Manuals and service instructions

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law, I hereby request the following records:

This is a resubmission of # R000094-061423, which I believe to have been illegally closed due to the extensive mismanagement of mail by the MTA in delaying review of the appeal until after the deadline had passed.

It has been more than a year since I submitted the first form of this request, and should the MTA continue to mishandle this process, I will not hesitate to retain legal counsel and begin litigation. I have significantly less patience after the incorrect closure of my appeal, that was downright rude.

I am seeking copies of user/driver operating instructions, service manuals, service bulletins, and contract/design specifications, for the following subway cars, by rough order of fleet size:
R46
R62
R62A
R68
R68A
R142
R142A
R143
R160
R188
R179
R211A
And the following buses, by rough order of introduction:
Nova Bus LFS TL40102A 3rd Generation
Orion Bus Industries Orion VII 07.501 EPA10 3rd Generation
New Flyer XD40 Xcelsior
New Flyer C40LF Low Floor
Nova Bus LFS-A TL62102A 1st Generation articulated
New Flyer XD60 Xcelsior articulated
Nova Bus.LFS TL40102A 4th Generation
New Flyer XN40 Xcelsior
New Flyer XN60 Xcelsior articulated
New Flyer XDE40 Xcelsior
Nova Bus LFS-A TL62102A 4nd Generation articulated
Nova Bus LFS TL40102A 4th Generation
New Flyer XDE40 Xcelsior

I do *not* need individual service requests, tickets, repair records, or similar information that is unique to each chassis.

Examples of relevant documents, but by no means the only documents, specifically mentioned as furnished digitally to the MTA from the specification:
Train Operator's Manual
Road Car Inspector's Troubleshooting Manual
Work Manual/Inspection Procedures
Overhaul Manuals
Maintenance and Engineering Instruction Manuals
Instructor Guides
Training Participant Guides
Training Aids (videos only)
Illustrated Parts Catalogs (should these be available digitally)

I do not have any interest in Operator Training Simulators, Special Presentation Equipment/Workstations, Special Tools and Test Equipment Manuals

You may narrow the request to only the portions of such records that are related to the HVAC system of vehicles. That's really what I'm interested in. Anything else would've simply been neat.

Some of these vehicles have been in service for substantially longer than I've been alive. If any potentially responsive records more than 20 years or so old are not easily retrievable or searchable, you may absolutely narrow the search to the past 20 years, or any other reasonable periods of time which might be easily retrievable.

Do not merely deny the request because the agency is large and may have records stored in different places - work with me. This does not need to be a waste of each other's time, we can go back and forth to construct a narrower request in good faith.

I believe it is entirely unreasonable to withold, in blanket, the entire category of manuals and service bulletins, let alone the entire request, on the grounds of public safety. The case cited was a case of counterterrorism surveillance in a national security context that may have involved the disclosure of sources, methods, and targets. I think it should be obvious why I do not expect the operating manuals and service bulletins to contain information about sources, methods, and targets, of law enforcement.

The idea that mere information of the normal daily workings of mass transit vehicles in public hands is a threat to public safety flies in the face of good security practice ("security through obscurity" universally serves to perpetuate embarrassingly poor practices), but also is out of line with other industry practices. As an example, the full crew operations and instruction manuals for every mass produced passenger airliner is freely available to all, on the web, because the aviation industry has a proper understanding of safety and security.

As an example of why I believe this is unreasonable in the specific case of transit disruptions, I expect details of the locks and security systems of unattended signal huts to be of greater sensitivity than, for example, the operating instructions for the air-conditioning of a subway car. If these two examples were contained in the same "record" I'd reasonably expect the agency to redact the sensitive language rather than refuse disclosure of the entire record.

As a matter of fact, I have considerable reason to believe that said operation of the HVAC has been in a manner that is harmful to the lives and safety of new yorkers during an airborne pandemic that's already claimed the lives of several tens of thousands of said new yorkers. The disclosure of such information would likely contribute to the increased safety of new yorkers, and reduce disease related disrupts of all sorts in the system… including disruptions of the sort that have caused numerous sudden staffing shortages for the agency.

You cannot reasonably claim information about the HVAC system is an opportunity for terrorists or bad actors. An opportunity for what? To cause death and destruction by making subway cars slightly warmer than the already sizzling summer temperatures? Or cause grievous injuries by... Turning the fans up slightly?

If you're *really* honestly concerned that the 10ish buttons and a lever that operate the older model trains are so inherently unsafe and poorly secured that knowing which button (*clearly labeled in the cab*) is responsible for each function ahead of time is sufficient to endanger the lives of New Yorkers...

If you deny the request, then your denial out of concern here indicates a much larger and more embarrassing problem for the MTA: the information that's already in the public domain, including in the form of specifications published by the MTA itself, is far more detailed than is sufficient to do any number of acts of sabotage or worse.

I am looking right now at a 659 page specifications document published by the MTA that covers more than 200 currently-in-service train cars. It describes everything from the positive detents in the master control (maximum power through emergency brake and shut down), an exact description of the No-Motion Bypass switch, a detailed description (with graphics!) of trainline and car networks, and descriptions of the valves used to disable friction brakes.

That is required by law, to enable open bidding on agency contracts - it's an anti-corruption measure that's been in place for generations before me.

Across the rest of the internet, there are closeups of the keys used by the MTA to operate equipment like the Master Door Controller and also crew keys and subsequent replacements. I suspect the MDC key is actually the same design as the square key used to open many spigots. Yes, I too had trouble believing the "the NYCT's standard, square-type, MDC key" was literally a square key. It seems to be exactly specified in this patent:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4611104A/en

If you still believe there is a security risk involved here, clearly articulate it so that I may adjust the request to avoid a security risk. Anything else is sufficiently vague to deny access to most requests as a form of constructive denial.

This is an issue of great, however quiet, controversy where the public declarations of political figures are in great disagreement with the direct measurement of dozens of volunteers on the ground, and it's important to be in possession of the full breadth of circumstances that determine the operation of the system.

I am open to further narrowing the request if the agency records officers will provide guidance and suggestions as to what they can easily retrieve.

The final communication in which my request was improperly closed is included below for your convenience:
RE: FOIL Records Request of June 14, 2023, Reference # R000094-061423.
Dear Alexander Riccio,
The NYS Metropolitan Transit Authority received a FOIL request from you on June 14, 2023. You requested: "Copies of user/driver operating instructions, service manuals, and service bulletins for all currently in service passenger trains, subway cars, and buses in the system."
Please be advised that your request for "user/driver operating instructions" for all currently in service passenger trains, subway cars and buses in the system is denied pursuant to New York Public Officers Law (“NYPOL”) §87(2)(f), which permits the nondisclosure of information if it would pose a danger to the life or safety of any person. T he records you requested are exempt from FOIL disclosure as they are safety/security sensitive material that can be used to disrupt NYCT operations, threatening the lives and safety of NYCT customers and passengers and the general public. Release of the requested security-sensitive records would pose a security risk in that, public dissemination of the subject records could potentially be exploited by terrorists/bad actors, which could create “a possibility of endangerment.” See Matter of Asian Am. Legal Defense & Educ. Fund v. New York City Police Dept. , 125 A.D.3d 531, 532, 5 N.Y.S. 3d 13, 15, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1550, *3, 2015 NY Slip Op 01559, 2.
Additionally, please be advised that your request for "service bulletins for all currently in service passenger trains, subway cars, and buses in the system" is overly broad and vague. Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a), FOIL requests must be reasonably described so that the agency may locate the records in question. Currently, the description you provided does not allow for practical retrieval by the agency. Specifically, your request fails to provide sufficient information for the agency to identify and locate responsive records, and would require the agency to "engage in herculean efforts" to locate records, which we are not required to do (See FOI-AO-18863). You may resubmit your request by providing a narrower timeframe and additional details to narrow down the specific records you are seeking.

If you wish to file an appeal regarding this determination, you may do so within thirty (30) days from this correspondence by sending a written appeal to: Chief Safety and Security Officer, Patrick Warren, MTA Headquarters, 2 Broadway, New York, NY 10004.
Sincerely,
NYS Metropolitan Transit Authority

From: ALEXANDER RICCIO

08/24/2023
Subject: RE: New York Freedom of Information Law Request #R000094-061423

Mail
I I'd like to amend my request to narrow it.

Instead of "all currently in service passenger trains, subway cars, and buses in the system", you may only include the following:

Subway, by rough order of fleet size:
R44
R46
R62
R62A
R68
R68A
R142
R142A
R143
R160
R188
R179
R211A
Buses, by rough order of introduction:
Nova Bus LFS TL40102A 3rd Generation
Orion Bus Industries Orion VII 07.501 EPA10 3rd Generation
New Flyer XD40 Xcelsior
New Flyer C40LF Low Floor
Nova Bus LFS-A TL62102A 1st Generation articulated
New Flyer XD60 Xcelsior articulated
Nova Bus.LFS TL40102A 4th Generation
New Flyer XN40 Xcelsior
New Flyer XN60 Xcelsior articulated
New Flyer XDE40 Xcelsior
Nova Bus LFS-A TL62102A 4nd Generation articulated
Nova Bus LFS TL40102A 4th Generation
New Flyer XDE40 Xcelsior

I do *not* need individual service requests, tickets, repair records, or similar information that is unique to each chassis.

Some of these vehicles have been in service for substantially longer than I've been alive. If any potentially responsive records more than 20 years or so old are not easily retrievable or searchable, you may absolutely narrow the search to the past 20 years, or any longer periods of time which might be easily retrievable.

I believe it is entirely unreasonable to withold, in blanket, whole manuals and service bulletins, let alone the entire request, on the grounds of public safety. The case cited was a case of counterterrorism surveillance in a national security context that may have involved the disclosure of sources, methods, and targets. I think it should be obvious why I do not expect the operating manuals and service bulletins to contain information about sources, methods, and targets, of law enforcement.

As an example of why I believe this is unreasonable in the specific case of transit disruptions, I expect details of the locks and security systems of unattended signal huts to be of greater sensitivity than, for example, the operating instructions for the air-conditioning of a subway car. If these two examples were contained in the same "record" I'd reasonably expect the agency to redact the sensitive language rather than refuse disclosure of the entire record

As a matter of fact, I have considerable reason to believe that said operation of the air-conditioning has been in a manner that is harmful to the lives and safety of new yorkers during an airborne pandemic that's already claimed the lives of several tens of thousands of said new yorkers. The disclosure of such information would likely contribute to the increased safety of new yorkers, and reduce disease related disrupts of all sorts in the system… including disruptions of the sort that have caused numerous sudden staffing shortages for the agency.

There are numerous reasons that I request a broader array of records than information about the climate control system only. This is an issue of great, however quiet, controversy where the public declarations of political figures are in great disagreement with the direct measurement of dozens of volunteers on the ground, and it's important to be in possession of the full breadth of circumstances that determine the operation of the system.

I am open to further narrowing the request if the agency records officers will provide guidance and suggestions as to what they can easily retrieve.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

ALEXANDER RICCIO

My prior experience with city and state agencies involves agencies repeatedly declaring that documents will be furnished by a specific date 60 days in the future, only to (on that date) again delay it by 60 days. Will the MTA commit to releasing records by January 20, 2024? I will not hesitate to appeal on basis of constructive denial should that date be missed.

Following up on my November 20 communication:

Can I expect this FOIL request to actually be completed on or before Friday, December 15, 2023? If not, I will not hesitate to appeal on grounds of constructive denial.

I understand that the MTA has provided me with a date 60 days from the date of acknowledgement. My prior experience with city and state agencies includes many interactions where an agency:

1) provides a date of estimated completion
2) provides no documents or updates up until the date of estimated completion
3) on the date of estimated completion, provides another date of estimated completion, of the same upcoming timespan as initially provided
4) then repeat, starting with step 1.

One agency repeated this process for two full years. It is hard to imagine a scenario with which the 60 day completion timeline for that agency was an honest estimate each of the 14 times they provided such an estimate and then failed to meet the estimated timeline. Perhaps you might find my concern to be understandable in light of that experience.

I have no qualm with you (the responsive MTA employee), but I am suspicious of the system within which your employers force us to work, and failures thereof. It is in fact, the same system that I have concrete reason to believe has misled the public about the operation of various transit equipment throughout the course of an airborne pandemic that claimed the lives of more than 80,000 New Yorkers, and continues to disable tens of thousands more.

Should I still expect this FOIL request to be fulfilled by the 60 day timeframe of acknowledgement?

In the past, the MTA has invoked the life or safety exception for an incredibly broad array of information, and for me, invoked the exception to withhold entire documents instead of merely redacting any exempt portions of records. Please do not withhold responsive records in their entirety, and redact only the portions which could reasonably DIRECTLY affect public safety.

In the past, on one prior occasion, I appealed a similar determination two days after it was made, the MTA then waited more than 30 days to process my appeal, and then incorrectly denied the appeal on the basis that it had been more than 30 days since the appeal window opened. It should be obvious that such processes deny me of the right to administrative appeal, since the appeal was filed long before the deadline, and the agency itself delayed review of the appeal. Please don't do that again - I don't want to have to spend money on a lawyer to bring the agency to court.

Since the circumstances are nearly exactly the same, I will include my prior appeal's text:

I do *not* need individual service requests, tickets, repair records, or similar information that is unique to each chassis.

Some of these vehicles have been in service for substantially longer than I've been alive. If any potentially responsive records more than 20 years or so old are not easily retrievable or searchable, you may absolutely narrow the search to the past 20 years, or any longer periods of time which might be easily retrievable.

I believe it is entirely unreasonable to withold, in blanket, whole manuals and service bulletins, let alone the entire request, on the grounds of public safety. The case cited was a case of counterterrorism surveillance in a national security context that may have involved the disclosure of sources, methods, and targets. I think it should be obvious why I do not expect the operating manuals and service bulletins to contain information about sources, methods, and targets, of law enforcement.

As an example of why I believe this is unreasonable in the specific case of transit disruptions, I expect details of the locks and security systems of unattended signal huts to be of greater sensitivity than, for example, the operating instructions for the air-conditioning of a subway car. If these two examples were contained in the same "record" I'd reasonably expect the agency to redact the sensitive language rather than refuse disclosure of the entire record

As a matter of fact, I have considerable reason to believe that said operation of the air-conditioning has been in a manner that is harmful to the lives and safety of new yorkers during an airborne pandemic that's already claimed the lives of several tens of thousands of said new yorkers. The disclosure of such information would likely contribute to the increased safety of new yorkers, and reduce disease related disrupts of all sorts in the system… including disruptions of the sort that have caused numerous sudden staffing shortages for the agency.

There are numerous reasons that I request a broader array of records than information about the climate control system only. This is an issue of great, however quiet, controversy where the public declarations of political figures are in great disagreement with the direct measurement of dozens of volunteers on the ground, and it's important to be in possession of the full breadth of circumstances that determine the operation of the system.

I am open to further narrowing the request if the agency records officers will provide guidance and suggestions as to what they can easily retrieve.

I look forward to receiving more partially responsive documents in the meantime.

In the past, on one prior occasion, I appealed a similar determination two days after it was made, the MTA then waited more than 30 days to process my appeal, and then incorrectly denied the appeal on the basis that it had been more than 30 days since the appeal window opened. It should be obvious that such processes deny me of the right to administrative appeal, since the appeal was filed long before the deadline, and the agency itself delayed review of the appeal. Please don't do that again - I don't want to have to spend money on a lawyer to bring the agency to court.

An appeal letter is being dispatched on my behalf to:
Chief Safety & Security Officer, 2 Broadway, Patrick Warren, MTA HQ, New York, NY 10004.

Please ensure the appeal letter is delivered to the correct employee and also reviewed by the correct employee before the deadline passes.

Since the circumstances are nearly exactly the same, I will include my prior appeal's text:

I do *not* need individual service requests, tickets, repair records, or similar information that is unique to each chassis.

Some of these vehicles have been in service for substantially longer than I've been alive. If any potentially responsive records more than 20 years or so old are not easily retrievable or searchable, you may absolutely narrow the search to the past 20 years, or any longer periods of time which might be easily retrievable.

I believe it is entirely unreasonable to withold, in blanket, whole manuals and service bulletins, let alone the entire request, on the grounds of public safety. The case cited was a case of counterterrorism surveillance in a national security context that may have involved the disclosure of sources, methods, and targets. I think it should be obvious why I do not expect the operating manuals and service bulletins to contain information about sources, methods, and targets, of law enforcement.

As an example of why I believe this is unreasonable in the specific case of transit disruptions, I expect details of the locks and security systems of unattended signal huts to be of greater sensitivity than, for example, the operating instructions for the air-conditioning of a subway car. If these two examples were contained in the same "record" I'd reasonably expect the agency to redact the sensitive language rather than refuse disclosure of the entire record

As a matter of fact, I have considerable reason to believe that said operation of the air-conditioning has been in a manner that is harmful to the lives and safety of new yorkers during an airborne pandemic that's already claimed the lives of several tens of thousands of said new yorkers. The disclosure of such information would likely contribute to the increased safety of new yorkers, and reduce disease related disrupts of all sorts in the system… including disruptions of the sort that have caused numerous sudden staffing shortages for the agency.

There are numerous reasons that I request a broader array of records than information about the climate control system only. This is an issue of great, however quiet, controversy where the public declarations of political figures are in great disagreement with the direct measurement of dozens of volunteers on the ground, and it's important to be in possession of the full breadth of circumstances that determine the operation of the system.

I am open to further narrowing the request if the agency records officers will provide guidance and suggestions as to what they can easily retrieve.

I look forward to receiving more partially responsive documents in the meantime.

I am not entirely sure if the 01/26/2024 communication is part of the appeal or the request itself. I am presuming it's part of the request. On that note, in the past, I've had trouble with appeals sent by snail mail arriving on time, but not being reviewed (for weeks!) until after the deadline had passed - please ensure the right people find my appeal in writing.

My prior research has uncovered that for some models, the following documents should be in the possession of the MTA and should require little effort to release, as they were specifically mentioned as furnished digitally to the MTA from the specification:
Train Operator's Manual
Road Car Inspector's Troubleshooting Manual
Work Manual/Inspection Procedures
Overhaul Manuals
Maintenance and Engineering Instruction Manuals
Instructor Guides
Training Participant Guides
Training Aids (videos only)
Illustrated Parts Catalogs (should these be available digitally)

Those are examples of relevant documents, but by no means the only documents, I am interested in... I just happen to know that those specific documents exist. I have listed the models for which I am interested in, in order of the rough size of their portion of the fleet. If this is too voluminous to handle in a reasonable timeframe, start with the 5 most numerous bus models and the 5 most numerous subway train models and release those to me first. If the entire documents are too voluminous to release in a reasonable timeframe, I will be satisfied with only the portions that relate to the heating, air-conditioning, ventilation, and air filtration systems, in any manner.

I do *not* need individual service requests, tickets, repair records, or similar information that is unique to each chassis.

Some of these vehicles have been in service for substantially longer than I've been alive. If any potentially responsive records more than 20 years or so old are not easily retrievable or searchable, you may absolutely narrow the search to the past 20 years, or any longer periods of time which might be easily retrievable.

I included the following text in my appeal by mail of the denial on public safety grounds, and I think it's relevant to narrowing, so I'll include it here:

I believe it is entirely unreasonable to withhold, in blanket, whole manuals and service bulletins, let alone the entire request, on the grounds of public safety. The case cited was a case of counterterrorism surveillance in a national security context that may have involved the disclosure of sources, methods, and targets. I think it should be obvious why I do not expect the operating manuals and service bulletins to contain information about sources, methods, and targets, of law enforcement.

As an example of why I believe this is unreasonable in the specific case of transit disruptions, I expect details of the locks and security systems of unattended signal huts to be of greater sensitivity than, for example, the operating instructions for the air-conditioning of a subway car. If these two examples were contained in the same "record" I'd reasonably expect the agency to redact the sensitive language rather than refuse disclosure of the entire record

As a matter of fact, I have considerable reason to believe that said operation of the air-conditioning has been in a manner that is harmful to the lives and safety of new yorkers during an airborne pandemic that's already claimed the lives of several tens of thousands of said new yorkers. The disclosure of such information would likely contribute to the increased safety of new yorkers, and reduce disease related disrupts of all sorts in the system… including disruptions of the sort that have caused numerous sudden staffing shortages for the agency.

There are numerous reasons that I request a broader array of records than information about the climate control system only. This is an issue of great, however quiet, controversy where the public declarations of political figures are in great disagreement with the direct measurement of dozens of volunteers on the ground, and it's important to be in possession of the full breadth of circumstances that determine the operation of the system.

I am open to further narrowing the request if the agency records officers will provide guidance and suggestions as to what they can easily retrieve.

I look forward to receiving more partially responsive documents in the meantime.

I would like someone to confirm for me that my 01/22/2024 written appeal by mail to Patrick Warren, Chief Security and Safety Officer, MTA Headquarters, 2 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 is on its way to the correct people and will be reviewed on time by that office.

I apologize for the annoyance. Last time, my written appeal arrived on time, but was not reviewed (for weeks!) until after the deadline had passed. I intend to be persistent to avoid us all the trouble of being forced to take further action when denied the proper administrative appeals routes.

Dear records access officer of the MTA,
Please confirm for me that my appeal letter is in possession of the correct individual at the address provided to me:
Chief Safety & Security Officer, 2 Broadway, Patrick Warren, MTA HQ, New York, NY 10004.

...and that they will review it before the deadline passes.

I *again* apologize for the annoyance. Last time, my written appeal arrived on time, but was not reviewed (for weeks!) until after the deadline had passed. I intend to be persistent to avoid us all the trouble of being forced to take legal action when denied the proper administrative appeals routes.