National Public Transportation Safety Plan, 25316-25326 [2024-07392]

Agencies

• Federal Transit Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25316-25326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07392]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

[Docket No. FTA-2023-0010]


National Public Transportation Safety Plan

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and response to comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed into the 
docket and on its website the final National Public Transportation 
Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) that is intended to guide the 
national effort to manage safety risk in our nation's public 
transportation systems. The updated National Safety Plan establishes 
performance measures for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans 
(PTASP), including measures for safety risk reduction programs, to 
improve the safety of public transportation systems that receive FTA 
Federal financial assistance. Transit agencies will set performance 
targets based on the measures in order to monitor and assess the safety 
performance of their public transportation systems.

DATES: The applicable date of the National Safety Plan is April 10, 
2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program matters, contact Arnebya 
Belton, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, 202-366-7546 or 
[email protected]. For legal matters, contact Emily Jessup, Office 
of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-8907 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Final Plan

    This notice provides responses to comments received on the proposed 
updates to the National Safety Plan and discusses the changes made to 
the National Safety Plan in response. The National Safety Plan itself 
is not included in this notice; instead, an electronic version is 
available on FTA's website, at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/national-public-transportation-safety-plan, and in the docket, at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTA-2023-0010.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of Public Comments and FTA's Responses

[[Page 25317]]

I. Background

    Congress first directed FTA to create and implement a National 
Public Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) under the 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act (Pub. L. 
112-141), which authorized a new Public Transportation Safety Program 
(Safety Program) at 49 U.S.C. 5329. The Safety Program was reauthorized 
by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-
94) and again by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58).
    On February 5, 2016, FTA first published a Federal Register notice 
(81 FR 6372) seeking comment on a proposed National Safety Plan. 
Subsequently, on January 18, 2017, FTA published a summary of the final 
changes to the National Safety Plan and responses to comments in the 
Federal Register (82 FR 5628) and published the finalized plan to the 
docket and on FTA's website.
    On May 31, 2023, FTA published a notice of availability of proposed 
updates to the National Safety Plan and a request for comments (88 FR 
34917). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), the National Safety Plan 
includes several elements intended to improve the safety of all public 
transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law identified new 
elements that must be included in the National Safety Plan, including:
     Safety performance measures related to the PTASP safety 
risk reduction program;
     In consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, precautionary and reactive actions required to ensure public 
and personnel safety and health during an emergency; and
     Consideration, where appropriate, of performance-based and 
risk-based methodologies.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also requires that the minimum 
safety performance standards for public transportation vehicles used in 
revenue operations take into consideration, to the extent practicable, 
innovations in driver assistance technologies and driver protection 
infrastructure, where appropriate, and a reduction in visibility 
impairments that contribute to pedestrian fatalities.
    This update continues to strengthen FTA's safety program and 
addresses new requirements in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
further advance transit safety.

II. Summary of Public Comment and FTA's Response

    The public comment period for the proposed update to the National 
Safety Plan closed on July 31, 2023. FTA received 34 comment 
submissions. Excluding two duplicate submissions, received submissions 
from 32 unique commenters, including States, transit agencies, trade 
associations, and individuals. FTA reviewed all the comments and 
thoughtfully considered them when finalizing the National Safety Plan.
    FTA received several comments that raised issues outside of the 
scope of the proposed National Safety Plan. Because they are outside 
the scope of the proposal, FTA will not respond to those comments in 
this notice.
    Specifically, FTA received comments on National Transit Database 
(NTD) reporting requirements and FTA's proposals in the Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2023 
(88 FR 25336). FTA appreciates the interest in these areas but is not 
addressing these comments in this notice. Rather, FTA directs 
interested readers to the NTD web page on FTA's website for NTD-related 
information and has addressed comments related to the PTASP NPRM 
through the PTASP final rule, which is a separate regulatory action.
    While FTA received comments on various aspects of the National 
Safety Plan, FTA is largely finalizing the National Safety Plan as 
proposed. In response to comments received, FTA has revised Chapter III 
of the final National Safety Plan. These revisions are discussed below 
in the summary of public comments and FTA's responses. Comments and 
responses are subdivided by their corresponding sections of the 
National Safety Plan and subject matter.

A. General

1. Applicability

    Comments: Two commenters expressed that the National Safety Plan 
and safety performance measurement requirements should be consistent 
with the applicability of the existing PTASP regulation, which excludes 
recipients that only receive funding under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 
5311, or both (See: 49 CFR 673.1). One of the commenters argued that 
rural and small public transportation providers have limited resources 
and an excellent safety record, and that FTA should limit the burden of 
safety regulations on such providers.
    One commenter expressed concern that paratransit service appeared 
to be excluded from the National Safety Plan, including with respect to 
safety performance measures and the voluntary standards and recommended 
practices.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments regarding the applicability 
of the National Safety Plan to small and rural providers and the 
regulatory burden on such providers. The National Safety Plan is 
intended to be a useful tool for all public transportation systems that 
receive funding under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, including small and rural 
providers. FTA notes that only agencies subject to the PTASP regulation 
are required to set targets using the safety performance measures in 
the National Safety Plan. As noted above, the PTASP regulation excludes 
transit agencies that receive funding only under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 
U.S.C. 5311, or both. While some voluntary standards and resources 
presented in Chapter III of the National Safety Plan pertain to 
specific modes such as rail transit, transit agencies of all types and 
sizes can refer to the standards and resources presented in the 
National Safety Plan.
    The National Safety Plan applies to paratransit service. The safety 
performance measures identified in Chapter II apply to paratransit 
service subject to the PTASP regulation, and Chapter III includes 
resources that pertain to paratransit service.
2. Effective Date
    Comments: One commenter asked for clarification on when the 
National Safety Plan will go into effect, and whether it will be 
applicable before or after the effective date of FTA's PTASP final 
rule. Another commenter urged FTA to clarify that the safety 
performance measures must be implemented on the applicable date of the 
National Safety Plan. In addition, a commenter asked FTA not to delay 
implementation of the NTD reporting requirements that transit agencies 
and Safety Committees rely on to set performance targets for the new 
safety performance measures.
    Response: The National Safety Plan is applicable upon today's 
publication in the Federal Register. Per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(A), the 
Safety Committee of transit agencies serving a large urbanized area 
must set performance targets for the safety risk reduction program 
using a 3-year rolling average of NTD data. In a Dear Colleague letter 
released on February 17, 2022, FTA communicated that these performance 
targets need not be in place until FTA establishes related performance

[[Page 25318]]

measures through the National Safety Plan (https://www.transit.dot.gov/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/dear-colleague-letter-bipartisan-infrastructure). FTA establishes such performance 
measures through the National Safety Plan finalized today. Therefore, 
FTA expects Safety Committees to set safety performance targets for the 
safety risk reduction program based on the safety risk reduction 
program performance measures in this final National Safety Plan. Per 49 
CFR 673.11(a), FTA expects that transit agencies will revise their 
Agency Safety Plans (ASPs) to address the new performance measures, 
including documenting required safety performance targets, as part of 
their existing annual ASP update process.
    FTA recognizes that certain transit agencies may not yet have 
reported three years of safety event information to the NTD that 
corresponds to the safety risk reduction program performance measures. 
FTA has addressed this situation in the PTASP final rule.
    FTA understands that transit agencies and their Safety Committees 
rely on NTD data to set PTASP performance targets, including targets 
for the new performance measures finalized today. In February 2023, FTA 
finalized NTD reporting changes regarding assaults on transit workers 
and fatalities that result from an impact with a bus (88 FR 11506). The 
new NTD requirements took effect for Full Reporters in calendar year 
2023. The reporting requirements take effect for smaller reporters 
beginning in NTD report year 2023.
3. Safety Management Systems (SMS)
    Comments: One commenter requested that FTA develop SMS-related 
guidance to support SMS implementation by transit managers and Safety 
Committees. Another commenter recommended that the updated National 
Safety Plan not completely supersede the 2017 version of the plan. It 
argued that the 2017 version includes valuable information, 
particularly related to SMS implementation, that is still useful to 
transit agencies and joint labor-management Safety Committees.
    Another commenter requested that FTA add guidance to the National 
Safety Plan about how agencies should use the data they collect, 
including how to analyze safety data, use leading indicators to 
identify safety issues, and evaluate the effectiveness of safety 
efforts. It provided two examples of National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) investigations in which agencies lacked the tools or 
processes to use data effectively. The commenter also urged FTA to 
include guidance in the National Safety Plan on Employee Safety 
Reporting Programs (ESRP), noting additional NTSB investigations that 
demonstrated this need.
    One commenter requested clarification on FTA's rationale for 
omitting ``top-down'' from the definition of SMS in the National Safety 
Plan, noting that their agency understands the ``top-down'' concept to 
be a foundational principle of SMS.
    Response: Regarding the request that FTA develop SMS-related 
guidance, FTA encourages transit agencies to explore the PTASP 
Technical Assistance Center (PTASP TAC) resource library at https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP-TAC to locate existing resources to support a 
transit agency's SMS implementation. These resources include 
information on topics raised by the commenters, such as data analysis 
and ESRP development. FTA will continue to develop and disseminate SMS 
technical assistance as needed through the PTASP TAC and other avenues.
    Regarding the commenter that recommended against the proposed 
National Safety Plan completely superseding the previous version due to 
the elimination of SMS-related content, FTA notes that the SMS content 
in the original National Safety Plan did not fully reflect the SMS 
requirements in the PTASP rule, which FTA published in 2018. FTA has 
since clarified the SMS requirements, and agencies should reference 
updated materials in the PTASP TAC resource library. As noted above, 
FTA has developed substantial SMS-related guidance and technical 
assistance materials tailored specifically for transit agencies 
implementing an SMS and has made this information available to the 
public through more thorough and comprehensive technical assistance 
materials and SMS documentation published through the PTASP TAC 
resource library. FTA believes that providing guidance via the PTASP 
TAC rather than in the National Safety Plan allows FTA flexibility and 
responsiveness as questions arise related to the implementation of the 
Safety Program and SMS generally.
    FTA appreciates the comment received regarding the need for 
additional guidance on effective data usage and ESRPs. However, FTA 
does not agree that the National Safety Plan is the best vehicle for 
this guidance because this document is not intended to include detailed 
technical assistance on specific topics, such as ESRPs. Instead, FTA 
will continue developing targeted guidance and technical assistance 
materials focused on specific SMS topics such as performance monitoring 
and measurement, safety performance target setting, and ESRP, and 
publishing such materials through the PTASP TAC resource library.
    FTA appreciates the comment on the definition of SMS but declines 
to make changes in response. FTA notes that removing the phrase ``top-
down'' is intended to reflect the multi-directional flow of information 
that is intrinsic to the function of an SMS. Transit worker safety 
reporting programs and Safety Committees are examples of multi-
directional information flow throughout the agency.

B. Chapter I: Keeping Safety the Top Priority

1. Data Presentation
    Comments: One commenter noted the importance of the safety 
performance trends presented in the National Safety Plan and 
recommended that FTA present a deeper dive into the associated data in 
the National Safety Plan, including additional granularity related to 
transit modes, geographical regions, population density, agency size, 
and other factors. This commenter noted in particular that the data on 
transit worker fatalities would benefit from additional context to help 
understand the effectiveness of existing mitigations. The commenter 
asked if FTA could provide additional ongoing analyses of safety 
performance data, including when relevant to FTA's actions to reduce 
safety risk and highlighted FTA's issuance of Special Directives as an 
example. One commenter commented that the data FTA used to prepare the 
charts included in Chapter I displaying safety trends in the transit 
industry is incomplete because the NTD did not previously collect the 
full picture of transit worker assaults.
    Response: The data presented in Chapter I of the National Safety 
Plan are intended to provide a high-level snapshot of transit industry 
safety performance. FTA publishes more granular data monthly through 
the NTD, including individual event records and summary safety 
analyses, at https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data. FTA will 
continue to explore additional methods for developing and publishing 
topic-specific safety performance analyses and communicating the data 
that contributes to FTA's actions to reduce safety risk.
    Regarding transit worker assaults, FTA developed the charts in 
Chapter I based on historical data that was reported to the NTD. As 
transit agencies report to the NTD using the new definitions, FTA will 
update these

[[Page 25319]]

charts using that data in future iterations of the National Safety 
Plan.
2. Public Transportation Safety Concerns
    Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of bus 
and pedestrian collisions as a safety concern and encouraged FTA to 
consider how bus electrification may impact pedestrian safety. Another 
commenter noted that the National Safety Plan does not mention suicides 
and urged FTA to add suicide prevention as a top safety concern in 
Chapter I.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments received regarding specific 
safety concerns facing the transit industry that were not included in 
the proposed National Safety Plan. In response to the suggestion 
regarding bus electrification, FTA has added two best practices 
resources developed by FTA to Chapter III of the National Safety Plan 
that address safety concerns related to the electrification of bus 
fleets: ``Safety and Security Certification of Electric Bus Fleets'' 
and ``Procuring and Maintaining Battery Electric Buses and Charging 
Systems.''
    FTA agrees that suicide prevention is an important issue facing the 
transit industry. In December 2022, FTA issued Safety Advisory 22-4: 
Suicide Prevention Signage on Public Transit that recommends transit 
agencies apply best practices for reducing suicide attempts to suicide 
prevention signage and messaging campaigns. While FTA declines to add 
suicide prevention to Chapter I of the National Safety Plan, it has 
added a resource to Chapter III in response to this commenter's 
concerns: ``Mitigations for Trespasser and Suicide Fatalities and 
Injuries.''
    After consideration of comments received, FTA is finalizing Chapter 
I of the National Safety Plan as proposed.

C. Chapter II: Safety Performance Criteria

1. Definitions
    Comments: One commenter urged FTA to specify that transit agencies 
should use the revised NTD definition of ``assault on a transit 
worker'' when setting the safety performance target for assault on a 
transit worker. Two commenters expressed concern with the definition of 
``assault on a transit worker'' and its impact on data reporting and 
associated data analyses. A commenter argued that it is difficult to 
apply certain elements of the definition consistently, such as 
determining when an individual acted ``knowingly'' and ``with intent.'' 
Another commenter noted that the definition may differ from the 
definition of assault under State law, which may require agencies to 
keep separate records for State law purposes and result in other 
burdens. A commenter requested that FTA work with transit agencies to 
clarify the term.
    One commenter urged FTA to address consistency with event 
definitions used across FTA programs to ensure performance measurement 
consistency and reduce administrative burden. The commenter stated that 
FTA should not impose safety performance measurement requirements until 
it addresses definitional inconsistencies. One commenter asked what 
definition of ``Safety Event'' transit agencies should use for the 
major event performance measure. One commenter recommended that FTA 
allow individual transit agencies to define what events will be 
included in the major events performance measure, noting that safety 
risk differs at each agency.
    Response: FTA appreciates the challenges associated with new 
definitions and NTD reporting requirements. FTA confirms that the term 
``assault on a transit worker'' in the National Safety Plan has the 
same definition as in the NTD, which mirrors the statutory definition 
in 49 U.S.C. 5302. Although the definition potentially differs from how 
assault is defined under State law, FTA believes it is critical to 
ensure the definition used in the National Safety Plan, including in 
the performance measurement context, is consistent with the statutory 
and NTD definition. This is because the NTD is the primary source of 
data used for performance target setting. Moreover, Safety Committees 
must set safety risk reduction program performance targets using a 3-
year rolling average of NTD data, as required by 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(4)(A). For additional information regarding the NTD definition 
of ``assault'' and ``assault on a transit worker,'' FTA refers readers 
to the Federal Register notice finalizing the recent NTD Safety and 
Security Reporting requirements (88 FR 11506).
    FTA appreciates the requests for additional guidance from FTA about 
the definition of ``assault on a transit worker'' and how it should be 
applied. The NTD program serves as FTA's system for collection of 
assaults on transit worker data and ensures all associated reporting 
requirements are clarified, including definitional questions stemming 
from the terms ``knowingly'' and ``with intent'' in the definition of 
``assault on a transit worker.'' Further, the NTD program provides 
guidance on the new assault on a transit worker reporting requirements 
to the NTD reporting community through (1) annual messaging around 
updates to reporting requirements, (2) regular communications with 
reporters (both through the system's blast messaging, and between the 
reporter and their assigned validation analyst), (3) an updated 
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on the FTA website specific to 
assaults on transit workers, and (4) updates to guidance and training.
    The NTD program has developed several training opportunities and 
guidance materials to help agencies address the new assault on transit 
worker reporting requirements. The 2023 NTD Safety and Security 
Reporting Policy Manual provides detailed guidance about safety and 
security reporting, including assaults on transit workers. In addition, 
the 2023 safety and security quick reference guides, both for rail and 
non-rail modes, define reportable events and identify reporting 
thresholds. A webinar on 2023 Safety & Security Updates: Reporting 
Assaults on Transit Workers, was provided to the public on April 27, 
2023, and is available for viewing online. Finally, the NTD program 
develops courses pertaining to safety reporting for full reporters 
(rail and non-rail) as well as reduced reporters (see the National 
Transit Institute (NTI) website for schedule--https://www.ntionline.com/events-2/).
    FTA appreciates the comments received regarding consistency in 
event definitions across FTA programs and will take the need for 
consistency into consideration as it develops its pending safety 
rulemakings. FTA confirms that the major events and major event rate 
safety performance measures include all safety and security major 
events as defined by the NTD. This creates consistent requirements 
across transit agencies and ensures definitional alignment across 
safety programs. For this reason, FTA disagrees that it is necessary to 
delay implementation of the safety performance measures.
    FTA disagrees with the commenter who suggested transit agencies 
should define what events to include in the major events safety 
performance measures because FTA believes this approach would undercut 
efforts to ensure consistency of performance measurement requirements 
across the industry. FTA's proposed approach is consistent with 
previous PTASP safety performance measurement guidance, which used the 
NTD major event

[[Page 25320]]

definition for the previous safety event performance measures.
2. Required Safety Performance Measures for All Agencies Subject to the 
PTASP Regulation
Additional Measures
    Comments: Several commenters recommended that FTA add required 
safety performance measures in addition to the 14 measures proposed in 
the National Safety Plan. One commenter recommended that FTA add 
measures for the pedestrian collision rate of mobility assistive device 
users and the number of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals 
that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 
Another commenter requested that FTA add safety performance measures 
gauging connectivity and transit agencies' adoption of preventative 
measures and technologies. One commenter urged FTA to include a 
performance measure regarding suicide attempts and deaths.
    Another commenter recommended that the National Safety Plan should 
include performance measures for the total numbers of collisions, 
transit worker fatalities, and transit worker injuries. The commenter 
expressed concern that only using rate-based performance measures for 
such events could obscure their scope at larger transit agencies. It 
stated that there is no clear distinction explaining why FTA would 
require both total numbers and rates for other performance measures, 
but only rates for those three.
    Response: FTA considered each of the suggestions regarding 
additional safety performance measures for all transit agencies subject 
to the PTASP regulation. However, FTA declines to adopt the suggestions 
and establishes only the safety performance measures identified in its 
proposal. FTA believes these safety performance measures provide a 
comprehensive look at transit agencies' safety performance, without 
attempting to identify every measure that an agency may select and 
enable each agency to monitor safety performance based on data that is 
collected by the NTD.
    Many of the measures suggested by commenters, while useful 
measures, are not data points that FTA currently collects through the 
NTD. These include measures recommended by commenters such as: 
pedestrian collision rate of mobility assistive device users; the 
number of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals that are ADA 
compliant; measures gauging connectivity; and technology adoption 
rates. In the final National Safety Plan, FTA is only adding new 
measures that are based on data that agencies currently report to the 
NTD. This approach provides consistency across the industry and helps 
minimize data-related collection burdens.
    FTA appreciates the recommendation that FTA require transit 
agencies to set safety performance targets for total counts of 
collisions, transit worker fatalities, and transit worker injuries. FTA 
believes that safety issues related to these three areas justify the 
establishment of related safety performance measures for all agencies 
subject to the PTASP regulation. To this end, FTA has established 
performance measures regarding the rates of collisions, transit worker 
fatalities, and transit worker injuries. However, as described in the 
next section below, several commenters expressed concern about the 
burden related to new safety performance measures. FTA believes that 
establishing only rate-based safety performance measures for 
collisions, transit worker fatalities, and transit worker injuries 
strikes a reasonable balance between ensuring that transit agencies are 
monitoring safety performance related to these important issues and 
limiting the burden that setting additional performance targets would 
impose. Therefore, FTA declines to establish safety performance 
measures for total counts of collisions, transit worker fatalities, and 
transit worker injuries. Transit agencies may determine a need to put 
in place additional performance measures, such as total counts of 
collisions, transit worker fatalities and transit worker injuries, and 
to set associated safety performance targets.
    FTA disagrees that the scope of safety concerns will be obscured at 
large transit agencies by not requiring all agencies to set safety 
performance targets for the total numbers of collisions, transit worker 
fatalities, and transit worker injuries. The safety performance 
measures in the National Safety Plan do not limit visibility into an 
agency's safety performance. Safety data analysis at a transit agency 
should not be limited to safety performance targets. FTA expects that 
transit agencies will use additional contextual data to understand 
safety performance beyond the required safety performance measures and 
safety performance targets.
    Regarding the proposal to include safety performance measures 
related to suicides, FTA acknowledges that for many transit agencies 
suicide is an important safety concern. FTA notes that suicides are a 
subset of two safety performance measures in the National Safety Plan--
major events and collisions. FTA also notes that suicide concerns may 
vary significantly across the transit industry based on system type and 
other transit agency operational realities. FTA does not believe it is 
necessary to require all transit agencies to set safety performance 
targets for suicide-related safety performance measures because of this 
varied safety risk and declines to establish suicides as a performance 
measure in the National Safety Plan. However, FTA notes that transit 
agencies may voluntarily establish additional safety performance 
measures, such as suicide counts and rates, and set associated safety 
performance targets based on needs identified through Safety Risk 
Management and Safety Assurance activities.
Burden
    Comments: Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
increase of safety performance measures for all agencies subject to the 
PTASP regulation from seven to 14 measures would result in increased 
administrative and data reporting burden for transit agencies. Further, 
the commenters urged FTA to consider the burden on specific types of 
providers, such as rail transit providers who must comply with State 
Safety Oversight Agency requirements, and small and medium sized 
transit agencies with limited resources. One commenter stated that rail 
transit agencies operating multiple other modes and serving large 
urbanized areas may be required to have up to 66 performance targets 
across the general and safety risk reduction program performance 
measures. The commenter requested that FTA coordinate with the industry 
on the feasibility of these changes. Another commenter requested that 
FTA offer training, technical assistance, and additional funding to 
assist agencies with compliance.
    One commenter noted that the Pedestrian Collision Rate and 
Vehicular Collision Rate measures may be particularly burdensome 
because they have not been collected by the NTD in the past.
    Response: FTA appreciates the potential burden related to 
increasing the number of safety performance measures for all agencies 
subject to the PTASP regulation from seven to 14. FTA has thoroughly 
considered the effects of these measures on different types of 
providers, including small providers and rail transit agencies serving 
large urbanized areas, and has taken these effects into consideration 
when finalizing these performance measures. To reduce data analysis

[[Page 25321]]

burden on transit agencies, FTA has taken care to ensure that all new 
safety performance measures are data points that transit agencies 
report to the NTD on an ongoing basis. As of the 2023 NTD report year, 
agencies track, record, and report this information as part of their 
NTD reporting requirements. Agencies should have access to these 
records internally and may download these data for their agency and 
other transit agencies from the NTD data portal at https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data. Importantly, FTA also notes that the 
National Safety Plan does not require transit agencies to submit data 
or safety performance targets to FTA. FTA appreciates the comment 
regarding the importance of industry review and feedback regarding 
safety performance measures. FTA sought industry feedback on the 
performance measures by publishing the proposed National Safety Plan in 
the Federal Register for public comment.
    Regarding the number of safety performance measures for all transit 
agencies subject to the PTASP regulation, FTA agrees with the commenter 
noting that some providers will be required to set more than 14 safety 
performance targets based on these measures. As with existing safety 
performance measurement requirements, transit agencies set safety 
performance targets through PTASP by mode. Through previous guidance, 
FTA has identified three modal groups for PTASP performance target 
setting: fixed route bus, non-fixed route bus, and rail. This means 
that transit agencies that provide service within all three of these 
groups already have been setting 21 safety performance targets per year 
through PTASP based on the performance measures established under the 
2017 National Safety Plan. Based on the safety performance measures 
that FTA is establishing under the new National Safety Plan, transit 
agencies serving all three modal groups would set 42 safety performance 
targets per year. In addition, the Safety Committee of transit agencies 
serving large urbanized areas with service in all three modal groups 
would set 24 annual safety performance targets for the safety risk 
reduction program. This therefore raises the total number of safety 
performance targets to 66 for certain providers.
    In finalizing these measures, FTA has worked to minimize burden. 
FTA notes that 7 of the 8 safety performance measures for the safety 
risk reduction program overlap with the safety performance measures 
required of all agencies subject to the PTASP regulation. To reduce 
burden associated with target setting, transit agencies serving large 
urbanized areas may opt to use the same safety performance target set 
by the Safety Committee for the safety risk reduction program to 
satisfy the general safety performance target requirement for 
overlapping measures. In effect, this reduces the minimum number of 
required safety performance targets from 66 to 45 for providers serving 
large urbanized areas with service in all three modal groups. Further, 
transit agencies now have years of experience setting annual safety 
performance targets, which alleviates the burden of additional 
measures. Additionally, all of the new measures represent data the 
agencies track and report to the FTA through the NTD program, which 
helps to limit data management and analysis burden. FTA notes that the 
new safety performance measures identified by FTA relate to transit 
worker safety and transit collisions, two safety concerns addressed 
directly by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    FTA is committed to developing technical assistance and training to 
support transit agency compliance with safety performance measurement 
and target setting requirements, including tools and materials 
published through the PTASP TAC, as well as webinars, workshops, and 
training opportunities. Further, FTA has made direct one-on-one 
technical assistance available to the transit industry through the 
PTASP TAC. FTA encourages transit agencies with questions about any 
PTASP related requirement, including safety performance measurement, to 
contact the PTASP TAC for direct technical assistance.
    FTA disagrees with the commenter who argued that the Pedestrian 
Collision Rate and Vehicular Collision Rate measures may be 
particularly burdensome because they are tied to data points that have 
not been collected in the past. While neither Pedestrian Collision Rate 
nor Vehicular Collision Rate were required safety performance measures 
in the past, transit agencies are now required to report this collision 
data to the NTD. These data therefore should be readily available to 
transit agencies, which FTA believes alleviates the potential burden.
Major Events
    Comment: One commenter questioned whether FTA should adopt the 
proposed general major events performance measure, given that the 
measure is also included under the safety risk reduction program and 
FTA proposed separate performance measures for specific categories of 
safety and security events. This commenter also stated that major 
events is a new safety performance measure, but the measure is not 
noted as ``new'' in the updated National Safety Plan.
    Response: FTA believes the major event performance measure should 
be included in both the set of general safety performance measures and 
the set of measures for the safety risk reduction program because not 
all transit agencies are required to have a safety risk reduction 
program. Specifically, agencies that do not serve a large urbanized 
area are only subject to the general safety performance measurement 
requirements. Further, FTA does not believe that including more 
granular measures such as collision rate or assaults on a transit 
worker rate causes broader measures such as major event rate to be less 
valuable. To the contrary, overall major event performance trends can 
serve as useful indicators for transit agencies of all sizes. FTA 
appreciates the comment about whether the major events performance 
measure is new. While the 2017 version of the National Safety Plan 
includes a performance measure for ``safety events'' as opposed to 
``major events,'' the major event performance measure is not new in 
practice. Previous PTASP safety performance measurement guidance 
advises that the safety event performance measure is based on the NTD 
major event reporting threshold. The two measures therefore are 
synonymous in practice. Accordingly, FTA has not designated the measure 
as ``new'' in the updated National Safety Plan.
Collisions
    Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of rate-based 
performance measures for pedestrian collisions and vehicular 
collisions.
    Response: FTA appreciates the support for these measures.
Assaults on Transit Workers
    Comments: FTA received several comments regarding the assaults on 
transit workers performance measures. For FTA's response regarding the 
definition of ``assault on a transit worker,'' please refer to the 
``Definitions'' section of this notice above.
    One commenter expressed general support for the performance 
measures, as well as the transit worker injury rate and transit worker 
fatality rate measures. However, it argued that the National Safety 
Plan and proposed safety performance measures will result in 
significant data collection gaps and fall short of ensuring transit 
agencies

[[Page 25322]]

have the data necessary to address these issues. This commenter, along 
with one other commenter, urged FTA to split the assault on a transit 
worker measures into job functions or crafts, such as operators, 
custodial workers, station agents, and other frontline workers in non-
operating crafts. One commenter requested that the performance measures 
separate physical from non-physical assaults.
    Another commenter opposed including assaults on transit workers as 
a performance measure. Two commenters urged FTA to address transit 
security and emergency preparedness as a separate area of regulatory 
focus from safety events. One of these commenters requested additional 
clarification on the difference between safety and security events, and 
between safety risk management and security risk management. The second 
commenter requested that FTA socialize any security and emergency 
preparedness guidance with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    One commenter recommended that FTA consider requiring the 
normalization of assault on transit worker data by unlinked passenger 
trips (UPT) in addition to vehicle revenue miles (VRM). Another 
commenter questioned whether VRM is a useful metric for this measure 
and the safety risk reduction program assault measure, noting that it 
may not provide meaningful data for assaults on transit workers not 
employed in operating roles.
    Response: FTA appreciates the commenters' general support for the 
assaults on transit worker safety performance measures. FTA disagrees 
that the National Safety Plan and proposed safety performance measures 
will result in data collection gaps or will prevent transit agencies in 
any way from collecting or analyzing data to support the analysis of 
transit worker assault-related issues. The safety performance measures 
defined in the National Safety Plan do not create any data collection 
requirements. Nor do they prevent transit agencies from collecting and 
analyzing data related to assaults on transit workers.
    FTA appreciates the commenter's suggestion that FTA should require 
transit agencies to set safety performance targets for more granular 
safety performance measures related to assaults on transit workers such 
as measures specific to job functions or crafts. However, FTA's NTD 
program does not currently collect assault on transit worker data at 
such a detailed level. As such, FTA declines to establish these more 
granular measures in the National Safety Plan. FTA notes that this does 
not prevent a transit agency from establishing safety performance 
measures such as assaults against custodians or assaults against 
station agents and setting safety performance targets for these 
measures in addition to the required safety performance measures and 
targets.
    FTA also appreciates the comment recommending that FTA require all 
transit agencies to set separate safety performance targets for 
physical and non-physical assaults on transit workers. FTA revised NTD 
reporting in 2023 to capture this additional level of detail. While 
additional data analysis and safety performance monitoring of more 
detailed aspects of assaults on transit workers may offer value to 
transit agencies based on their operating realities, FTA declines at 
this time to establish safety performance measures for the physical and 
non-physical subsets of assaults on transit workers. Both these types 
of assaults are included in the larger performance measures for 
assaults on transit workers, and both are therefore captured within the 
required PTASP safety performance targets. FTA expects that a transit 
agency, through its SMS processes, will identify and address any 
specific safety concerns regarding assaults on transit workers, both 
physical and non-physical. Transit agencies may set additional targets, 
as needed, on a voluntary basis to support this process.
    FTA disagrees with the commenter that recommended FTA remove 
``assaults on transit worker'' from the performance measures and the 
recommendations to address transit security as a separate area of 
focus. FTA appreciates that some transit agencies treat an assault on a 
transit worker as both a safety and a security event. Congress directed 
FTA to address assaults on transit workers through both the NTD and 
FTA's safety program as part of FTA's work to improve safety at transit 
systems across the country. Accordingly, FTA declines to adopt this 
suggestion. FTA also appreciates that there can be a distinction 
between transit safety and security and FTA coordinates with other 
Federal agencies, including DHS, as appropriate and practicable when 
developing guidance in this area.
    FTA appreciates suggestions from commenters regarding normalization 
alternatives for calculating rates of assaults on transit workers. 
While other metrics like UPT may provide alternative risk exposure 
measurements, FTA disagrees with changing the performance measure as 
proposed in the National Safety Plan. As a general practice and 
according to existing PTASP program guidance and technical assistance, 
FTA calculates performance rates using service provided (VRM) and not 
service consumed (UPT). For consistency and to limit safety performance 
measurement burden, FTA continues to use VRM for the required safety 
performance measure rates. Further, analysis performed within FTA 
demonstrates minimal differences when evaluating trends of assaults on 
transit workers per VRM or per UPT. As noted above, transit agencies 
have the flexibility to establish additional measures beyond the 14 
established by the National Safety Plan. A transit agency may opt to 
also establish additional safety performance measures such as rates of 
assaults on transit workers that use UPT or other normalizers such as 
revenue hours.
    After consideration of comments received, FTA is adopting the 
performance measures for all agencies subject to the PTASP regulation 
as proposed.
3. Safety Performance Measures for the Safety Risk Reduction Program
    FTA received several comments about PTASP safety risk reduction 
programs that are outside the scope of the proposed National Safety 
Plan. In the National Safety Plan, FTA proposed safety risk reduction 
program performance measures and re-stated statutory requirements for 
such programs. FTA did not propose specific details in the National 
Safety Plan regarding safety risk reduction program implementation, 
target setting, or the reallocation of the safety set-aside when such 
targets are missed. FTA addressed comments on these topics in the PTASP 
final rule. Accordingly, this section of the notice only addresses 
comments related to the safety risk reduction program safety 
performance measures.
Relationship to Other Performance Measures
    Comments: Two commenters asked for clarification on the distinction 
and relationship between the safety performance measures for all 
agencies subject to the PTASP regulation and the safety performance 
measures for the safety risk reduction program, given that some of the 
measures overlap. Another commenter requested clarification on the 
possibility of an agency serving a large urbanized area having two 
different targets for a similar measure: one as part of the general 
PTASP safety performance target requirements and another under the 
safety risk reduction program. The commenter argued that

[[Page 25323]]

this could lead to confusion about which target takes precedence and 
that presenting performance measures in two separate charts in the 
National Safety Plan may be overly complicated. Another commenter urged 
streamlining the two types of performance measures to remove any 
duplication and reduce burden on transit agencies. The commenter noted 
that transit agencies are already analyzing many of the proposed 
measures through their existing SMS processes.
    Response: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law introduces new safety 
risk reduction program performance target requirements for Section 5307 
recipients that serve an urbanized area of 200,000 or more at 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(4). This is a separate requirement from the existing general 
performance target setting required of all transit agencies subject to 
the PTASP regulation under 49 CFR 673.11(a)(3). The general safety 
performance measures and the safety risk reduction program safety 
performance measures have different programmatic purposes, are shaped 
by different statutory requirements, and result in different outcomes 
in instances where an associated safety performance target is missed. 
For example, per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4), safety performance targets for 
the safety risk reduction program must be set by the Safety Committee 
using a three-year rolling average of data reported to the NTD, and 
failure to meet a safety performance target in the safety risk 
reduction program triggers statutorily required actions related to a 
transit agency's safety set-aside. These statutory requirements do not 
apply to the general safety performance targets required under the 
PTASP regulation. Due to these differences, FTA believes it is 
necessary to establish two separate categories of safety performance 
measures and believes it is helpful to visually distinguish them in two 
separate charts in the National Safety Plan.
    FTA appreciates the potential burden associated with FTA 
establishing the same measure under both sets of performance measures 
and the concern that transit agencies are already analyzing many of the 
proposed measures through their existing SMS processes. However, FTA 
notes that transit agencies serving large urbanized areas may opt to 
use the same safety performance target set by the Safety Committee for 
the safety risk reduction program to satisfy the general safety 
performance target requirement for overlapping measures. In effect, 
this minimizes burden associated with duplication while preserving 
flexibility for agencies to set safety performance targets for the 
general safety performance measures using varied target setting 
methodologies. FTA agrees that transit agencies should use their SMS to 
address safety concerns associated with the safety performance measures 
identified in the National Safety Plan.
    FTA acknowledges that it may be possible for an agency's Safety 
Committee to establish a safety performance target for a measure under 
the safety risk reduction program, while the agency sets a separate 
target for the same measure as part of the general safety performance 
measurement requirements. While agencies and Safety Committees may 
elect to use the same target for both types of measures, they are not 
required to do so. FTA notes that while such an arrangement is 
potentially duplicative, a missed target in the safety risk reduction 
program and the required general safety performance targets result in 
different outcomes, as discussed above.
Proposed Measures
    Comments: Several commenters requested changes to the proposed 
safety performance measures for the safety risk reduction program. One 
commenter expressed concern that some of the proposed measures are 
broader than the statutory focus of the safety risk reduction program 
and therefore would detract from the purpose and effectiveness of the 
program. Specifically, the commenter urged that the safety risk 
reduction program collision and injury performance measures should be 
limited to collisions related to bus operator visibility impairments 
and injuries resulting from assaults on transit workers, respectively.
    Another commenter suggested that FTA should add transit worker 
injury rate as a safety performance measure for the safety risk 
reduction program. Another noted that agencies should be required to 
address a reduction of major events under the safety risk reduction 
program.
    Response: FTA appreciates the suggested revisions to the safety 
risk reduction program performance measures. FTA has thoroughly 
considered each suggestion but declines to adopt the recommendations. 
FTA identified the eight safety performance measures for the safety 
risk reduction program to align with the goals of the safety risk 
reduction program. One of these goals is to ``improve safety by 
reducing the number and rates of accidents, injuries, and assaults on 
transit workers.'' (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I)). Based on this statutory 
language, FTA disagrees with limiting the measures to bus collisions 
related to visibility impairments and injuries resulting from assaults 
on transit workers, as suggested by the commenter. FTA continues to 
believe that the performance measures address the safety risk reduction 
program goals of an overall reduction in the number and rates of safety 
events and injuries, as well as a reduction of vehicular and pedestrian 
safety events involving transit vehicles, and the mitigation of 
assaults on transit workers.
    FTA appreciates the recommendation to add transit worker injury 
rate to the set of safety performance measures established for the 
safety risk reduction program. FTA acknowledges the importance of this 
measure and notes that FTA has included it in the set of general safety 
performance measures. As discussed above, FTA identified the safety 
performance measures for the safety risk reduction program to align 
with the goals of the safety risk reduction program at 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(1)(I). In the future, FTA may identify safety concerns and 
safety risk that necessitate additional required safety performance 
measures within the safety risk reduction program, but at this time 
declines to establish measures beyond those identified in its proposal. 
Finally, FTA agrees with the commenter who urged FTA to require 
agencies to address a reduction of major events under the safety risk 
reduction program. FTA confirms that FTA proposed major events as a 
performance measure for the safety risk reduction program and is 
adopting the measure in this final National Safety Plan.
5. Performance Target Setting and Safety Set-Aside
    Comments: FTA received several questions and comments regarding 
PTASP performance target setting and the safety set-aside. One 
commenter asked whether the three-year rolling average requirement 
applies to all PTASP safety performance targets, or only the safety 
risk reduction program ones. Another commenter urged FTA to state that 
the general performance targets should be forward-looking, as opposed 
to being based on three-year rolling averages. Another commenter asked 
what role Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) play in the 
performance measurement process.
    Several commenters recommended the development of additional 
technical assistance or guidance to support the effective development 
of safety performance targets. Similarly, one commenter recommended 
that FTA provide technical assistance and

[[Page 25324]]

guidance to Safety Committees on best practices for setting safety 
performance targets based on the updated data requirements of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Several commenters asked FTA to develop 
guidance to support the industry's implementation of the safety set-
aside. One of these commenters asked FTA to work with the industry in 
developing guidance and examine issues they are facing with this 
requirement.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments on PTASP performance target 
setting. While FTA proposed safety performance measures for safety risk 
reduction programs in the National Safety Plan, detailed implementation 
requirements regarding performance target setting for the safety risk 
reduction program are outside the scope of the proposed National Safety 
Plan. FTA encourages readers to refer to the PTASP final rule for 
information regarding implementation of PTASP safety risk reduction 
program target setting. FTA confirms that the three-year rolling 
average requirement applies only to the safety risk reduction program. 
As described in the National Safety Plan, transit agencies may define 
their own methodology for the other targets.
    FTA appreciates the comment regarding the role MPOs play in the 
PTASP performance measurement process and notes that in accordance with 
49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B) and 5304(d)(2)(B), 49 CFR 673.15(a) requires 
that each State and transit agency must make its safety performance 
targets available to States and MPOs to aid in the planning process. In 
addition, Sec.  673.15(b) requires, to the maximum extent practicable, 
a State or transit agency to coordinate with States and MPOs in the 
selection of State and MPO safety performance targets.
    FTA reiterates that it did not propose specific implementation 
details in the National Safety Plan regarding the reallocation of the 
safety set-aside when certain performance targets are missed under 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(C) and (D). This requirement is addressed in the 
PTASP final rule at Sec.  673.27(d)(3)(iii), and FTA is not responding 
to related comments in this notice.
    FTA agrees with the commenters that identified the importance of 
technical assistance and training related to safety performance 
measurement for agencies and Safety Committees, as well as the safety 
set-aside requirements. FTA has published technical assistance on 
performance measurement through the PTASP TAC and will consider 
developing additional technical assistance on this topic and the safety 
set-aside for the transit industry in the future.
    After consideration of comments received, FTA is finalizing Chapter 
II of the National Safety Plan as proposed.

D. Chapter III: Voluntary Minimum Safety Standards and Recommended 
Practices

1. Mandatory Standards
    Comments: Several commenters encouraged FTA to move towards 
mandatory safety standards. Commenters argued that mandatory standards 
are necessary to improve transit industry safety. Two commenters urged 
FTA to develop mandatory standards relating to transit worker assault, 
with one noting that the FAST Act required FTA to issue a rulemaking on 
this topic.
    Some commenters also recommended other topics for mandatory 
standard development, including standards for connected and automated 
vehicle (CAV) speed, size, and testing; automatic emergency braking 
(AEB) and pedestrian automatic emergency braking (PAEB) systems; 
vehicle design standards to address blind spots, ergonomics, and air 
quality concerns; and transit worker facilities.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments regarding the need for 
additional mandatory requirements or standards to improve transit 
safety. FTA notes that the National Safety Plan does not create new 
mandatory standards but rather identifies existing voluntary minimum 
safety standards and recommended practices, which can support transit 
agencies' efforts to improve transit safety. FTA is committed to 
addressing safety concerns, including consideration of mandatory 
requirements or standards where necessary and supported by data. FTA 
will establish any mandatory standards through separate regulatory 
processes.
    FTA appreciates the commenters requesting mandatory standards 
regarding assaults on transit workers. FTA has initiated a rulemaking 
titled Transit Worker and Public Safety (RIN 2132-AB47), which would 
establish minimum baseline standards and risk-based requirements to 
address transit worker and public safety based on the most current 
research and available information, including but not limited to, 
addressing Section 3022 of the FAST Act. Recently, FTA issued a NPRM 
related to Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection (89 FR 20605) that is 
proposing minimum safety standards for rail transit roadway worker 
protection. FTA is also exploring additional regulatory action on 
topics that include fatigue risk management. FTA reiterates that any 
mandatory standards will be undertaken through the notice and comment 
process.
2. Voluntary Standards
    Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the voluntary 
nature of the minimum safety standards presented in Chapter III of the 
National Safety Plan. Two commenters encouraged FTA to further clarify 
the voluntary nature of the safety standards and recommended practices. 
One of them suggested moving the standards to an appendix to limit any 
confusion about the voluntary nature of the content and urged FTA to 
add a clear statement that the standards are voluntary and that changes 
to the National Safety Plan will be undertaken through the notice and 
comment process. One commenter requested that FTA develop additional 
technical assistance around the voluntary minimum safety standards 
identified in the National Safety Plan.
    Response: FTA appreciates the feedback regarding the voluntary 
minimum safety standards and recommended practices identified in 
Chapter III. FTA declines to provide additional clarity on the 
voluntary nature of the voluntary minimum safety standards and 
recommended practices and disagrees that an additional appendix is 
necessary or would be helpful in confirming the voluntary nature of the 
materials presented in Chapter III. FTA believes that the title of 
Chapter III clearly articulates the voluntary nature of the standards 
and resources. FTA appreciates the comment regarding the additional 
technical assistance focused on the voluntary minimum safety standards 
and recommended practices outlined in Chapter III and will explore 
opportunities to develop and provide such assistance, including through 
the PTASP TAC.
3. Standards and Recommended Practices
    Comments: One commenter commended FTA on the proposed new 
categories of voluntary minimum safety standards and recommended 
practices, including transit worker safety, pedestrian and bicyclist 
safety, and rail grade crossing safety. Another supported FTA's 
statement encouraging transit agencies to work with roadway owners to 
address safety concerns, noting that FTA should continue to encourage 
this and first and last-mile connections.

[[Page 25325]]

    One commenter requested clarification and context regarding how FTA 
categorized the standards and recommended practices in Chapter III. In 
particular, this commenter expressed concern that Category A: Transit 
Worker Safety is particularly confusing.
    Two commenters noted that the ``Tools and Strategies for 
Eliminating Assaults Against Transit Operators, Volume 2: User Guide'' 
in Subcategory A.1 does not address all law-enforcement related 
challenges that transit agencies may experience, including shortages of 
law enforcement officers and competing demands with a municipality's 
emergency services needs.
    Two commenters recommended specific additional resources for 
inclusion in Chapter III. One commenter recommended inclusion of 
several NTSB recommendations, specifically in Categories A, B, C, and 
I. This commenter also recommended adding Transit Cooperative Research 
Program (TCRP) Report 149, ``Improving Safety-Related Rules Compliance 
in the Public Transportation Industry.'' Another commenter suggested 
that FTA include the Equitable Cities ``Arrested Mobility Report'' as a 
recommended resource.
    Response: FTA appreciates commenters' feedback regarding the new 
categorization of voluntary minimum safety standards and recommended 
practices. FTA believes these categories help to effectively organize 
strategies to address industry safety concerns, including transit 
worker safety, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and rail grade crossing 
safety. Similarly, FTA appreciates the support for FTA's statement 
encouraging transit agencies to work with roadway owners to address 
safety concerns and agrees with the commenter's statement about 
challenges to further incorporate first and last mile connections using 
micromobility systems.
    With regards to the comment about the organization of Category A, 
the category breaks the topic of transit worker safety into three 
subcategories: transit worker assault prevention; roadway worker 
protection; and fatigue management, fitness for duty, and employee 
distraction. FTA believes that this organization clearly separates the 
three areas of voluntary minimum safety standards and recommended 
practices included under this category and declines to revise the 
category substructure.
    FTA appreciates the comments regarding the ``Tools and Strategies 
for Eliminating Assaults Against Transit Operators, Volume 2: User 
Guide'' that FTA has included in category A.1. While this resource may 
not fully discuss law enforcement officer shortages, FTA believes that 
it offers valuable information and approaches to help transit agencies 
identify and deploy strategies to counter assaults against transit 
operators. Further, the document was developed to help transit agencies 
improve the safety and security of operators within existing resource 
and budgetary constraints and was developed with an understanding that 
the needs and available resources of these agencies are often different 
depending on their size and scope of operations.
    In response to comments, FTA has added two additional resources in 
the final National Safety Plan: TCRP Report 149 and NTSB recommendation 
R-09-11 regarding programs to identify and address sleep apnea and 
other sleep disorders. TCRP Report 149 identifies potential best 
practices for all elements of a comprehensive approach to safety-
related rules compliance and offers the transit industry valuable 
information for developing or evaluating rules compliance programs. FTA 
did not include all the NTSB recommendations suggested by the commenter 
as many of these were issued to a single entity and as such may not be 
directly applicable to the transit industry. However, FTA did include 
R-09-11, which was recommended by the NTSB to the rail transit 
industry.
    Finally, FTA appreciates the recommendation regarding the Equitable 
Cities ``Arrested Mobility Report.'' FTA declines to include this 
document in Chapter III of the National Safety Plan as it does not 
include voluntary minimum safety standards or recommended practices for 
improving public transportation safety.
4. Specific Safety Concerns and Mitigations
    Comments: Several commenters urged FTA to include additional 
standards and recommended practices to Chapter III of the National 
Safety Plan. Some commenters provided specific examples of transit 
industry hazards as well as specific safety risk mitigations that may 
be useful in addressing the associated safety risk. Commenters 
suggested that FTA consider adding standards and resources to the 
National Safety Plan related to topics such as: connected technology 
systems to alert security personnel of potentially dangerous 
situations; collision avoidance systems; panic buttons and body worn 
cameras for transit workers; digital methodologies and assessments such 
as condition-based health indices of transit assets and predictive 
maintenance solutions; and collision concerns related to the increased 
weight of bus fleets through electrification. Another commenter argued 
that FTA could do more through its Office of Research, Demonstration, 
and Innovation to explore how agencies are using connectivity, 
innovation, and operational management to address safety issues.
    One commenter urged FTA to include safety standards and recommended 
practices regarding suicide safety events, including consideration of 
design interventions such as physical barriers, signage noting crisis 
line numbers, and follow-up care for transit workers who witness 
suicide events.
    Another commenter recommended that when developing standards and 
recommended practices, FTA should explicitly include the safety of 
mobility assistive device users on public transportation, including 
with respect to railroad grade crossings, emergency signage, emergency 
response, and life safety equipment, and that such users should be 
considered in all standards as well.
    One commenter asked FTA to include strategies to minimize exposure 
to infectious diseases, including removal of infectious aerosols in the 
air people breathe, consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) or State health authority guidelines.
    One commenter urged FTA to require only standard traffic lights at 
railroad crossings and to eliminate ``red-red'' flashing lights. 
Another commenter provided a list of several suggestions to improve 
transit safety, including platform screen doors for suicide prevention; 
signal priority; fare gates and security; emergency alarms on vehicles; 
and grade crossing barriers. Commenters also urged FTA to include 
standards and recommended practices on other topics outside the scope 
of transit, such as high-speed passenger rail, highways, municipal 
zoning, and automobile usage.
    Response: FTA appreciates the information commenters have shared to 
the docket regarding transit industry safety concerns and potential 
safety risk mitigations. In response to commenters' identification of 
safety concerns and mitigations, FTA has added resources to Chapter III 
of the final National Safety Plan as discussed below. Most of these 
documents were not available during the original development of the 
proposed National Safety Plan but are now available for inclusion and 
are responsive to many of the suggestions offered by commenters.
    FTA appreciates the comment regarding connectivity, innovation, and

[[Page 25326]]

operational management and FTA's efforts to research these topics. 
Within this area, FTA has added a resource to Chapter III, Needs 
Assessment for Transit Rail Transmission-Based Train Control (TBTC). 
Further, FTA's Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation is 
undertaking a number of related initiatives, including the Transit 
Worker and Rider Safety Best Practice Research Program as well as four 
new research programs to address the challenges of: (1) rising assault 
incidents in transit; (2) advancing autonomous rail transit track 
inspection technology; (3) improving transit infrastructure condition 
monitoring; and (4) the Bus Compartment Redesign and Bus of the Future 
initiatives.
    Regarding the topic of challenges related to the electrification of 
transit fleets and associated concerns raised by commenters, FTA has 
added the following resources to Chapter III of the National Safety 
Plan: Safety and Security Certification of Electric Bus Fleets; 
Procuring and Maintaining Battery Electric Buses and Charging Systems; 
and Crash Energy Management for Heavy Rail Vehicles, Light Rail 
Vehicles, and Streetcars.
    In response to the commenter who recommended additional resources 
on suicide and suicide prevention, FTA added the resource, Mitigations 
for Trespasser and Suicide Fatalities and Injuries to Chapter III of 
the National Safety Plan.
    FTA appreciates the commenter that recommended FTA include the 
safety of mobility assistive device users on public transportation when 
developing standards and resources. FTA agrees with commenter on the 
importance of ensuring the safety of mobility assistive users, 
especially with respect to railroad grade crossings, emergency signage, 
emergency response, and life safety equipment. FTA will consider the 
safety of mobility assistive device users when developing standards or 
technical assistance.
    FTA appreciates the commenter that requested FTA include strategies 
to minimize exposure to infectious diseases, including removal of 
infectious aerosols in the air people breathe. FTA coordinated with the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) prior to publishing the 
proposed National Safety Plan to identify precautionary and reactive 
actions required to ensure public and personnel safety and health 
during an emergency. Following publication of the proposed National 
Safety Plan, FTA coordinated with HHS again to confirm the voluntary 
minimum safety standards and recommended practices for inclusion in the 
final National Safety Plan. FTA has added three related resources to 
the final National Safety Plan that are responsive to the commenter's 
suggestion: Ventilation in Buildings resources from the Centers for 
Disease Control (CDC); FTA's COVID-19 Resource Tool for Public 
Transportation; and FTA's Using Your Safety Management System (SMS) to 
Mitigate Infectious Disease and Respiratory Hazard Exposure. FTA has 
also included additional ventilation-related resources in Category E, 
including: Specifications and Guidelines for Rail Tunnel Design, 
Construction, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation; Specifications and 
Guidelines for Rail Tunnel Repair and Rehabilitation; and 
Specifications and Guidelines for Rail Tunnel Inspection and 
Maintenance.
    Finally, FTA appreciates the commenters that offered suggestions 
regarding railroad crossing light requirements and other safety 
recommendations. FTA appreciates and has thoroughly considered all 
these recommendations; however, at this time FTA declines to include 
them in the final National Safety Plan. FTA notes that these 
suggestions may be considered when FTA is developing future safety 
standards and identifying technical assistance needs for transit 
safety.

Veronica Vanterpool,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-07392 Filed 4-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P