or her tasks.
[ssquf] Pass a written and/or oral examination covering the skills
and knowledge required for the designated personnel to effectively
perform his or her tasks.
[ssquf] Demonstrate hands-on capability to perform his or her tasks
to the satisfaction of the appropriate SSOA supervisor or designated
instructor.
[cir] Establish equivalencies or written and oral examinations to
allow designated personnel to demonstrate that they possess the skill
and qualification required to perform their tasks.
[cir] Require biennial refresher training to maintain technical
skills and abilities which includes classroom and hands-on training, as
well as testing. Observation and evaluation of actual performance of
duties may be used to meet the hands-on portion of this requirement,
provided that such testing is documented.
[cir] Require that training records be maintained to demonstrate
the current qualification status of designated personnel assigned to
carry out the oversight program. Records may be maintained either
electronically or in writing and must be provided to FTA upon request.
[cir] Records must include the following information concerning
each designated personnel:
[ssquf] Name;
[ssquf] The title and date each training course was completed and
the proficiency test score(s) where applicable;
[ssquf] The content of each training course successfully completed;
[ssquf] A description of the designated personnel's hands-on
performance applying the skills and knowledge required to perform the
tasks that the employee will be responsible for performing and the
factual basis supporting the determination;
[ssquf] The tasks the designated personnel is deemed qualified to
perform; and
[ssquf] Provide the date that the designated personnel's status as
qualified to perform the tasks expires, and the date in which biennial
refresher training is due.
[cir] Ensure the qualification of contractors performing oversight
activities. SSOAs may use demonstrations, previous training and
education, and written and oral examinations to determine if
contractors possess the skill and qualification required to perform
their tasks.
[cir] Periodically assess the effectiveness of the technical
training. One method of
[[Page 75648]]
validation and assessment could be through the use of efficiency tests
or periodic review of employee performance.
B. Voluntary Curriculum
Bus transit system personnel with direct safety oversight
responsibility and State DOTs overseeing safety programs for
subrecipients
[cir] FTA-sponsored Bus Safety Programs
[cir] One (1) hour course on SMS Awareness--e-learning delivery
[cir] SMS for Bus Operations
[cir] TSSP Certificate (Bus)
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section explains the requirements proposed to implement the
Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1).
Section 672.1 Purpose
This part proposes to implement 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) by
establishing a uniform curriculum of safety certification training to
enhance the technical proficiency of individuals who are directly
responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems not
subject to the safety oversight requirements of another Federal agency.
This part would not preempt a State from implementing its own safety
certification training requirements for public transportation systems
subject to its jurisdiction.
Section 672.3 Scope and Applicability
In general, the proposed rule would apply to all recipients of
Federal public transportation funding under Chapter 53 of Title 49 of
the United States Code. However, the mandatory requirements would apply
specifically to SSOA personnel and their contractor support who conduct
safety audits and examinations. In addition, the mandatory requirements
would apply to rail transit agency personnel who are directly
responsible for safety oversight of rail transit systems that are not
subject to the requirements of FRA. All other recipients of Chapter 53
funding would have discretion to participate voluntarily in the
training requirements proposed for the PTSCTP.
Section 672.5 Definitions
This section would set forth the definitions of some key terms for
the proposed rule. Although this would be a new rule, many of the terms
used for this section will carry the same or similar meaning as the
terms are used in other documents issued by FTA. Specifically, they are
``Administrator,'' ``Contractor,'' ``FTA,'' ``Recipient,'' ``Public
Transportation Agency,'' ``Rail Fixed Guideway System,'' ``State,'' and
``State Safety Oversight Agency.''
In addition, there are some new terms proposed for this rulemaking
with definitions that are consistent with the common sense use as they
appear in the proposed rule text. They are: ``Designated Personnel,''
``Directly Responsible for Safety Oversight,'' ``Reference Documents,''
``Safety Audits,'' and ``Safety Examinations.''
Section 672.11 Designated Personnel Who Conduct Safety Audits and
Examinations
With paragraph (a) of this section, FTA is proposing that the State
entity authorized by the Governor to perform public transportation
safety oversight functions should identify its personnel who conduct
safety audits and examinations of the public transportation systems for
mandatory participation in training requirements of this part. In
general, those identified would be SSOA personnel and the contractor
support whose functions include on-site safety audits and examinations
of rail public transportation systems. This section also would apply to
the managers and supervisors who have direct authority over such
personnel. FTA is proposing this approach because each SSOA is better
situated to determine which of its personnel and contractors perform
safety audit and examination functions as those terms are proposed in
the Definitions section for this rule.
Paragraph (b) proposes that personnel designated by the SSOA would
have three years to complete the applicable training noted in the
Reference Document as the term is defined in proposed section 672.5. To
implement this rule, the interim program training requirements listed
in Section IV of this notice would be listed in the Reference Document.
Paragraph (b) also would require the SSOA to ensure that designated
personnel complete at least one-hour of refresher training every two
years after the initial three-year period above. The SSOA would have
discretion to determine the subject area and time for such training.
Paragraph (c) would identify the FTA web address for locating the
current version of the safety certification training requirements.
Section 672.13 Designated Personnel of Public Transportation Agencies
This section would require a recipient to identify its employees
whose job function is ``directly responsible for safety oversight'' of
the public transportation system. FTA understands that the unique
organizational framework of public transit systems does not reasonably
allow for uniform designation of the same position or function as being
``directly responsible for safety oversight.'' FTA believes each
transit agency is better situated to determine which of its personnel
should be designated for participation in the PTSCTP, whether mandatory
or voluntary.
Paragraph (a) would require each recipient that operates a rail
transit system not subject to FRA requirements to identify its
designated personnel for mandatory participation in the PTSCTP.
Paragraph (b) would allow recipients of other modes of public
transportation with personnel who are directly responsible for safety
oversight to participate voluntarily. In general, these recipients
would be State DOTs, transit agencies with both bus and rail transit
systems, as well as bus only systems. These recipients would have
discretion to scale their training requirements based on their safety
risks, as well as guidance issued by FTA. FTA would continue to provide
technical assistance for training through its Safety Training and
Resource Web site which can be located at: https://safety.fta.dot.gov/.
Paragraph (c) would provide mandatory participants up to three
years from the time of his or her initial designation to complete the
initial training requirements. The recipient would then ensure that
each mandatory participant completes at least one-hour of refresher
training every two years thereafter. However, the recipient may require
additional time for such training. As noted in paragraph (d), the FTA
web address for locating the current version of the safety
certification training requirements is identified.
627.15 Evaluation of Prior Certification and Training
FTA recognizes the existence of other competent organizations that
provide relevant safety training and certification for public
transportation safety professionals. Therefore, paragraph (a) of this
section would allow a participant to request that FTA review other non-
FTA sponsored safety training the participant has completed for the
purpose of receiving credit toward equivalent elements of PTSCTP
training requirements.
Paragraph (b) would require the participant to provide official
documentation from the organization that conducted the training for
which credit is being requested. The documentation should indicate the
date(s) and subject matter of the completed training. In addition, the
[[Page 75649]]
participant would be required to provide a narrative summary of the
training objectives and the competencies obtained through that
training.
In accordance with paragraph (c), FTA would evaluate the submission
to determine if the previously completed safety training conforms to
the training objectives and competencies of the FTA curriculum. If
approved, FTA would provide the participant credit for the previous
training and waive completion of the equivalent element of the PTSCTP
requirement. However, the waiver would not exempt a participant from
having to comply with any applicable refresher training or technical
training requirements.
Section 672.21 Records
An essential requirement of any training program is the maintenance
of adequate records to document that the training was completed. To
that end, as noted in paragraph (a), FTA proposes to maintain an
electronic record of each PTSCTP participant. The electronic record
would be created when the participant registers online for the program
at: https://safety.fta.dot.gov/.
FTA would maintain and administer the online database; however,
paragraph (b) would require that each recipient be responsible for
ensuring that its designated personnel are properly registered and
completing the curriculum for their position (e.g., safety oversight
function, or conducting safety audits and examinations). The database
would allow participants to update his or her status as training
requirements are completed.
Paragraph (c) would require each SSOA develop a technical training
plan based on applicable requirements identified in the technical
training component of Section IV of this notice. Each SSOA would
maintain training records that document the technical training
undertaken by its designated personnel and contractors who conduct
audits and examinations of rail transit systems under its jurisdiction.
This documentation would be retained by the SSOA for at least five
years from the date the record is created. This documentation process
would assist the SSOA in complying with the requirements of 49 U.S.C.
5329(e)(3)(E), as it would provide supporting documents that show
designated SSOA personnel and contractor support are have received
training to perform requisite safety oversight functions. As with the
interim program, FTA would provide templates and guidance to assist the
SSOA with this process.
With regard to contractors that provide audit and examination
services to SSOAs, the SSOA would be responsible for ensuring that any
contractor it engages to perform a safety oversight function is
qualified to perform the service as contracted. Therefore, it is
reasonable for the SSOA, working with its contractor, to maintain
training records of those providing contract services.
Section 672.23 Availability of Records
With this section, FTA is proposing requirements for the
safekeeping and limited release of information maintained in accordance
with the proposed requirements of this part. Paragraph (a) would
require that information maintained in applicable training records not
be released without the consent of the participant for whom the record
is maintained, except in those limited instances as prescribed by law
or as indicated in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).
Paragraph (b) would allow a participant to receive a copy of his or
her training records without cost to the participant. To assist with
safety oversight activities, paragraph (c) would require a recipient to
provide appropriate Federal and SSOA personnel access to all of the
recipient's facilities where required training is conducted. In
addition, the recipient would be required to grant access to all
training records required to be maintained by this part to appropriate
Department of Transportation personnel and appropriate State officials
who are responsible for safety oversight of public transportation
systems. Paragraph (d) would require a recipient to provide information
regarding a participant's training when requested by the National
Transportation Safety Board when such request is made as part of an
accident investigation.
Section 672.31 Requirement To Certify Compliance
Recipients are required to annually certify their compliance with
Federal grant requirements as a condition for receiving funding.
Paragraph (a) would require recipients for whom the training
requirements are mandatory to self-certify compliance with this part
through the annual FTA certification and assurances. Paragraph (b)
would require the recipient to identify the person(s) within its
organization authorized to certify the status of the recipient's
compliance.
Section 672.33 Compliance as a Condition of Financial Assistance
This section would define actions available to the Administrator if
a recipient for whom the training requirements are mandatory does not
comply with the requirements of this part. Paragraph (a) would indicate
that the Administrator has discretion to withhold Federal public
transportation funds should the Administrator find that a recipient is
not complying with the requirements of this part. Paragraph (b) would
provide the recipient with written notice of the Administrator's
decision and the factual basis for the Administrator's finding of
noncompliance. Paragraph (c) would provide the recipient an opportunity
to respond to the Administrator within 30 days of receiving written
notice of the finding of noncompliance. Paragraph (d) provides actions
the Administrator may undertake at his or her discretion.
VI. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Section 5329(h) of title 49, United States Code requires FTA to
``take into consideration the costs and benefits of each action the
Secretary proposes to take'' under section 5329. To assess the costs
for the PTSCTP, we first reviewed data from the Transportation Safety
Institute (TSI). Using this data and our familiarity with how SSOAs are
organized, we developed a maximum and minimum number of personnel, to
include employees and contractors that would be affected by the PTSCTP.
Next, using the same data from TSI, we determined the number of rail
transit personnel that would be affected by the PTSCTP. We also
reviewed the number of FTA personnel who participate in safety audits
and examinations and determined the number of FTA personnel that would
be required to undergo the some level of training and certification. In
developing annual costs for personnel that would attend the PTSCTP, we
assumed a minimum and maximum case scenario.
For the minimum case, we assumed that all designated personnel
under this program had already completed the TSSP Certificate Program
and would require only the SMS portion of the coursework described in
Section IV of this notice. This assumption is supported given the
popularity of the TSSP Certificate Program within the industry. This
assumption is supported further by the level of voluntary participation
by transit industry personnel obtained from current graduation/
attendance data at TSI. For the maximum case, we assume that no one
subject to the NPRM has a TSSP
[[Page 75650]]
Certificate. In this case, all designated personnel would have to take
and complete both the TSSP and SMS coursework over the allotted 3-year
period. The table below shows the estimated counts used in our
analysis.
To simplify the analysis, we assumed that the total designated
personnel under this NPRM would undertake one-third of the total
coursework each year. While affected employees will have three years to
complete the coursework--it would be unreasonable to expect an employee
to be away from a duty station for training purposes for over four
consecutive weeks. As noted in the comments received on the ANPRM, many
commenters suggested that we harness the existing voluntary training
offered by TSI and build upon that base.
Estimated Universe of Potential SSOA, Rail Transit Agency, and FTA
Personnel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSOA Personnel.......................... 70 120
Rail Transit Agency Personnel........... 200 340
FTA Personnel........................... 40 40
-------------------------------
Total............................... 310 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we determined the training, by course, that would be required
of each person within the scope of the PTSCTP. The TSSP Certificate
Program consists of four courses.\1\ The Table below lists the courses
and duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TSSP Certificate Program has two tracks, one for rail
and one for bus-based transport. Since the PTSCTP is optional for
bus-based transit we do not address those costs or benefits in the
instant analysis.
TSSP Coursework Required
[Completed within a 3-year period]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSSP courses Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail Safety............................................. 4.5
Rail Incident Investigation............................. 4.5
Rail Security........................................... 4.5
Managing Emergencies.................................... 4
---------------
Total................................................. 17.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SMS Coursework consists of two courses and three online
training sessions. While SSO personnel will be required to take 5.125
days of total training, rail transit agency personnel will not be
required to take the two-day SMS Principles Course. However, we assume
here that all rail transit agency personnel will take all 5.125 days.
This approach is conservative and potentially over counts the total
costs by about $65-110,000.00 per year but does not complicate this
analysis. The Table below lists the courses and duration.
SMS Coursework--In-Class and Online Required
[Completed within a 3-year period]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMS courses Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMS Awareness........................................... 0.125
Safety Assurance........................................ 0.25
SMS Gap................................................. 0.25
SMS Principles Rail Transit............................. 2.5
SMS Principles SSO Programs............................. 2
---------------
Total................................................. 5.125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) average wage rate
of $40.84 for those taking training under this program, we developed
the following Lower Bound and Upper Bound costs for attendance as
depicted in the table below.
Costs for Attendance of SSOA, Rail Transit Agency, and FTA Personnel Within a 3-Year Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Training time Attendance
personnel Hourly rate (days) costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Bound Mandatory Costs/Yr.................. 310 $40.84 5.125 $172,467.32
Upper Bound Mandatory Costs/Yr.................. 500 40.84 22.625 1,234,470.68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we developed costs associated with developing, managing, and
administering the coursework for the PTSCTP. First, we reviewed the
course catalog for TSI and determined the percentage of courses
required by the PTSCTP of the total courses offered--a little more than
one-fourth (six courses plus three online courses out of 21 total
courses or about 28 percent) of the total course offerings would be
required of the combined TSSP/SMS training under this NPRM.
Furthermore, of the total days of coursework offered by TSI, 30 percent
were attributable to the TSSP/SMS coursework. To be conservative, we
used 30 percent for weighting for unattributable costs and allocated
full costs where we were able to identify cost resulting from the TSSP
and/or SMS training components. Using data from FTA's budget for TSI,
the cost for the administration of courses, contract costs, and costs
for the development of new coursework we developed the program costs.
We factored no facility costs as regional transit agencies or FTA
Regional Offices host courses. Hence, we also do not account for travel
costs because courses are hosted locally--travel for those attending
would be included within normal commuting parameters. Lastly, there is
no cost associated with taking the coursework for public agency
employees. Using this information, we developed the costs presented in
the following table.
TSI Program Costs Associated With TSSP and SMS Coursework
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Salaries and Benefits *......................... $210,212
Contract Services....................................... 368,000
Equipment, Supplies, Space, Other *..................... 58,260
Travel (Other than Course Delivery) *................... 13,800
Course Delivery......................................... 462,866
[[Page 75651]]
Indirect at 19%......................................... 211,496
Est. Materials Fee Recovery *........................... 97,570
---------------
Total Program......................................... 1,422,204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Weighted Cost Allocation.
Using the costs presented above, the table below presents the total
annual costs for the PTSCTP. We note here again that we have been very
conservative in aggregating costs, so in fact the aggregate cost
estimates are greater than we expect to be the case. We have not
removed costs for rail transit agency personnel that do not have to
take the SMS SSO Principles course. We have assumed in the Maximum
scenario, in an overabundance of caution, that everyone has not taken
the TSSP Certificate coursework, which is a weak assumption given the
level of voluntary participation and popularity of the program.
Moreover, we have used a weighting that over estimates unattributable
costs given the level of presence in the TSI course load. While we
present data for both a Maximum Cost and Minimum Cost scenarios, the
actual experience for costs should be closer to the Minimum scenario
than to the Maximum scenario.
Total Costs for the PTSCTP Over a 3-Year Certification Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendance
costs TSI costs Total costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Costs MIN............................................. $172,467 $1,422,204 $1,594,671
Aggregate Costs MAX............................................. 1,234,471 1,422,204 2,656,674
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the interim provisions only have been in effect for a short
time, we were unable to generate any estimate of their benefits. Thus,
to assess the benefits for the PTSCTP, we considered how other
transportation modes that are in the process of implementing SMS or
similar systematic approaches to safety have estimated the benefits of
their programs in reducing incidents, adverse outcomes, and improving
training programs. For example, although no two programs are identical,
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in its final rule
implementing its Training Standards issued November 7, 2014 at 79 FR
66460, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-07/html/2012-2148.htm,
provided evidence that training programs for the railroad industry
would yield a breakeven point with a 7 percent reduction in human
factor-caused accidents. Moreover, FRA in its proposed rules to
implement its System Safety Program (SSP) (see 80 FR 10950) and its
Risk Reduction Program (RRP) (see 77 FR 55372) provided anecdotal
evidence that both programs could lead to meaningful reductions in
serious crashes, and conducted breakeven analyses that found that a
less than 1 percent reduction in the incidents and accidents under
consideration would lead to a cost-neutral SSP rule and an
approximately 2 percent reduction for the RRP rule. Additionally, the
Federal Aviation Administration estimated that its SMS program could
yield a 20 percent reduction in crashes.
Enhancements brought about by SMS have also supported
transportation and oversight agencies in mitigating the impacts of
those events that do occur. For the SSO program NPRM issued February
27, 2015, at 80 FR 11002-30, FTA considered what percentage of
potential safety benefits that rule would need to achieve in order to
achieve a ``break even'' point with the costs based on two different
estimates of the potential benefit pool. (FTA noted, therein, that the
analysis was not intended to be a full analysis of the potential
benefits of SMS for transit safety--rather it was intended to provide
some quantified estimate of the potential benefits of the changes to
the SSO program proposed in that rule). FTA also noted that the
analysis may understate the potential benefits because of the lack of
data on some non-injury related costs associated with many incidents,
particularly regarding property damage and travel delays. For the SSO
NPRM, FTA estimated that the SSO program revisions would realistically
garner a 2 percent reduction in costs associated with fatalities and
``serious'' injuries. FTA performed analyzed the potential safety
benefits of the SSO NPRM by reviewing the rail transit incidents
specifically identified by the NTSB as related to inadequate safety
oversight programs. Of the 19 major rail transit accidents the NTSB has
investigated (or preliminarily investigated) since 2004, five had
probable causes that included inadequate safety oversight on the part
of the rail transit agency or FTA. Based on the analysis for the SSO
NPRM, for the benefits to breakeven with the costs to both SSOs and
rail transit agencies, the rule would only require a 1.23 percent
reduction of the accidents costs per year, which did not include
potentially significant unquantified costs related to property damage
and disruption.
At base, the SSO NPRM increases the frequency and/or
comprehensiveness of activities that are already performed, such as
reviews, inspections, field observations, investigations, safety
studies, data analysis activities, and hazard management. The SSO NPRM
focuses its efforts on process improvements to achieve its benefits.
The SSO program is reliant on the PTSCTP for part of its safety
improvements. While the SSO NPRM proposed to improve SSO and rail
transit agencies processes, the PTSCTP improves the requisite human
capital within the SSO program by improving the training and by making
mandatory training for those designated personnel charged with safety
oversight at SSO and rail transit agencies.
We were very confident that a 2 percent reduction, which is in line
with FRA estimates, could be achieved with the SSO NPRM--in fact, our
calculations showed the breakeven point to be a reduction of 1.23
percent. This leaves about .77 percent or nearly $14.3 million in
benefits that have been unallocated. FTA believes that training for
those charged with safety oversight at SSO and rail transit agencies is
an imperative to achieve estimated reductions in incidents and
accidents. To this end, we calculated the breakeven point for the
PTSCTP. The breakeven point for the maximum case of $2.6 million in
annual costs is 0.14 percent and .09 percent for the minimum case of
$1.6 million in annual costs. This level of reduction in fatalities and
serious injuries is likely to be extremely conservative and we are
highly confident that it is easily attainable when complemented with
the changes proposed in the SSO NPRM.
As an alternative and to cross-check the benefits of training, we
reviewed literature on returns derived from investments in training and
training programs. Bartel conducts a panel study that analyzed large
firms, studies that
[[Page 75652]]
focused on one or two firms, and company sponsored studies.\2\ Bartel
finds that employer's return on investments in training may well be
greater than was previously believed. We partially reproduce the table
below from Bartel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bartel, Ann P. ``Measuring the Employer's Return on
Investments in Training: Evidence from the Literature'' Online:
https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/abartel/papers/measuring_employer.pdf.
Econometric Analysis of Large Samples of Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance
Author Response rate Sample size measure Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop......................... 75%............... 2594 Productivity...... ROI on 100 hours of new
hire training ranged
from 11% to 38%.
Bartel......................... 6.5%.............. 155 Value-Added....... Implementation of
formal training raised
productivity by 6% per
year.
Holzer et al................... 32%............... 157 Scrap Rate........ Doubling of worker
training reduced scrap
rate by 7%, using
fixed-effects model.
Black and Lynch................ 72%............... 617 Net Sales......... Percentage of formal
training that occurs
off the job has
significant effect in
cross section but no
effect on the
establishment-specific
residual.
Tan and Batra.................. Random Sample..... 300-56000 Value-Added....... Predicted training has
positive effect on
value-added; effects
range from 2.8% to 71%
per year.
Huselid........................ 28%............... 968 Tobin's q and Rate High-performance
of Return on practices had
Capital. significant effect in
cross section that
disappeared in fixed-
effects model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bartel PP. 506.
While these results from Bartel's study are not transportation or
even transit related, it still gives a clear picture of the benefits
that firms across industries have experienced when they have invested
in training. We also reviewed a study by Almedia and Carneiro on firm-
provided training, in which they estimate the rate of return for firms
that invest in human capital (training).\3\ Conducting a panel study of
firms with detailed data on training, they estimate that firms that do
not provide training yield a negative 7 percent return while those that
provide training accomplish a 24 percent return. They conclude that
training is ``a good investment for many firms and the economy,
possibly yielding higher returns than either investments in physical
capital or investments in schooling.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Almeida, Rita and Pedro Carneiro. ``Costs, Benefits and the
Intenal Rate of Return to Firm Provided Training'' Online: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/AlmeidaCarneiroUpdatedWP3851.pdf.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The literature generally shows that returns on investment for
training are positive and usually greater than is typically thought.
This comports with the conservative assumptions that we have made and
use to assess the PTSCTP program.
Qualitative Factors
While the TSSP Certificate Program has been available for some
time, it had been an optional certification that some SSOA, rail, and
bus safety oversight personnel sought out of self-initiative. With the
delineation of a mandatory pool of safety oversight employees, FTA
hopes to unify and harmonize the provision of safety-related activities
across SSOAs and rail transit agencies. In this way, this pool of
employees will gain knowledge to identify and control hazards with the
ultimate goal of decreasing incidents. Additionally, FTA expects that
the codification of the PTSCTP will help promote a safety culture
within the transit industry. This safety culture should help instill a
transit agency-wide appreciation for shared goals, shared beliefs, best
practices, and positive and vigilant attitudes towards safety.
We are unsure how to quantify the effects of a positive safety
culture as a safety culture will develop over time. Characteristics of
a positive safety culture include: Actively seeking out information on
hazards; employee training; information exchanges; and understanding
that responsibility for safety is shared. While the returns on
investment in training should be fairly quick, establishing, promoting,
and increasing safety in an industry that is already very safe, is
difficult to predict with any certainty.
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
All comments received on or before the close of business on the
comment closing date will be considered and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after
the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition, FTA may continue to
file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after
the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue
to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published
at any time after close of the comment period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits--including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
FTA has determined this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
13563, and the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980, 44 FR 11034, Feb.
26, 1979). FTA has determined that this rulemaking is not
[[Page 75653]]
economically significant. The proposals set forth in this NPRM will not
result in an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The
proposals set forth in the NPRM will not adversely affect the economy,
interfere with actions taken or planned by other agencies, or generally
alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or
loan programs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
This proposed rule was developed in accordance with Executive Order
13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency rulemaking) and
DOT's policies and procedures to promote compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) which requires an agency to
review regulations to assess the impact on small entities. In
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, FTA has evaluated the
likely effects of the proposals set forth in this NPRM on small
entities.
As noted in the cost benefit analysis for this rule, FTA developed
a maximum and minimum number of employees of recipients that would be
affected by the PTSCTP. FTA believes that approximately 70 to 120 SSOA
personnel and contractors would be subject to the mandatory PTSCTP
training requirements while approximately 340 personnel of rail transit
agencies would be mandatory participants. Further, FTA believes that
approximately 2,000 personnel may be voluntary participants. Section
5329(e)(6) permits recipients of rural and urbanized area formula funds
to use Federal funds to cover up to 80 percent of the PTSCTP costs.
Additionally, FTA believes many of the PTSCPT participants will be
eligible to receive credit for prior safety training which will further
reduce the cost and impact associated with this proposed rulemaking.
For these reasons, FTA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates
This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4,
March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The cost of training to comply with this
NPRM would be an eligible expenditure of Federal financial assistance
provided to recipients under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. This proposed rule
will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1
million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and FTA
has determined that the proposed action would not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
assessment. FTA has also concluded that this proposed action would 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 rulemaking.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.; ``PRA'') and the OMB regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA
is seeking approval from OMB for the Information Collection Request
abstracted below. In order to comply with the requirements proposed to
implement the PTSCTP in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), this NPRM
would require recipients to provide information to FTA regarding the
participation of their respective designated personnel as abstracted
below. Designated personnel would provide enrollment information,
periodically update compliance with PTSCTP training requirements, and
where applicable, submit supporting documentation of prior training for
credit towards PTSCTP training requirements. All recipients of
mandatory PTSCTP requirements would annually certify compliance with
the PTSCTP requirements. Additionally, SSOAs would be required to
develop annual technical training plans for FTA approval. The plans
would support the SSOA requirement to demonstrate that applicable SSOA
personnel are qualified to perform safety audits and examinations.
The information collection would be different for each type of
recipient (Federal government personnel, Federal contractors, SSOAs and
their contractors, and rail transit agencies). Therefore, the paperwork
burden would vary. For example, the burden on SSOAs would be
proportionate to the number of rail transit agencies within that State,
and the size and complexity of those rail transit systems. This would
affect the number of personnel designated for participation. FTA
proposes to bear the cost associated with the development and
maintenance of the Web site. FTA is seeking comment on whether the
information collected will have practical utility; whether its
estimation of the burden of the proposed information collection is
accurate; whether the burden can be minimized through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology; and for ways in which the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information can be enhanced.
Type of Review: OMB Clearance. New information collection request.
Respondents: Currently there are 30 States with 60 rail fixed
guideway public transportation systems in engineering, construction,
and operations. The PRA estimate is based on participation in the
PTSCTP by a total of 30 States and 60 rail transit agencies. In
addition, we estimate participation by 35-45 SSOA contractors and
approximately 30 Federal personnel and contractors.
Frequency: Information will be collected through the Web site on an
ongoing basis throughout the year. Participants must complete training
requirements within 3 years and refresher training every 2 years.
Certification of compliance will be required annually.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: In the first year of the
program, we estimate a total burden of between 5,209 (minimum) and
5,909 (maximum) hours, depending on how many individuals are required
to participate. Annually, each SSOA would devote between 88-91 hours to
information collection activities including the development and
submission of training plans to FTA. SSOA contractors would devote
approximately 140-180 hours to information collection activities. These
activities would have a combined total of 2,780-2,920 hours, depending
on how many individuals are required to participate. The mandatory
participants affected by 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) and today's rulemaking
include 60 rail fixed guideway public transportation systems which
would spend an estimated annual total of between 2,060 (minimum) and
2,620 (maximum) hours on information collection activities in the first
year, or approximately 34-44 hours each. Finally, FTA is expected to
expend approximately 249 hours in furtherance of the PTSCTP in the
first year, and Federal contractors will spend an estimated four (4)
hours each, for a combined total of approximately 369 hours in the
first year.
[[Page 75654]]
Additional documentation detailing FTA's Paperwork Reduction Act
Information Collection Request, including FTA's Justification
Statement, will be posted in the docket for this rulemaking. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this proposed rule within 60 days after
receiving the information collection request submission from FTA. FTA
will summarize and respond to any comments on the proposed information
collection request from OMB and the public in the preamble to the final
rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et
seq.) requires Federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental
effects of their proposed actions in the form of a categorical
exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement.
This proposed rulemaking is categorically excluded under FTA's
environmental impact procedure at 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), pertaining to
planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead
directly to construction, such as the promulgation of rules,
regulations, and directives. FTA has determined that no unusual
circumstances exist in this instance, and that a categorical exclusion
is appropriate for this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
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 USDOT environmental justice
initiatives accomplish this goal by involving the potentially affected
public in developing transportation projects that fit harmoniously
within their communities without compromising safety or mobility.
Additionally, FTA has issued a program circular addressing
environmental justice in public transportation, C 4703.1, Environmental
Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients.
This circular provides a framework for FTA grantees as they integrate
principles of environmental justice into their transit decision-making
processes. The Circular includes recommendations for State Departments
of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and public
transportation systems 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.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
FTA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking under Executive Order
13045. 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 rulemaking under Executive Order
13175 and finds that the action will not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; will not preempt
tribal laws; and will not impose any new consultation requirements on
Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement
is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FTA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking under Executive Order
13211 and has determined that this action is not a significant energy
action under the Executive Order, given that the action 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
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of FTA's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment or signing the comment if submitted on behalf of
an association, business, labor union, or any other entity. You may
review USDOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477-8.
Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of the Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; Pub. L. 112-141), and the
statutory provision codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), which requires
the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe a public transportation
safety certification training program for Federal and State employees,
or other designated personnel, who conduct safety audits and
examinations of public transportation systems and employees of public
transportation agencies directly responsible for safety oversight. The
Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to carry out the general
provisions of this statutory requirement pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
5329(f)(7).
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (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 672
Transportation, Mass transportation, Safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority delegated at 49
CFR 1.91.
Therese McMillan,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of
49 U.S.C. 5329(c), 5329(f), and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.91, the Federal Transit Administration proposes to amend chapter VI
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding part 672 to read as
follows:
PART 672--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SAFETY CERTIFICATION TRAINING
PROGRAM
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
672.1 Purpose.
672.3 Scope and applicability.
672.5 Definitions.
Subpart B--Training Requirements
672.11 Designated personnel who conduct safety audits and
examinations.
[[Page 75655]]
672.13 Designated personnel of public transportation agencies.
672.15 Evaluation of prior certification and training.
Subpart C--Administrative Requirements
672.21 Records.
672.23 Availability of records.
Subpart D--Compliance and Certification Requirements
672.31 Requirement to certify compliance.
672.33 Compliance as a condition of financial assistance.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(c), 49 U.S.C. 5329(f), 49 CFR 1.91.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 672.1 Purpose.
(a) This part implements a uniform safety certification training
curriculum and requirements that will enhance the technical proficiency
of individuals who are directly responsible for safety oversight of
public transportation agencies not subject to the safety oversight
requirements of another Federal agency.
(b) This part does not preempt any safety certification training
requirements required by a State for public transportation agencies
within its jurisdiction.
Sec. 672.3 Scope and applicability.
(a) In general, this part applies to all recipients of Federal
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
(b) The mandatory requirements of this part will apply only to
State Safety Oversight Agency personnel and contractor support, and
designated personnel of recipients that operate rail fixed guideway
systems that are not subject to the requirements of the Federal
Railroad Administration.
(c) Other FTA recipients may participate voluntarily in accordance
with this part.
Sec. 672.5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Administrator means the Federal Transit Administrator or the
Administrator's designee.
Contractor means an entity that performs tasks on behalf of FTA or
a State Safety Oversight Agency through contract or other agreement.
Designated personnel means:
(1) Employees identified by a recipient whose job function requires
them to be directly responsible for safety oversight of public
transportation provided by the agency; or
(2) Employees and contractors of a State Safety Oversight Agency
whose job function requires them to conduct safety audits and
examinations of the public transportation systems subject to the
jurisdiction of the agency.
Directly responsible for safety oversight means a public
transportation agency designated personnel whose job function includes
the development, implementation and review of the recipient's safety
plan.
FTA means the Federal Transit Administration, an agency within the
United States Department of Transportation.
Public transportation agency means an entity that provides public
transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5302 and that has one or more
modes of service not subject to the safety oversight requirements of
another Federal agency.
Rail fixed guideway public transportation system means any fixed
guideway system that uses rail, is operated for public transportation,
is within the jurisdiction of a State, and is not subject to the
jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration, or any such system
in engineering or construction. Rail fixed guideway public
transportation systems include but are not limited to rapid rail, heavy
rail, light rail, monorail, trolley, inclined plane, funicular, and
automated guideway.
Recipient means an entity, including a State or local governmental
authority that receives Federal funds pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
Reference Document means the current edition of the Public
Transportation Safety Certification Training Program training
requirements and curriculum. The curriculum and training requirements
are subject to periodic revision through a notice-and-comment process.
Recipients are responsible for using the current edition of the
Reference Document.
Safety audit means an examination of a recipient's safety records
and related materials.
Safety examination means a process for gathering facts or
information, or an analysis of facts or information previously
collected.
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 Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) 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 659.
Subpart B--Training Requirements
Sec. 672.11 Designated personnel who conduct safety audits and
examinations.
(a) Each State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) shall designate its
personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of
public transportation systems, including the managers and supervisors
of such personnel, and ensure such designated personnel comply with the
applicable training requirements in the current Reference Document.
(b) Designated personnel and contractors shall complete applicable
training requirements of this part within three (3) years of their
initial designation. Thereafter, refresher training shall be completed
every two (2) years. The SSOA will determine refresher training
requirements which shall include at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety
oversight training.
(c) Copies. Copies of the current Reference Document are available
from the FTA Web site located at https://safety.fta.dot.gov.
Sec. 672.13 Designated personnel of public transportation agencies.
(a) Each recipient that operates a rail fixed guideway public
transportation system not subject to the safety oversight of another
Federal agency shall designate its personnel who are directly
responsible for safety oversight and ensure that they comply with the
applicable training requirements as set forth in the current Reference
Document.
(b) Each recipient that operates a bus or other public
transportation system not subject to the safety oversight of another
Federal agency may designate its personnel who are directly responsible
for safety oversight. Such personnel may participate in the applicable
training requirements as set forth in the current Reference Document.
(c) Personnel designated under paragraph (a) of this section shall
complete applicable training requirements of this part within three (3)
years of their initial designation. Thereafter, refresher training
shall be completed every two (2) years. The recipient will determine
refresher training requirements which will include at a minimum, one
(1) hour of safety oversight training.
(d) Copies. Copies of the current Reference Document are available
from the FTA Web site located at https://safety.fta.dot.gov.
[[Page 75656]]
Sec. 672.15 Evaluation of prior certification and training.
(a) Designated personnel subject to this part may request that FTA
evaluate safety training or certification previously obtained from
another entity to determine if the training satisfies an applicable
training requirement of this part.
(b) Designated personnel must provide FTA with an official
transcript or certificate of the training, a description of the
curriculum and competencies obtained, and a brief statement detailing
how the training or certification satisfies the applicable requirement
of this part.
(c) FTA will evaluate the submission and determine if any of the
applicable training requirements of this part will be credited for
waiver. If a waiver is granted, designated personnel are responsible
for completing all other applicable requirements of this part.
Subpart C--Administrative Requirements
Sec. 672.21 Records.
(a) General requirement. FTA will maintain an electronic database
for designated personnel to register and enroll in the Public
Transportation Safety Certification Training Program at https://safety.fta.dot.gov.
(b) General requirement. Each recipient shall ensure that its
designated personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP via the electronic
database. Designated personnel shall update their training profile as
the applicable training requirements of this part are completed.
(c) SSOA Requirement. Each SSOA will maintain a record of the
technical training completed by its designated personnel and
contractors in accordance with the technical training requirements of
this part. Such records shall be maintained by the SSOA for at least
five (5) years from the date the record is created. Each record shall
include the following information at minimum:
(1) The name of the designated personnel or contractor;
(2) The title of the training, the date the training was completed
and the proficiency test score(s), where applicable;
(3) The content of each training course or curriculum successfully
completed and an indication of whether the participant passed or failed
any associated tests;
(4) The tasks the participant is deemed qualified to perform; and
(5) The date the designated personnel's status as qualified to
perform the task(s) expires, and the date in which biennial refresher
training is due.
Sec. 672.23 Availability of records.
(a) Except as required by law, or expressly authorized or required
by this part, a recipient may not release information pertaining to
designated personnel that is required to be maintained by this part
without the written consent of the designated personnel.
(b) Designated personnel are entitled, upon written request, to
obtain copies of any records pertaining to his or her training that is
required to be maintained by this part. The recipient shall promptly
provide the records requested by designated personnel and access shall
not be contingent upon the recipient's receipt of payment for the
production of such records.
(c) A recipient shall permit access to all facilities utilized and
records compiled in accordance with the requirements of this part to
the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, or
any State agency with jurisdiction for public transportation safety
oversight authority over the recipient.
(d) When requested by the National Transportation Safety Board as
part of an accident investigation, a recipient shall disclose
information related to the training of designated personnel.
Subpart D--Compliance and Certification Requirements
Sec. 672.31 Requirement to certify compliance.
(a) A recipient of FTA financial assistance described in Sec.
672.3(b) of this part shall annually certify compliance with this part
in accordance with FTA's procedures for annual grant certification and
assurances.
(b) A certification must be authorized by the recipient's governing
board or other authorizing official, and must be signed by a party
specifically authorized to do so.
Sec. 672.33 Compliance as a condition of financial assistance.
(a) General requirement. A recipient may not be eligible for
Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, in whole or in
part, if the Administrator determines the recipient has failed to
comply with the requirements of this part.
(b) Notice. If the Administrator determines that Federal financial
assistance should be withheld, the Administrator will issue a notice of
violation and the amount proposed to be withheld at least ninety (90)
days prior to the date from when the funds will be withheld. The notice
must contain--
(1) A statement of the legal authority for issuance;
(2) A statement of the regulatory provision(s) the recipient is
believed to have violated;
(3) A statement of the factual allegations upon which the notice of
violation is based; and
(4) A statement of the remedial action sought to correct the
violation.
(c) Reply. Within thirty (30) days of service of a notice of
violation, a recipient may file a written reply with the Administrator.
Upon written request, the Administrator may extend the time for filing
for good cause shown. The reply must be in writing, and signed by the
Accountable Executive or equivalent entity. A written response may
include an explanation for the alleged violation, provide relevant
information or materials in response to the alleged violation or in
mitigation thereof, or recommend alternative means of compliance for
consideration by the Administrator.
(d) Decision. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a reply from a
recipient, the Administrator will issue a written reply to the
recipient. The Administrator may consider the recipient's response,
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, in determining whether to
dismiss the notice of violation in whole or in part. If the notice of
violation is not dismissed, the Administrator may undertake any other
enforcement action he or she deems appropriate, including withholding
funds as stated in the notice of violation.
[FR Doc. 2015-30466 Filed 12-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P