Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 25694-25744 [2024-07514]

Agencies

• Federal Transit Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 71 (Thursday, April 11, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25694-25744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07514]



[[Page 25693]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 71

April 11, 2024

Part II





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Transit Administration





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





49 CFR Part 673





Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 71 / Thursday, April 11, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 25694]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 673

[Docket No. FTA-2023-0007]
RIN 2132-AB44


Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is publishing a final 
rule for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP). This final 
rule includes requirements for Agency Safety Plans (ASP), Safety 
Committees, cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives 
in the development of ASPs, safety risk reduction programs, safety 
performance targets, de-escalation training for certain transit 
workers, and addressing infectious diseases through the Safety 
Management System (SMS) process. This final rule also finalizes 
revisions to the regulation to coordinate and align with other FTA 
programs and safety rulemakings.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 13, 2024.

ADDRESSES: FTA's Office of Transit Safety and Oversight (TSO) will host 
a webinar to discuss the requirements of the Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) final rule. Visit https://www.transit.dot.gov/ptasp for more information and to RSVP. Please 
visit https://www.transit.dot.gov/ptasp to register for webinars and 
for information about future webinars. FTA is committed to providing 
equal access for all webinar participants. If you need alternative 
formats, options, or services, contact [email protected] at least 
three business days prior to the event. If you have any questions, 
please email [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program matters, contact Stewart 
Mader, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-9677 or 
[email protected]. For legal matters, contact Heather Ueyama, 
Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-7374 or [email protected].
    Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. FTA Efforts To Address Transit Worker Safety
    B. Statutory Authority
    C. Summary of Key Provisions
    D. Benefits and Costs
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Response to Comments
    A. Section 673.1--Applicability
    B. Section 673.5--Definitions
    C. Section 673.11--Agency Safety Plans
    D. Section 673.13--Certification of Compliance
    E. Section 673.17--Cooperation With Frontline Transit Worker 
Representatives
    F. Section 673.19--Safety Committee
    G. Section 673.20--Safety Risk Reduction Program
    H. Section 673.23--Safety Management Policy
    I. Section 673.25--Safety Risk Management
    J. Section 673.27--Safety Assurance
    K. Section 673.29--Safety Promotion
    L. Section 673.31--Safety Plan Documentation
    M. Other Topics
    N. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    O. Regulatory Burden
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    This final rule amends the Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plans (PTASP) regulation at 49 CFR part 673 with new requirements that 
implement statutory changes in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58; 
November 15, 2021). The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law amends FTA's 
safety program at 49 U.S.C. 5329 and adds to the PTASP requirements for 
public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance 
under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (Chapter 53). This final rule also builds on 
the existing PTASP final rule published in 2018 to enhance the Safety 
Management System (SMS) process and finalizes revisions to the 
regulation to coordinate and align with other FTA programs and safety 
rulemakings.

A. FTA Efforts To Address Transit Worker Safety

    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law amended the PTASP requirements by 
adding a risk reduction program that addresses, at a minimum, transit 
worker safety and reduction of pedestrian/bus collisions. Transit 
worker safety is a top priority for FTA. Since the previous PTASP Final 
Rule became effective in 2019,\1\ FTA has taken a series of actions to 
improve transit worker safety and address the risk of assaults on 
transit workers. In 2019, FTA issued a notice in the Federal Register 
advising transit agencies subject to the PTASP regulation that where 
instances of operator assault are identified, transit agencies should, 
as required by the PTASP regulation, take steps to identify mitigations 
or strategies necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of 
occurrences of operator assault.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 83 FR 34418 
(2018) (Codified at 49 CFR part 673). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/19/2018-15167/public-transportation-agency-safety-plan.
    \2\ Protecting Public Transportation Operators From the Risk of 
Assault, 84 FR 24196 (May 24, 2019). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/24/2019-10281/protecting-public-transportation-operators-from-the-risk-of-assault.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2020, FTA launched the Bus Operator Compartment Redesign Program 
\3\ to improve safety, operational efficiency, and passenger 
accessibility. In 2021, FTA launched the Enhanced Transit Safety and 
Crime Prevention Initiative,\4\ issued a Request for Information (RFI) 
on Transit Worker Safety,\5\ and used its Safety Risk Management (SRM) 
process to assess the safety risk of the potential consequences of 
identified hazards associated with assaults on transit workers. Also in 
2021, the National Transit Institute began offering Assault Awareness 
and Prevention for Transit \6\ training courses sponsored by FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Federal Transit Administration (March 2020). ``Redesign of 
Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational 
Efficiency, and Passenger Accessibility (Bus Operator Compartment) 
Program.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/redesign-transit-bus-operator-compartment-improve-safety-operational-efficiency.
    \4\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2021). ``Enhanced 
Transit Safety and Crime Prevention Initiative.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-programs/safety/enhanced-transit-safety-and-crime-prevention-initiative.
    \5\ Federal Transit Administration (September 2021). ``Federal 
Transit Administration Announces Request for Information on Transit 
Worker Safety.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/federal-transit-administration-announces-request-information-transit-worker-safety.
    \6\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2023). ``FTA-
Sponsored Training Courses.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-sponsored-training-courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2022, shortly after enactment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, FTA issued a Dear Colleague Letter \7\ informing transit agencies 
of the statutory changes to PTASP requirements and establishing 
compliance dates for transit agencies to establish joint labor-
management Safety Committees and revise Agency Safety Plans (ASP) in 
cooperation with frontline employee representatives to address 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requirements that strengthen frontline 
transit worker involvement in transit

[[Page 25695]]

safety. FTA also published a notice in the Federal Register seeking 
comment on proposed changes and clarifications to the National Transit 
Database (NTD) Safety and Security (S&S) reporting requirements,\8\ 
issued nine Special Directives on Required Actions Regarding Transit 
Worker Assault \9\ to transit agencies accounting for 79% of all 
transit worker assaults reported to the NTD, and published a Notice of 
Funding Opportunity in the Federal Register for the Transit Worker and 
Rider Safety Best Practices Research Project.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Federal Transit Administration (February 17, 2022). ``Dear 
Colleague Letter: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Changes to PTASP 
Requirements.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/dear-colleague-letter-bipartisan-infrastructure.
    \8\ National Transit Database Safety and Security Reporting 
Changes and Clarifications, 87 FR 42539 (July 15, 2022). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/15/2022-15167/national-transit-database-safety-and-security-reporting-changes-and-clarifications.
    \9\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2022). ``Special 
Directives on Required Actions Regarding Transit Worker Assault.'' 
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-special-directives#SDTWA.
    \10\ Federal Transit Administration (December 2022). ``Transit 
Worker and Rider Safety Best Practices Research Project.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/TWRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requirements related to 
assaults on transit workers and vehicular and pedestrian accidents 
involving buses, FTA published three notices in the Federal Register in 
2023: a notice finalizing NTD S&S reporting requirements to expand 
reporting,\11\ a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment 
on proposed new PTASP requirements,\12\ and a notice seeking comment on 
proposed changes to the National Public Transportation Safety Plan 
(National Safety Plan).\13\ FTA also published a notice in the Federal 
Register seeking comment on a proposed General Directive on Required 
Actions Regarding Assaults on Transit Workers.\14\ In addition, FTA is 
pursuing other policy actions on transit worker safety, including an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the Federal 
Register on Transit Worker Hours of Service and Fatigue Risk 
Management,\15\ a planned NPRM on Transit Worker and Public Safety (RIN 
2132-AB47),\16\ and an NPRM on Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection 
(RWP) published in the Federal Register.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ National Transit Database Safety and Security Reporting 
Changes and Clarifications, 88 FR 11506 (February 23, 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/23/2023-03789/national-transit-database-safety-and-security-reporting-changes-and-clarifications.
    \12\ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 88 FR 25336 
(April 26, 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08777/public-transportation-agency-safety-plans.
    \13\ National Public Transportation Safety Plan, 88 FR 34917 
(May 31, 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/31/2023-11551/national-public-transportation-safety-plan.
    \14\ General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding Assaults 
on Transit Workers, 88 FR 88213 (December 20, 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/20/2023-28002/proposed-general-directive-24-1-required-actions-regarding-assaults-on-transit-workers.
    \15\ Transit Worker Hours of Service and Fatigue Risk 
Management, 88 FR 74107 (October 30, 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/30/2023-23916/transit-worker-hours-of-service-and-fatigue-risk-management.
    \16\ Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (2023). 
Unified Agenda: ``Transit Worker and Public Safety.'' https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2132-AB47.
    \17\ Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection, 89 FR 20605 (March 
25, 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/25/2024-06251/rail-transit-roadway-worker-protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory Authority

    Congress directed FTA to establish a comprehensive Public 
Transportation Safety Program, one element of which is the requirement 
for PTASP, in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 
(Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012) (MAP-21), which was reauthorized by the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94; December 
4, 2015). To implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), FTA 
issued a final rule on July 19, 2018, that added part 673, ``Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plans,'' to title 49 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (83 FR 34418).
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law continues the Public 
Transportation Safety Program and adds to the PTASP requirements for 
public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance 
under chapter 53.

C. Summary of Key Provisions

    This rule finalizes FTA's implementation of several revisions to 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d) enacted through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
including:
     Requirements for each recipient that serves an urbanized 
area with a population of fewer than 200,000 (small urbanized area) to:
    [cir] Develop its ASP in cooperation with frontline employee 
representatives (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B)); and
    [cir] Address in its ASP strategies to minimize exposure to 
infectious diseases, consistent with guidelines of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a State health authority (49 
U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D)).
     Requirements for each recipient of Urbanized Area Formula 
Program funds under section 5307 that serves an urbanized area with a 
population of 200,000 or more (large urbanized area) to:
    [cir] Establish a Safety Committee that is convened by a joint 
labor-management process and consists of an equal number of (1) 
frontline employee representatives, selected by a labor organization 
representing the plurality of the frontline workforce employed by the 
recipient or, if applicable, a contractor to the recipient, to the 
extent frontline employees are represented by labor organizations; and 
(2) management representatives. (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)). This Safety 
Committee has responsibility, at a minimum, for:
    [ssquf] Approving the transit agency's ASP and any updates to the 
ASP before approval by the agency's Board of Directors or equivalent 
entity (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A));
    [ssquf] Setting safety performance targets for the safety risk 
reduction program using a three-year rolling average of the data 
submitted by the transit agency to the NTD (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(A));
    [ssquf] Identifying and recommending risk-based mitigations or 
strategies necessary to reduce the likelihood and severity of 
consequences identified through the agency's safety risk assessment (49 
U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(I));
    [ssquf] Identifying mitigations or strategies that may be 
ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended (49 
U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(II)); and
    [ssquf] Identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous 
improvement (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(III)).
    [cir] Establish a safety risk reduction program for transit 
operations to improve safety by reducing the number and rates of 
accidents, injuries, and assaults on transit workers based on data 
submitted to the NTD, including:
    [ssquf] A reduction of vehicular and pedestrian accidents involving 
buses that includes measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus 
operators that contribute to accidents, including retrofits to buses in 
revenue service and specifications for future procurements that reduce 
visibility impairments; and
    [ssquf] The mitigation of assaults on transit workers, including 
the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on 
buses, including barriers to restrict the unwanted entry of individuals 
and objects into bus operator workstations when a risk analysis 
performed by the Safety Committee determines that such barriers or 
other measures would reduce assaults on and injuries to transit workers 
(49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I)).
    [cir] Allocate not less than 0.75 percent of its section 5307 funds 
to safety-related projects eligible under section 5307 (safety set-
aside). In the event the transit agency fails to meet a safety risk 
reduction program safety performance target:

[[Page 25696]]

    [ssquf] Allocate the transit agency's safety set-aside in the 
following fiscal year to projects that are reasonably likely to assist 
the agency in meeting the target, including modifications to rolling 
stock and de-escalation training (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)).
    [cir] Ensure the agency's comprehensive staff training program 
includes maintenance personnel and de-escalation training (49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(1)(H)(ii)).
    [cir] Address in its ASP strategies to minimize exposure to 
infectious diseases, consistent with guidelines of the CDC or a State 
health authority (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D)).
    Many of FTA's proposals from the NPRM are finalized without change. 
In response to comments, FTA made minor, non-substantive changes to 
Sec.  673.5 related to the terms ``injury,'' ``performance target,'' 
and ``safety performance target.''
    In addition, the final rule includes amended requirements related 
to the role of the Safety Committee, Safety Committee procedures, the 
role of the Accountable Executive, and the safety risk reduction 
program.
    In response to comments, FTA has made minor changes to the Safety 
Committee requirements in Sec.  673.19. These changes provide 
additional clarity and specificity regarding Safety Committee 
procedures. FTA has revised Sec.  673.19(c)(2) to provide that Safety 
Committee procedures must address how meeting notices will be developed 
and shared. FTA added a requirement at Sec.  673.19(c)(4) that Safety 
Committee procedures include the compensation policy established by the 
transit agency for participation in Safety Committee meetings. In this 
provision, FTA is not requiring transit agencies to compensate members 
of the Safety Committee; rather, it is requiring the transit agency to 
adopt a policy regarding Safety Committee compensation and that the 
Safety Committee procedures include the policy the transit agency has 
adopted.
    In response to comments, FTA also has revised Sec. Sec.  
673.19(c)(6) and (c)(8) to clarify that the Safety Committee procedures 
must document the Safety Committee's decision-making processes and to 
clarify that FTA is not requiring Safety Committees to make decisions 
through any specific voting mechanisms. Regarding Safety Committee 
disputes, FTA has revised Sec.  673.19(c)(8) to clarify that the ASP 
must include procedures for how the Safety Committee will manage 
disputes to ensure that it carries out its operations, and may use the 
dispute resolution or arbitration process from the transit agency's 
Collective Bargaining Agreement, or some other process that the Safety 
Committee develops and agrees upon. The Accountable Executive, however, 
may not have a tiebreaking role in resolving Safety Committee disputes, 
because that would be inconsistent with the statutory requirements 
relating to the roles of Safety Committees. Additionally, FTA 
strengthened the focus of the provisions on cooperation with frontline 
transit workers by grouping requirements for Safety Committees and 
Cooperation with Frontline Transit Worker Representatives into a single 
Subpart C, titled ``Safety Committees and Cooperation with Frontline 
Transit Worker Representatives.''
    In response to comments from across the spectrum of stakeholders 
expressing confusion about the safety risk reduction program and 
seeking clarity on the relationship between the safety risk reduction 
program and SMS, FTA has eliminated the proposed Sec.  673.20 as a 
standalone section, and has moved the safety risk reduction program 
requirements originally proposed under Sec.  673.20 to other sections 
of the rule. This reorganization better reflects how the required 
safety risk reduction program activities are carried out using existing 
components of SMS.
    Requirements that pertain to establishing the safety risk reduction 
program, general safety risk reduction program elements, and setting 
safety performance targets are now included in Sec.  673.11, which 
identifies items that transit agencies must include in their ASPs. 
Requirements for carrying out the safety risk reduction program using 
SMS processes are in Sec.  673.25, which now addresses safety risk 
reduction program requirements associated with Safety Risk Management, 
and Sec.  673.27, which now includes safety risk reduction program 
requirements associated with Safety Assurance. By moving these 
requirements into the relevant SMS-related components of the 
regulation, FTA provides clear requirements for transit agencies to 
leverage existing SMS processes to support the safety risk reduction 
program. FTA confirms that the safety risk reduction program operates 
within an SMS and not outside of it or in conflict with it. Also in 
response to comments, FTA has clarified the requirements for large 
urbanized area providers and their Safety Committees to consider 
specific safety risk mitigations, including when the agency misses a 
safety performance target set by the Safety Committee.
    Further, in response to comments and pursuant to statute, the final 
rule requires transit agencies to include or incorporate by reference 
into the ASP any safety risk mitigations relating to the safety risk 
reduction program that are identified and recommended by a large 
urbanized area provider's Safety Committee based on a safety risk 
assessment. These requirements are described in Sec. Sec.  
673.11(a)(7)(iv) and 673.25(d)(5). The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
requires at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) that the ASP must include the 
safety risk reduction program, and that the safety risk reduction 
program must include mitigations, including (1) measures to reduce 
visibility impairments for bus operators that contribute to accidents, 
including retrofits to vehicles in revenue service and specifications 
for future procurements that reduce visibility impairments; and (2) the 
deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on 
buses. Accordingly, the statute requires the ASP to include these 
mitigations. The Safety Committee is tasked with identifying and 
recommending safety risk mitigations necessary to reduce the likelihood 
and severity of consequences identified through the agency's safety 
risk assessment. Therefore, as noted above, FTA is including the 
requirement that the ASP include safety risk mitigations related to the 
safety risk reduction program that are identified and recommended by 
the Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment.
    In response to comments, Sec.  673.23(d)(1) clarifies the role of 
the Accountable Executive regarding implementation of mitigations 
recommended by the Safety Committee. The Accountable Executive must 
implement safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program 
that are included in the ASP under Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iv). Given that 
the Accountable Executive has ultimate responsibility for carrying out 
the agency's ASP pursuant to Sec.  673.5, the Accountable Executive is 
responsible for carrying out any mitigations included in the ASP.
    In response to comments, Sec.  673.23(d)(1) provides that the 
Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider receives and 
must consider all other safety risk mitigations (i.e., mitigations not 
related to the safety risk reduction program) that are recommended by 
the Safety Committee. As described in Sec.  673.25(d)(6), if the 
Accountable Executive declines to implement such a mitigation, the 
Accountable Executive must prepare a written statement explaining its 
decision and must submit and present this explanation to the

[[Page 25697]]

Safety Committee and the Board of Directors.

D. Benefits and Costs

    Most provisions in the final rule implement self-enacting statutory 
amendments made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 49 U.S.C. 5329, 
although some provisions are discretionary. The discretionary 
provisions include extending the de-escalation training requirement to 
all transit agencies subject to part 673, as well as requiring small 
public transportation providers to establish continuous improvement 
processes.
    The requirements for de-escalation training and continuous 
improvement processes are predicted to reduce the risk of fatalities 
and injuries for transit workers, passengers, drivers, and pedestrians 
if transit agencies adopt safety risk mitigations that they would not 
have adopted otherwise. While FTA expects that agencies will be more 
likely to adopt safety risk mitigations to reduce the risk of transit 
worker assault and bus collisions, it does not have information to 
quantify or monetize potential benefits.
    Agencies will incur costs to meet the requirements for de-
escalation training and continuous improvement processes. FTA will also 
incur costs to notify agencies, update technical assistance resources, 
and conduct training, although the expected costs are minimal.
    Table 1 summarizes the economic effects of the discretionary 
provisions in the final rule over the first ten years from 2024 to 2033 
in 2021 dollars, assuming an effective date of 2024. On an annualized 
basis (discounted to 2023), the rule has estimated costs of $642,000 at 
a 3 percent discount rate and $635,000 at 7 percent. To quantify 
benefits and assess net benefits, FTA would need information on the 
specific safety interventions transit agencies would adopt to address 
the requirements.

             Table 1--Summary of Economic Effects for Discretionary Rulemaking Provisions, 2024-2033
                                           [$2021, discounted to 2023]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total        Annualized (3%   Annualized (7%
                            Item                               (undiscounted)      discount)        discount)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits....................................................      Unquantified  ...............  ...............
Costs:
    De-escalation training..................................          $584,925          $59,040          $59,803
    Continuous improvement processes........................        $5,881,933          582,913          575,558
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
        Total costs.........................................        $6,466,858          641,954          635,362
        Net benefits........................................      Unquantified  ...............  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Response to Comments

    FTA issued an NPRM for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans on 
April 26, 2023 (88 FR 25336).\18\ The public comment period for the 
NPRM closed on June 26, 2023. FTA received 53 comment submissions to 
the rulemaking docket, including one that contained individual comments 
from 26 local transit unions. Commenters included States, members of 
Congress, transit agencies, labor organizations, trade associations, 
and individuals. FTA also received comments relevant to this rulemaking 
through the National Safety Plan docket (FTA-2023-0010). FTA has 
considered these comments and addresses them in the corresponding 
sections below. FTA also received ex parte comments about the 
rulemaking, which are summarized in the rulemaking docket. FTA 
addresses these comments in the corresponding sections below. Some 
comments were outside the scope of this rulemaking, and FTA does not 
respond to comments in this final rule that were outside the scope. 
Some comments expressed support for the NPRM without advocating for 
specific changes, and FTA acknowledges those comments were received and 
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, 88 FR 25336 
(April 26, 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08777/public-transportation-agency-safety-plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration 
when developing the final rule. Below, the NPRM comments and responses 
are subdivided by their corresponding sections of the proposed rule and 
subject matter.

A. Section 673.1--Applicability

1. Funding Sources
    Comments: Two commenters supported FTA's proposal to continue 
existing exemptions for operators of public transportation systems that 
receive only Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310 or 49 
U.S.C. 5311.
    One commenter requested additional clarification on applicability 
for operators who cease to meet the applicability criteria in Sec.  
673.1 but already have an ASP in place due to prior applicability.
    One commenter recommended that applicability, particularly the 
requirement to create Safety Committees, should include operators that 
do not receive section 5307 funding, but that receive other funds or 
subsidy credit from a section 5307 recipient.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments that it received supporting 
the proposed revisions to the applicability section of this rule. As 
described in the NPRM, these revisions clarify FTA's existing practice 
regarding PTASP applicability. Accordingly, FTA will continue to defer 
regulatory action regarding the applicability of this regulation to 
operators of public transportation systems that only receive section 
5310 and/or section 5311 funds. This final rule does not apply to an 
operator of a public transportation system that receives Federal 
financial assistance under only 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 
49 U.S.C. 5310 and 49 U.S.C. 5311, unless it operates a rail fixed 
guideway public transportation system.
    FTA disagrees with the need to further clarify applicability for 
operators whose funding sources change. For non-rail fixed guideway 
public transportation systems, the final regulation applies only to 
operators that are recipients or subrecipients of Urbanized Area 
Formula Funding (section 5307) funds.
    Similarly, FTA disagrees with the commenter who suggested that 
operators of public transportation systems who do not receive section 
5307 funds but receive other types of funds or subsidies from a section 
5307 recipient should automatically be required to meet the 
requirements of the regulation. FTA continues to apply the

[[Page 25698]]

existing definitions of recipient and subrecipient. Accordingly, if a 
transit agency is a recipient or subrecipient of section 5307 funding, 
this regulation applies. The final rule does not change any existing 
PTASP requirements regarding applicability.
2. Publication Timing
    Comments: One commenter recommended that FTA publish its final 
rules for part 673, part 674, and the updated National Safety Plan 
simultaneously in order to ensure consistency across programs and that 
safety performance targets under part 673 are consistent with the 
performance measures set forth in the revised National Safety Plan.
    Response: FTA appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the 
sequencing of publications, including for part 673 and the National 
Public Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan).\19\ FTA's 
National Safety Plan defines safety performance measures that transit 
agencies use to set the performance targets required under part 673. 
FTA has ensured consistency between this final rule and the National 
Safety Plan, and FTA believes that both updates support the advancement 
of safety performance measurement by providing transit agencies what 
they need to set safety performance targets. FTA also understands the 
concern regarding the importance of consistency across FTA's safety 
program. FTA will take this into consideration and ensure consistency 
across parts as it develops its rulemaking for part 674, but due to 
rulemaking requirements, schedules, and resources, FTA is unable to 
publish both rulemakings simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Federal Transit Administration (April 2024). ``National 
Public Transportation Safety Plan.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/nsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Modal Requirements
    Comments: A rail transit agency (RTA) requested greater 
differentiation among requirements for specific types of rail fixed 
guideway public transportation systems (RFGPTS), such as streetcar and 
light rail systems.
    Response: FTA appreciates the functional differences among types of 
RFGPTS and agrees that regulatory requirements should reflect those key 
differences as appropriate. FTA notes that this regulation is based on 
the principles of SMS, which are scalable and flexible for public 
transportation operators of varying types and sizes. FTA therefore 
disagrees that requirements relating to RFGPTS in this final rule are 
significantly impacted by the type of RFGPTS in operation.
    The National Safety Plan establishes safety performance measures 
for all modes of transportation. This directly reflects statutory 
language in 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(A), which requires FTA to set safety 
performance criteria in the National Safety Plan by mode. FTA notes 
that nothing in this final rule or in the National Safety Plan prevents 
a transit agency from establishing additional safety performance 
targets with greater specificity than required in the National Safety 
Plan (e.g., establishing separate safety performance targets for 
streetcar and light rail systems).

B. Section 673.5--Definitions

1. General
    Comments: A few commenters expressed concern with the potential for 
conflicting definitions across FTA's regulatory framework and 
associated requirements, with some urging FTA to ensure terms are 
consistent across FTA's safety regulations and the NTD. Another of 
these commenters recommended that FTA restate definitions within the 
rule rather than referencing statutory or regulatory provisions.
    Two commenters expressed support for FTA's proposed definitions, 
with one specifically noting support for the revised definitions of 
``small public transportation provider'' and ``assault on a transit 
worker.''
    One commenter stated that changing or deleting definitions would 
have a significant impact on training materials and expressed concern 
with the cost of updating these materials.
    One commenter expressed concern that the provided definitions lack 
the specificity required to address safety concerns in ASPs that are 
manageable and effective. They also stated that any new definitions 
should be congruent with State and local statutes.
    Response: FTA agrees that consistent definitions and requirements 
are important across its safety program and associated regulatory 
framework. FTA has taken such consistency into consideration in 
finalizing this final rule and the National Safety Plan, and will 
standardize relevant definitions in part 674, the forthcoming Roadway 
Worker Protection rulemaking, and NTD reporting requirements. In 
response to the commenter that recommended FTA restate definitions 
within the rule rather than referencing statutory or regulatory 
provisions, FTA notes that referencing statutory or other regulatory 
provisions ensures consistency and avoids conflicts in instances where 
associated statutes or regulations are revised. In most instances, FTA 
has chosen to reference statutory or regulatory provisions, except when 
FTA believes that restating the definition is necessary for clarity, as 
it has done for the definition of ``assault on a transit worker.''
    FTA appreciates the support received regarding the definitions of 
``small public transportation provider'' and ``assault on a transit 
worker.''
    FTA acknowledges that, as with any regulatory update, the 
definitional changes adopted in this final rule may necessitate an 
update of training materials to address these changes. FTA will aim to 
provide guidance and other technical assistance regarding the changes 
adopted in this rule to assist agencies with understanding and adapting 
to them.
    FTA appreciates the commenter's concern regarding the specificity 
of definitions in this rule and how FTA's definitions may differ from 
State or local statutes. The definitions introduced here are designed 
to be sufficiently specific to facilitate compliance without being so 
restrictive that they interfere with an agency's ability to 
appropriately scale their SMS to the size and complexity of their 
transit system. Further, it is not feasible for FTA to accommodate all 
potential State and local statutory definitions in this rulemaking. FTA 
therefore declines to make any changes in response to this comment.
2. Accountable Executive
    Comments: Three commenters recommended that FTA revise the 
definition of ``Accountable Executive'' to express that the Accountable 
Executive has ultimate accountability for and authority over the Agency 
Safety Plan (ASP), including veto power over anything contained in the 
ASP. One commenter recommended that FTA specify that the Accountable 
Executive must have transit mode and safety qualifications.
    Response: FTA declines to revise the definition. The Accountable 
Executive's ultimate accountability for the agency's safety 
performance, which includes execution of the ASP, is affirmed in Sec.  
673.23(d)(1). As explained in Section II.F.5. of this preamble, the 
rule does not establish Accountable Executive veto power over the 
contents of the ASP. The Accountable Executive's role is to sign the 
ASP and to ensure that the ASP and the agency's SMS process is carried 
out. FTA declines to establish specific qualifications for Accountable 
Executives because the rule clearly defines the responsibilities of the 
Accountable Executive. Transit agencies will ultimately define the 
qualifications

[[Page 25699]]

required for their Accountable Executive.
3. Assault on a Transit Worker
    Comments: Seven commenters expressed concerns about the breadth of 
the definition of ``assault on a transit worker.'' Two of these 
commenters requested that FTA narrow the definition to physical 
assaults. They stated that, by collecting non-violent offenses, FTA 
could skew the data and make it more difficult for agencies to address 
these assaults. For this reason, the same commenters recommended FTA 
limit the definition's applicability to NTD reporting. Another of these 
commenters stated that, by characterizing verbal abuse as an assault, 
transit agencies could experience an increase in applications for 
workers' compensation. One commenter requested clarification and 
coordination between this definition and the definition of ``non-
physical assault'' in the NTD.
    One of the commenters requested additional guidance on the 
definition's use of the terms ``knowingly,'' ``with intent,'' and 
``interferes with'' due to concerns about the difficulty of applying 
these factors in some situations. Similarly, four commenters requested 
that FTA provide guidance on the types of events that constitute an 
assault on a transit worker. Two of these commenters recommended that 
FTA provide examples either in the final rule or in NTD guidance 
materials. One of these commenters requested that FTA implement a 
``grace period'' for NTD assault reporting requirements and PTASP 
safety risk reduction program performance measures until FTA develops 
clear guidance on the application of the term. This commenter expressed 
that the definition is ambiguous and leads to undue administrative 
burden.
    Five commenters stated that the definition of assault used in this 
rule is not congruent with state criminal statutes, noting that this 
will create confusion and uncertainty about its application. One of 
these commenters further questioned why this definition was created 
when prosecution for assaults on transit workers is generally conducted 
at a local, not a Federal, level and suggested that these assaults 
should be tracked by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
instead. Another commenter suggested that FTA consider using a 
different word than ``assault'' due to differences with state statutory 
definitions.
    One commenter stated that the definition of assault varies, even 
within one transit agency, which leads to administrative burden and 
confusion for an agency's safety, dispatch, and law enforcement 
personnel. The same commenter stated the incongruity between the rule 
and the state criminal statutory definition may lead law enforcement to 
mistakenly direct dispatchers not to report an assault as defined by 
FTA.
    One commenter asked whether assaults on a transit worker should be 
considered safety or security events.
    Response: FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) explicitly uses the term 
``assault on a transit worker,'' as defined by 49 U.S.C. 5302, when 
setting forth certain PTASP requirements. For this reason, FTA is 
adopting the statutory definition verbatim. The statutory definition 
does not exclude non-physical assaults, verbal assaults, or non-violent 
assaults. As such, FTA declines to exclude these events from the 
definition.
    FTA acknowledges that the collection of non-physical assault events 
may increase the assault on transit worker data that transit agencies 
collect. FTA notes that the NTD has initiated the collection of non-
physical assaults on transit workers data and that this rule utilizes 
the same definition of assault on a transit worker used by the NTD. 
This definitional alignment provides important consistency across the 
PTASP and NTD programs.
    FTA appreciates the comments requesting 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 reporting requirements. FTA 
communicates 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 FAQ section \20\ 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 assaults on 
transit worker reporting requirements. The 2023 NTD Safety and Security 
Reporting Policy Manual \21\ provides detailed guidance about safety 
and security reporting, including assaults on transit workers. In 
addition, the 2023 Safety and Security Quick Reference Guide: Rail 
Modes \22\ and Safety and Security Quick Reference Guide: Non-Rail 
Modes \23\ define reportable events and identify reporting thresholds. 
A webinar on 2023 Safety & Security Updates: Reporting Assaults on 
Transit Workers,\24\ was provided to the public on April 27, 2023, and 
is available for viewing online. Finally, there are several courses 
offered by the National Transit Institute pertaining to 2023 safety 
reporting for full reporters (rail \25\ and non-rail \26\) as well as 
reduced reporters.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2023). ``Recent NTD 
Developments--Frequently Asked Questions.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/recent-ntd-developments-frequently-asked-questions.
    \21\ Federal Transit Administration (August 2023). ``2023 NTD 
Safety and Security Reporting Policy Manual.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/2023-ntd-safety-and-security-reporting-policy-manual.
    \22\ Federal Transit Administration (August 2023). ``Safety & 
Security Quick Reference Guide: Rail Modes.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/safety-security-quick-reference-guides.
    \23\ Federal Transit Administration (August 2023). ``Safety & 
Security Quick Reference Guide: Non-Rail Modes.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/safety-security-quick-reference-guide-non-rail-modes.
    \24\ National Transit Institute (April 2023). ``Webinar: NTD 
Safety Reporting Requirements Update: Assaults on Transit Workers.'' 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeB3RXCl6oQ.
    \25\ National Transit Institute. ``National Transit Database: 
Urban Safety & Security Reporting Rail Modes.'' https://www.ntionline.com/national-transit-database-urban-safety-security-rail/.
    \26\ National Transit Institute. ``National Transit Database: 
Urban Safety & Security Reporting Non-Rail Modes.'' https://www.ntionline.com/national-transit-database-urban-safety-and-security-reporting-non-rail-modes/.
    \27\ National Transit Institute. ``National Transit Database: 
Rural NTD Reporting.'' https://www.ntionline.com/rural-ntd-reporting/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA disagrees that a ``grace period'' for safety risk reduction 
program performance measures and reporting assaults on transit workers 
to the NTD is necessary and notes that the NTD has already begun 
collecting data on assaults on transit workers from the transit 
industry.
    Regarding concerns about inconsistencies with the State law 
definitions of ``assault,'' FTA's proposed definition of ``assault on a 
transit worker'' is the same as the Federal statutory definition at 49 
U.S.C. 5302. Although this definition potentially differs from State 
law and from transit agency definitions, FTA is adopting this 
definition to ensure the definition used for the purposes of this rule 
is consistent with the statute.
    FTA appreciates that some transit agencies treat 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. This final rule carries out the 
Congressional

[[Page 25700]]

mandate to address assaults on transit workers through the PTASP 
regulation.
    FTA is adopting this definition as proposed.
4. Chief Safety Officer
    Comments: One commenter requested that FTA revise the definition of 
``Chief Safety Officer'' to remove the phrase ``adequately trained 
individual'' and instead require the Chief Safety Officer have transit 
modal and safety competencies, credentials, training, and experience.
    Response: FTA declines to revise the definition and does not have 
discretion to remove the requirement for the Chief Safety Officer to be 
``adequately trained,'' as it is required by statute at 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(1)(G). FTA believes that the transit agency is the entity best 
situated to define adequate training. For operators of RFGPTS, the 
relevant SSOA may establish additional training requirements.
5. Emergency
    Comments: Two commenters disagreed with the proposed definition of 
``emergency'' and expressed concern that the definition may lead to 
confusion because the term ``emergency'' is commonly used to include 
incidents outside the scope of the proposed definition (e.g., medical 
emergencies). One of these commenters noted that FTA's proposed 
definition is similar to an ``Act of God'' and recommended that if this 
is the intent, FTA should utilize the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) definition of ``emergency.''
    Response: FTA agrees that the term ``emergency'' may have 
definitions other than the one presented in the NPRM. The definition 
used in the NPRM mirrors the statutory definition in 49 U.S.C. 5324 and 
its use in this final rule synchronizes definitions within FTA's 
programs. Further, FTA believes this definition is appropriate for 
purposes of establishing the minimum required scope of the emergency 
preparedness and response plan or procedures required in Sec.  
673.11(a)(6)(i). FTA notes that transit agencies are free to develop 
emergency preparedness and response plans or procedures that cover a 
broader set of situations.
6. Equivalent Entity
    Comments: One commenter requested more information about the use of 
the term ``equivalent entity'' and how it relates to the term 
``Equivalent Authority.''
    Response: The term ``equivalent entity'' is used in this final 
regulation as a one-to-one replacement for the term ``Equivalent 
Authority.'' FTA made this change to conform with the statutory term 
used in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A). FTA does not intend this change to be 
substantive.
7. Hazard
    Comments: One commenter requested clarification on the difference 
between a safety hazard and a hazard.
    Response: FTA uses these two terms interchangeably. There is no 
substantive difference between FTA's use of these terms. For clarity, 
FTA has revised the rule to use ``hazard'' in place of ``safety 
hazard.''
8. Investigation
    Comments: One transit agency stated that the definition of 
``investigation'' implies that an investigation would only occur after 
a safety event has occurred and asked whether the definition also 
includes near-miss or close-call incidents. Further, the commenter 
recommended an alternative definition that includes near-misses and 
that states that investigations may serve the purpose of preventing the 
occurrence of potential consequences, rather than merely their 
recurrence.
    Response: In both the NPRM and this final rule, FTA includes both 
hazards and safety events in its definition of ``investigation.'' The 
definition does not exclude investigations of hazards that may have 
resulted in a near-miss.
9. Joint Labor-Management Process
    Comments: One commenter suggested that FTA should revise the 
definition of ``joint labor-management process'' to mean the formal 
approach for conducting the responsibilities of the Safety Committee 
established under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). Another commenter opposed defining 
this term as a process to ``discuss topics,'' stating that establishing 
a Safety Committee consists of more than just discussion. In addition, 
this commenter requested that FTA include a requirement for workers and 
management to make democratic decisions and for agencies to incorporate 
the committee's structure and rules into ASPs.
    Response: The term ``joint labor-management process'' is used only 
in Sec.  673.19(a), which sets forth the responsibilities for a Safety 
Committee established in 49 U.S.C. 5329. Because of this limited usage, 
FTA does not believe it is necessary to further address the Safety 
Committee in the definition of ``joint labor-management process.'' FTA 
agrees with the commenter that establishing and operating a Safety 
Committee consists of more than just discussion. FTA does not believe 
the definition of ``joint labor-management process'' limits the role of 
the Safety Committee. FTA notes that Sec.  673.19 defines the Safety 
Committee requirements and responsibilities, including requirements 
directly related to establishment, membership, procedures, and ASP 
approval. Further, FTA specifically addresses Safety Committee 
decision-making at Sec.  673.19(c)(6). FTA refers readers to section 
II.F. of this preamble below for additional discussion about Safety 
Committee procedures and decision-making. As such, FTA declines to 
revise the definition of ``joint labor-management process.''
10. Near-Miss
    Comments: Two commenters stated that FTA should not use the word 
``narrowly'' in its definition of ``near-miss,'' as each transit agency 
may interpret that word differently. One commenter also noted that 
transit agencies typically define ``near-miss'' differently in the bus 
and rail contexts and requested that the definition clarify this. Four 
commenters provided alternative language for inclusion in the 
definition to narrow its scope, expressing concern that FTA's language 
is too broad and does not align with how some transit agencies 
categorize near-miss incidents. One commenter requested that FTA either 
clarify the types of narrowly avoided safety events captured in the 
definition of ``near-miss'' or alternatively, delete the definition. 
Another commenter recommended FTA ensure ``near-miss'' is defined the 
same way in State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program guidance so that all 
SSOAs interpret the term consistently.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments regarding the definition of 
``near-miss'' and has thoroughly considered each suggestion. FTA 
acknowledges that transit agencies may interpret the word ``narrowly'' 
differently. However, FTA disagrees that defining or removing 
``narrowly'' from the definition of ``near-miss'' is appropriate. FTA 
believes that it is important to give transit agencies flexibility to 
have different definitions of ``narrowly'' as it pertains to near-
misses depending on the kind of narrowly avoided event. For example, an 
agency may decide that ``narrowly'' has a broader definition when 
identifying near-misses between transit vehicles and pedestrians than 
it does when identifying low-speed transit vehicle to transit vehicle 
collision-related near-misses in the yard.
    FTA disagrees that the definition of ``near-miss'' is insufficient. 
Any safety

[[Page 25701]]

event, also defined in this rule, that is narrowly avoided is 
considered a ``near-miss'' under this definition. FTA acknowledges the 
comments recommending that FTA narrow the scope of the ``near-miss'' 
definition because it does not align with how some commenters currently 
categorize near-miss incidents or because it does not sufficiently 
distinguish application within rail and bus operating environments. FTA 
does not believe it should revise the definition to narrow the scope or 
specify mode-specific applications. As noted previously, the term as 
defined in the final rule offers transit agencies flexibility. As 
written, transit agencies have the flexibility to apply the definition 
based on their operating environments.
    Further, FTA notes that the term ``near-miss'' is used only at 
Sec.  673.23(b) where FTA identifies types of safety concerns that 
workers should be able to report through a transit worker safety 
reporting program. FTA disagrees with revising the definition, as it 
may limit the concerns that transit workers report through a transit 
worker safety reporting program. FTA may consider providing examples 
through technical assistance. While application of the term may vary 
across transit applications, FTA believes the term as defined is valid 
and useful.
    Finally, FTA appreciates the comment recommending consistency with 
SSO Program guidance. FTA will consider this recommendation when 
finalizing 49 CFR part 674.
11. Performance Target/Safety Performance Target
    Comment: An SSOA commenter requested that FTA clarify the 
difference between ``performance target'' and ``safety performance 
target'' and questioned whether both definitions are necessary. This 
commenter also requested that, for clarity, FTA revise the definition 
of ``safety performance target'' to combine elements of both 
definitions.
    Response: FTA agrees with the commenter and has deleted the 
definition of ``performance target'' and revised the definition of 
``safety performance target'' to combine elements of both definitions.
12. Potential Consequence
    Comments: Two commenters requested additional language clarifying 
the definition of ``potential consequence.''
    Another commenter expressed confusion about the word ``potential'' 
and asked for clarification as to whether the definition refers to 
outcomes.
    Response: FTA appreciates the request for additional language but 
believes that the term ``potential consequence'' is sufficient as 
defined in this rule as the effect (or outcome) of a hazard. FTA will 
consider technical assistance in the future on this subject.
13. Rail Fixed Guideway Public Transportation Systems
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the definition of 
``Rail Fixed Guideway Public Transportation System'' conflicts with the 
definition of ``fixed guideway'' in 49 U.S.C. 5302. The commenter 
requested that FTA add a definition of ``fixed guideway'' that includes 
bus rapid transit and people mover systems, and asked FTA to clarify 
whether overhead fixed catenary and passenger ferry systems are covered 
by the definition.
    Response: The definition of ``Rail Fixed Guideway Public 
Transportation System'' is explicitly limited to fixed guideway systems 
that use rail and are under the jurisdiction of an SSOA (see 49 U.S.C. 
5329(e)). The only revision that FTA proposed to this definition was to 
clarify existing language regarding systems in engineering or 
construction. This is a non-substantive revision that does not change 
applicability. Further, the addition of the term ``public 
transportation'' to Sec.  673.5 does not change the applicability of 
the term ``rail fixed guideway public transportation system.''
    Because the definition of ``Rail Fixed Guideway Public 
Transportation System'' is limited to rail, FTA believes it is not 
necessary to clarify that passenger ferry systems and other non-rail 
modes are excluded from the definition. The definition does not 
conflict with the definition of ``fixed guideway'' in 49 U.S.C. 5302. 
Therefore, FTA declines to add a definition of ``fixed guideway'' that 
includes bus rapid transit and people mover systems.
14. Roadway
    Comments: Four commenters stated that the definition of ``roadway'' 
could be confusing, with one noting that the definition obstructs the 
meaning of roadway worker protections for systems with shared rights-
of-way. Two of these commenters recommended that FTA use the term 
``right-of-way'' to refer to the area rail tracks occupy. Commenters 
noted that ``roadway'' is commonly understood to mean asphalt paved 
surfaces for rubber tire vehicles. A separate commenter recommended 
that FTA include definitions for both the terms ``roadway'' and 
``right-of-way'' in the definitions section of the regulation.
    One of these commenters stated the definition was too narrow and 
conflicted with other definitions for the term ``roadway'' such as the 
one used in Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices.
    One commenter requested clarification regarding whether the term 
includes busways that operate on their own right-of-way. The same 
commenter also asked whether this term included RTA maintenance 
facilities through which trains can move.
    Response: FTA appreciates the stated concerns regarding the term 
``roadway'' and notes that this is the term used in the Federal 
Railroad Administration's regulations and guidance. For consistency 
across passenger rail operations, FTA has determined that it is best to 
define and use this term similarly. It therefore declines to use a 
different term such as ``right-of-way.''
    The term defined in this final rule means any land on which rail 
transit tracks and support infrastructure have been constructed, 
excluding station platforms. This means that ``roadway'' includes rail 
transit tracks and support infrastructure used in revenue service and 
rail transit tracks and support infrastructure used in non-revenue 
service, such as yards and sidings. In this final rule, the term is 
only used in the rail context. As such, FTA declines to use the 
definition of ``roadway'' found in the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices \28\ and does not include busways in the final rule's 
definition of ``roadway.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Federal Highway Administration (July 2022). ``Manual on 
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.'' https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2r3/pdf_index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Safety Event
    Comments: Seventeen commenters, including transit agencies, SSOAs, 
and transit industry associations, expressed concern regarding FTA's 
proposal to replace the terms ``accident,'' ``incident,'' 
``occurrence,'' ``event,'' and ``serious injury'' with the term 
``safety event.'' Commenters noted that all these terms have wide-
ranging impacts and unique definitions across various programs, 
including drug testing thresholds, NTD reporting, accident 
investigation thresholds, and safety training programs.
    Several commenters explicitly opposed the proposal. Four commenters 
stated that the definition is overly broad and should be more narrowly 
defined. One of these commenters expressed that the definition of 
``safety event'' creates too broad of a scope for the safety risk

[[Page 25702]]

reduction program and would result in differing interpretations of that 
program.
    Four commenters were SSOAs that stated removal of those terms would 
change the threshold for investigation and require investigations into 
an overly broad set of circumstances. One of these commenters expressed 
particular concern that the change would result in investigations of 
``damage to the environment.'' Another of these commenters expressed 
that creating a generalized ``safety event'' category is confusing, and 
that FTA should consider the downstream effects of this change on SSO 
programs that rely on previous definitions. A participant at an FTA 
webinar asked whether this proposal would impact the accident 
investigation and SSOA reportable event thresholds. One RTA commenter 
requested clarification of what transit agencies will be expected to 
report within two hours.
    Twelve commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition 
would cause inconsistency with the current definitions in 49 CFR part 
674 and the NTD. One of these commenters requested clarification as to 
whether the new definition would change the NTD reporting requirements 
and FTA's severity determinations.
    Some noted that this proposal creates a different investigation 
threshold for rail transit systems subject to part 674, and bus systems 
that are not subject to that regulation. One commenter asked whether 
the change implies that FTA intends to incorporate bus modes into part 
674, or whether FTA will make a similar change to part 674 for rail 
modes. This commenter questioned what improvements these changes would 
achieve. Several commenters recommended that, if FTA adopts the 
proposal, it should establish consistent definitions and thresholds 
across FTA's programs.
    Some commenters requested changes to FTA's proposed definition of 
``safety event.'' One SSOA commenter suggested FTA include the phrase 
``assault on a transit worker'' in its definition to ensure that such 
assaults require investigation. One commenter requested that FTA 
replace the word ``unexpected'' with ``undesired.'' Another commentor 
recommended FTA remove the word ``unexpected'' and replace ``outcome'' 
with ``incident'' in the definition. This commenter noted that injury 
and death are expected outcomes of certain incidents, such as subway 
surfing.
    One transit agency supported the proposal but recommended that FTA 
restrict SSOAs from developing their own definitions for ``injury'' and 
``serious injury.''
    Response: FTA appreciates the stated concerns but disagrees that 
the term ``safety event'' is inappropriately broad for this rule. 
Further, while the July 2018 PTASP rule included definitions for these 
terms, neither that rule nor this final rule use the terms 
``accident,'' ``incident,'' or ``occurrence'' as key terms in the rule. 
FTA notes that the definition provided in part 673 is intended to be 
general in nature and is not intended to define concrete thresholds for 
notification, reporting, or investigation. Rather, the definition of 
``safety event'' allows FTA to identify the types of events that a 
transit agency's SMS should address. FTA, therefore, is adopting the 
definition of ``safety event'' in this rule as proposed in the NPRM.
    Further, FTA does not believe that the definition results in an 
overly broad scope for the safety risk reduction program. The 
definition of ``safety event'' in this final rule does not define the 
safety performance measures required for the safety risk reduction 
program. Rather, FTA defines specific safety performance measures for 
the purposes of the safety performance target setting requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  673.11(a)(3) and 673.11(a)(7)(iii) through the National 
Safety Plan. This includes the safety performance measures required of 
all transit agencies and the safety performance measures required for 
large urbanized area providers for the safety risk reduction program. 
This final rule does not define those safety performance measures.
    FTA appreciates the comments from the four SSOAs that expressed 
concern that the removal of the terms ``accident,'' ``incident,'' 
``occurrence,'' and ``serious injury'' from part 673 could impact the 
SSOA investigation thresholds by requiring investigation of an overly 
broad set of circumstances, including damage to the environment. 
Further, FTA appreciates SSOA commenters urging consideration of the 
downstream impacts of such changes. FTA has thoroughly reviewed the 
effects of the changes issued through this final rule and confirms that 
the definition of ``safety event'' does not change any SSOA 
investigation requirement established by part 674.
    FTA notes that part 673 does not establish a two-hour notification 
requirement. The existing two-hour notification requirement referenced 
by the commenter is established by part 674, and any changes to that 
requirement would be executed through a rulemaking amending part 674.
    FTA also appreciates the commenters that expressed concern that the 
proposed definition of ``safety event,'' coupled with the removal of 
the terms ``accident,'' ``incident,'' ``occurrence,'' and ``serious 
injury,'' could cause inconsistency with the current definitions in 
part 674 and the NTD. FTA again notes that the removal of these 
definitions from part 673 does not change any existing SSO Program 
investigation threshold or requirement established in part 674 or any 
existing NTD reporting requirements, nor do these changes conflict with 
either program.
    FTA acknowledges and agrees with commenters who recommended FTA 
should establish consistent definitions across FTA's programs, 
including in the bus and rail contexts. FTA continues to ensure 
synchronization of definitions across programs where appropriate to 
support the use of thresholds to trigger specific program activity.
    FTA carefully considered commenters' suggested changes to the 
definition of ``safety event,'' including the recommendation to add the 
phrase ``assault on a transit worker'' to ensure that such assaults 
require investigation. FTA again notes that the ``safety event'' 
definition provided in part 673 is intended to be general in nature and 
is not intended to define concrete thresholds for notification, 
reporting, or investigation. FTA also considered the suggestions to 
replace the word ``unexpected'' with ``undesired'' and to remove the 
word ``unexpected.'' FTA declines to make either of these suggested 
revisions as the word ``unexpected'' is used to distinguish planned 
outcomes from unexpected outcomes. FTA appreciates the commenter's 
example of subway surfing but believes that subway surfing is an 
unexpected outcome. While injuries and fatalities are likely to result 
from these events, the safety event itself is unexpected. FTA also 
considered the suggestion to replace ``outcome'' with ``incident,'' but 
declines to adopt this change. The addition of the term ``incident'' 
may cause confusion based on its previous definition within part 673 
and its current definition within part 674.
    FTA acknowledges the comment from an RTA recommending that FTA 
restrict SSOAs from developing their own definitions for ``injury'' and 
``serious injury.'' FTA notes again that this final rule does not 
impact any existing SSOA investigation requirements established in part 
674. Further, part 673 would not be the appropriate rule to establish 
any SSO Program notification or investigation-related requirement.

[[Page 25703]]

16. Safety Management System
    Comments: Six commenters requested that FTA not adopt its proposed 
revision to the definition of ``Safety Management System.'' 
Specifically, all these commenters opposed FTA's proposed deletion of 
the word ``top-down.'' Commenters expressed that ``top-down'' is a 
foundational component of SMS that is important for improving safety, 
and that this word reflects the Accountable Executive's key role in 
promoting and implementing SMS from the very top of an organization. 
Two commenters also noted that this concept is included in 
Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) courses. One commenter asked FTA 
to provide its rationale for this deletion and expressed that the 
change will negatively impact training materials and management 
accountability.
    Response: FTA appreciates the stated concerns related to the change 
in definition. Removing the term ``top-down'' does not change any of 
the authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities of the 
Accountable Executive, Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive, or agency 
leadership. FTA notes that removal of this term is intended to reflect 
the multi-directional flow of information, which is intrinsic to the 
function of an SMS. Transit worker safety reporting program and Safety 
Committees are examples of multi-directional information flow 
throughout the agency. FTA notes that this change does not conflict 
with or modify the related concepts covered in existing TSI courses. 
FTA acknowledges that changes in definitions may require revision to 
existing training materials that may have referenced the previous 
definition but notes that this definitional change does not impact 
management accountability.
    This final rule removes the term ``top-down'' from the definition, 
as proposed.
17. Safety Risk
    Comments: FTA received two comments on its proposed revision to the 
definition of ``safety risk.'' One commenter stated that the terms 
``predicted severity'' and ``potential consequence'' in the definition 
are synonymous. This commenter suggested an alternative definition for 
FTA's consideration. Another commenter stated the proposed definition 
conflicts with the one used in the TSI training materials.
    Response: FTA disagrees that these two terms are synonymous. A 
``potential consequence'' is an effect or outcome, whereas ``predicted 
severity'' is a measure of how bad a potential consequence could be as 
predicted by the transit agency through safety risk assessment. 
Further, as discussed earlier, FTA acknowledges that changes in 
definitions may require revision to existing training materials that 
reference a now outdated definition. FTA has adopted the definition as 
proposed.
18. Safety Risk Mitigation
    Comments: Two commenters requested that FTA clarify the difference 
between safety mitigation and safety risk mitigation. Another commenter 
stated the proposed definition conflicts with the one used in the TSI 
training materials.
    Response: FTA did not intend for any substantive difference between 
the two terms. For clarity, FTA has replaced instances of ``safety 
mitigation'' in this final rule with ``safety risk mitigation.'' Again, 
FTA acknowledges that changes in definitions may require revision to 
existing training materials that reference a now outdated definition 
but notes that this is not a substantive change.
19. Transit Worker
    Comments: Two commenters expressed concern that the definition of 
``transit worker,'' in conjunction with the statutorily defined term 
``assault on a transit worker,'' will require transit agencies to 
address more than just assaults on transit operators. They recommended 
that FTA either redefine ``transit worker'' or add a definition of 
``frontline transit worker'' to narrow the scope of individuals covered 
by the ``assault on a transit worker'' requirements. These commenters 
expressed that FTA's proposed definition obscures data collection and 
mitigation efforts for operator assaults.
    One commenter inquired whether the term ``transit worker'' includes 
a transit agency's administrative staff. Another commenter requested 
clarification of the term's applicability to short-term contract 
workers, such as individuals hired to distribute surveys or wayfinding 
support for a weekend shutdown.
    Response: FTA confirms that the definition of ``transit worker'' is 
intended to be broader than just vehicle operators. The statutory 
definition of ``assault on a transit worker'' in 49 U.S.C. 5302 and the 
related requirements in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) are not explicitly limited to 
transit operators. FTA therefore understands this term to be broad and 
include more job descriptions than just ``operator'' or ``frontline 
transit worker.'' FTA also notes that the definition adopted in this 
final rule is the same as the NTD definition, which provides important 
consistency across programs. The term ``transit worker'' does not 
exclude a transit agency's administrative staff. Further, FTA confirms 
that the term includes short-term contract workers. FTA adopts the 
definition as proposed.
20. Additional Definitions
    Comments: Several commenters requested that FTA define additional 
terms used in the regulation and provided several terms for definition, 
with one commenter requesting that FTA define all relevant and 
subjective terms. This commenter recommended defining many common terms 
that are used in the rule text, such as ``appropriately,'' 
``elements,'' ``ineffective,'' and ``results.''
    One commenter urged FTA to define the term ``plurality'' in Sec.  
673.5 to clarify the Safety Committee formation requirements. The 
commenter expressed that the definition should communicate that when 
multiple labor organizations represent a transit system's frontline 
workers, the union with the largest membership chooses the frontline 
transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee. This 
definition would also clarify that when an agency has a single union, 
the union chooses the frontline transit worker representatives 
regardless of the size of the agency's unrepresented workforce.
    One commenter recommended FTA include a definition for ``frontline 
transit worker.'' One commenter requested FTA define the term ``State 
Safety Oversight Program'' and provided a suggested definition that 
included specific SSO Program requirements and a citation to 49 U.S.C. 
5329(e)(3).
    Several commenters, including transit agencies and an SSOA, stated 
that the removal of the term ``serious injury'' left transit agencies 
without a definition for ``injury,'' and two of these commenters 
expressed concern with the lack of an ``injury'' definition related to 
required safety performance measures.
    Response: FTA agrees that this final rule should define all 
relevant terms but disagrees with including definitions for all 
suggestions made by commenters. In this rule, FTA balanced the need for 
distinct definitions for key terms with the need for flexibility 
inherent in an SMS environment.
    FTA does not believe it is necessary to define commonly understood 
terms in the rule. For example, the terms ``appropriately,'' 
``elements,'' ``ineffective,'' and ``results,'' among others suggested 
by commenters, do not need definitions to ensure understanding of the 
rule. Similarly, FTA does not believe it is necessary to define the 
term ``plurality'' in Sec.  673.5 as

[[Page 25704]]

the commonly understood definition would apply. Further, FTA has 
addressed the elements of the ``plurality'' definition suggested by the 
commenter through the Safety Committee requirements established in 
Sec.  673.19(b). FTA confirms that for transit agencies with multiple 
labor organizations, ``plurality'' refers to the labor organization 
that represents the largest number of the agency's frontline workforce. 
For transit agencies with only one labor organization, that single 
labor organization chooses frontline transit worker representatives for 
the Safety Committee regardless of the size of the agency's 
unrepresented workforce.
    FTA appreciates the comment suggesting that FTA define ``frontline 
transit worker'' in the rule. However, FTA declines to establish a 
specific definition for this term, to preserve flexibility for transit 
agencies to apply this term based on their organizational and operating 
realities. Frontline transit worker roles and functions may vary across 
different transit agencies.
    FTA also considered the recommendation to define ``State Safety 
Oversight Program'' in the rule. FTA disagrees that this term should be 
defined in this rule. FTA notes that the SSO Program requirements 
stated in the commenter's suggested definition are explicitly stated in 
49 CFR part 674. FTA does not believe it is necessary to repeat them in 
part 673.
    FTA proposed removing the term ``serious injury'' from the rule in 
response to industry feedback stating that the criteria established 
under that definition were difficult to apply and led to confusion, 
rather than clarity. This change is intended to simplify the 
classification of safety events, and FTA will adopt the removal of this 
term as proposed. However, FTA agrees with the commenter that 
recommended FTA add a definition of ``injury'' to the rule. This term 
is used in the regulation in the context of the safety risk reduction 
program, so FTA believes that adding a definition provides necessary 
clarity.
    FTA's National Safety Plan, which establishes safety performance 
measures for the transit industry, directs users to the NTD for the 
definition of ``injury.'' In response to comments, and for consistency 
across programs, FTA has added the same definition of ``injury'' used 
by the NTD to this final rule.

C. Section 673.11--Agency Safety Plans

1. General
    Comments: One commenter requested that FTA provide additional 
guidance on developing ASPs to allow transit agencies and contractors 
to modify contracts to address necessary ASP changes. Two commenters 
urged FTA to consider how the proposed changes to the PTASP regulation 
would impact transit agencies with contracted transit services.
    Two commenters requested that FTA define timelines or milestones 
related to RTA SMS implementation to support SSOA oversight of RTAs. 
One of these commenters expressed that additional requirements from FTA 
and SSOAs make SMS more complex and less scalable.
    One commenter stated that FTA should require transit agencies to 
include their Safety Management Policy statement in their ASP along 
with processes for workers to report safety concerns. The commenter 
noted that inclusion is necessary to ensure that the Safety Committee 
reviews and approves these processes.
    Response: FTA will consider expanding its existing technical 
assistance regarding ASP development, distribution of the Safety 
Management Policy statement, and SMS implementation. FTA notes that 
PTASP requirements, including any changes adopted in this final rule, 
apply to transit providers that directly operate service as well as 
those that use contractors to provide transit service. FTA took this 
into consideration when developing the final rule.
    FTA acknowledges the commenters that recommended FTA establish 
timeline or milestone requirements for RTA SMS implementation to 
support SSOA oversight activity. Further, FTA acknowledges the related 
concern that additional requirements may make the PTASP regulation less 
flexible and less scalable. In response, FTA notes that most revisions 
adopted in this final rule implement statutory changes. Further, FTA 
believes that establishing additional SMS implementation milestone 
requirements for RTAs would limit the flexibility and scalability of 
SMS. FTA notes that SSOAs may establish additional safety requirements 
for the RTAs they oversee.
    In response to the commenter that requested FTA require agencies to 
incorporate the Safety Management Policy statement into their ASP, FTA 
notes that in Sec.  673.23(a), FTA establishes requirements for the 
Safety Management Policy component of a transit agency's SMS and 
includes the requirement for an agency to have a written Safety 
Management Policy statement. Based on this existing requirement, FTA 
expects a transit agency to include or incorporate by reference a 
Safety Management Policy statement in its ASP, as well as the processes 
for transit workers to report safety concerns. FTA notes that any 
documents incorporated by reference in the ASP that are used to address 
PTASP regulation requirements are part of the Safety Committee's review 
and approval process. FTA declines to make changes to the regulatory 
text in response to these comments.
2. ASP Updates
    Comments: FTA received several comments about the annual ASP review 
and approval requirement set forth in Sec.  673.11(a)(5). One commenter 
noted that FTA should establish an annual ASP approval deadline that 
does not coincide with fall and winter holidays, noting that the 
initial December 31 compliance date for Safety Committee approval of 
ASPs was difficult to meet.
    Three commenters asked whether a transit agency must follow the 
review, signature, and approval process outlined in Sec.  673.11(a)(1) 
if the only change the agency made to the ASP was to update its safety 
performance targets (SPTs). Two commenters requested FTA issue guidance 
classifying SPT revisions as non-material substantive changes that are 
not required to undergo the Sec.  673.11(a)(1) approval process.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comment regarding establishing an 
annual ASP approval deadline that does not coincide with the fall and 
winter holiday season. FTA notes that it established one-time 
compliance dates of July 31, 2022, and December 31, 2022, to address 
certain Bipartisan Infrastructure Law PTASP requirements.\29\ FTA is 
not establishing any such fixed deadlines in this final rule. Instead, 
the PTASP regulation requires transit agencies to review and update 
their ASPs annually to address needed changes, such as regulatory 
changes. FTA expects transit agencies to address the regulatory changes 
adopted in this final rule in their next ASP update based on their 
existing ASP update process documented in their ASP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Federal Transit Administration (February 17, 2022). ``Dear 
Colleague Letter: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Changes to PTASP 
Requirements.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/dear-colleague-letter-bipartisan-infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transit agencies that update the SPTs in their ASP must follow the 
review, signature, and approval process outlined in Sec.  673.11(a)(1). 
This follows existing practice under the PTASP regulation. FTA notes 
that changes to SPTs may have a direct impact on transit agency 
activity. This is especially true with respect to the SPTs set as part

[[Page 25705]]

of the safety risk reduction program of large urbanized area providers. 
However, FTA notes that agencies and their Safety Committees may 
leverage different approval processes based on the types of changes 
being proposed, as long as the process results in the approval by the 
Safety Committee (for large urbanized area providers), approval by the 
agency's Board of Directors or equivalent entity, signature from the 
Accountable Executive, and approval by the SSOA (for RTAs). This means 
that a transit agency and its Safety Committee, as applicable, could 
use a more streamlined review and approval process for its ASP if the 
only changes to the document are SPT revisions, as long as the process 
results in the required approvals and signature. FTA does not believe 
additional regulatory text is necessary.
3. Roadway Workers
    Comments: An RTA commenter opposed language proposed at Sec.  
673.11(a)(6)(ii), which would require RTAs to include or incorporate by 
reference in their ASPs any policies and procedures regarding rail 
transit workers on the roadway the RTA has issued. This commenter 
stated that FTA should remove this paragraph and incorporate it into 
FTA's forthcoming Roadway Worker Protection rulemaking instead.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comment regarding Sec.  
673.11(a)(6)(ii). FTA notes that the regulatory language does not 
establish any new requirements for roadway worker protection. The 
additional language only requires transit agencies to include or 
incorporate by reference in their ASP any such policies or procedures 
issued by the transit agency. FTA does not believe that this 
requirement related to ASP documentation would conflict with any future 
regulation that may establish roadway worker requirements.
4. State Safety Oversight
    Comments: FTA received several comments regarding proposed Sec.  
673.11(a)(6)(iii), which would require RTAs to include or incorporate 
by reference the policies and procedures developed in consultation with 
SSOAs regarding the SSOA's risk-based inspection program. Two 
commenters stated that RTAs and SSOAs should establish a working group 
to develop the SSOA's risk-based inspection program and to establish 
language for the ASP regarding physical and digital access to the RTA.
    One commenter requested FTA clarify what consultation RTAs are 
required to have with SSOAs for purposes of this requirement. One 
commenter asked FTA to clarify that the SSOA develops the risk-based 
inspection program policies and procedures, and that the RTAs must 
comply with the SSOA's certified program. This commenter noted that per 
49 U.S.C. 5329(k), the RTA must include the SSOA's policies and 
procedures in its ASP.
    Another commenter recommended that FTA specify that RTAs do not 
need to comply with Sec.  673.11(a)(6)(iii) until the SSOA's risk-based 
inspection program is in place. They also requested that FTA change the 
language in this paragraph from ``provide access and required data'' to 
``provide access to required data.''
    One commenter observed that the NPRM did not address requirements 
and processes for RTAs to ensure that their ASP is approved by their 
SSOA.
    In addition, FTA received a few comments regarding FTA's SSO 
Program set forth in 49 CFR part 674.
    Response: FTA agrees that SSOAs and RTAs may benefit from working 
together as appropriate on the SSOA's risk-based inspection program. 
This final rule does not establish any new requirements for an SSOA's 
risk-based inspection program. Instead, this final rule requires RTAs 
to document or incorporate by reference in the ASP the processes they 
use to address any risk-based inspection program requirements 
established by their SSOA. As such, FTA believes that it is 
inappropriate to establish additional requirements or clarifications 
specific to SSOA risk-based inspection programs in this final rule. 
Similarly, FTA declines to establish a distinct timeline in this final 
rule for RTA ASPs to incorporate language relating to their SSOA's 
risk-based inspection program.
    Further, FTA disagrees with the commenter's suggested language 
change regarding access. Through a risk-based inspection program, SSOAs 
will perform inspections at transit agencies based on safety risk. An 
SSOA needs data access to support risk determinations and inspection 
prioritization and needs physical access to conduct inspections. 
Accordingly, this final rule does not change the language proposed in 
the NPRM.
    The Federal requirement for SSOAs to approve the ASPs for RTAs 
under their jurisdiction is established through Sec.  673.13(a) and 
part 674. As described in part 674, the SSOA is responsible for 
establishing timelines relating to SSOA approval of RTA ASPs. FTA 
believes that this function should remain with the SSOA to permit the 
oversight entity to set an appropriate timeline. Example timelines are 
publicly available through FTA's PTASP Technical Assistance Center.
    Regarding the comments relating to FTA's SSO program, FTA thanks 
commenters for these suggestions and will take them into consideration. 
However, FTA notes that they are outside the scope of the PTASP NPRM 
and therefore declines to address them in this final rule.
5. Safety Performance Targets
    Comments: For comments specific to the safety performance targets 
in the safety risk reduction program, see section II.G of this 
preamble. The National Safety Plan includes additional information on 
the safety performance measures used to address the statutory 
requirements of the safety risk reduction program.
    Two commenters requested that FTA permit transit agencies to set 
percentage-based safety performance targets.
    Response: As defined in the National Safety Plan, transit agencies 
must set safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction 
program by number and rate. Transit agencies may calculate the change 
their agency wants to make using whole numbers or percentages. For 
example, a transit agency could set a safety performance target for 
injuries by defining a reduction of two injuries over an established 
time period or by defining a 20 percent reduction over an established 
time period.

D. Section 673.13--Certification of Compliance

1. General
    Comments: Two commenters requested clarification on the requirement 
for direct recipients to annually certify that they and all applicable 
subrecipients are in compliance with PTASP requirements. They stated 
that this requires States, who may perform the role of a direct 
recipient for certain transit agency subrecipients, to assume ongoing 
compliance oversight. These commenters argued that this is a change in 
practice and that a State currently is responsible for drafting the ASP 
for small public transportation providers but is not responsible for 
providing ongoing oversight of those ASPs.
    Response: This rule does not establish any changes to the existing 
annual certifications and assurances process used by States and transit 
agencies to certify compliance with part 673. To the extent that a 
State acts as a section 5307 direct recipient for certain transit 
agency subrecipients who must comply with the PTASP regulation, the 
State

[[Page 25706]]

must annually certify to its compliance and the compliance of any 
applicable subrecipients with PTASP requirements. This is the same 
process used by FTA for all rules and associated compliance 
requirements.
2. Compliance Enforcement
    Comments: FTA received several comments, including from certain 
members of Congress, international labor organizations, and local 
unions, stating that FTA needs a process to monitor and enforce 
compliance with the PTASP requirements. Several of these commenters 
expressed concern about FTA's oversight of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law Safety Committee requirements, with three of them 
noting that they estimate approximately 50 transit agencies were out of 
compliance at the time the comments were submitted. A few commenters 
also provided specific allegations of PTASP noncompliance. Commenters 
expressed concern that, without an established process for FTA to 
enforce the requirements of the rule, transit agency management may see 
the Safety Committee as a mere ``check the box'' exercise and not fully 
implement or utilize the expertise of the Safety Committee.
    Three commenters urged FTA to establish a formal mechanism to 
receive claims of PTASP noncompliance, investigate such claims, and 
issue related findings and penalties. In addition, the Amalgamated 
Transit Union in a March 26, 2024, Executive Order 12866 review meeting 
suggested that FTA provide specific notice of noncompliance with PTASP 
prior to withholding FTA capital funds. One also urged FTA to require 
transit agencies to submit their ASPs to FTA for a compliance review.
    In addition, another commenter suggested that FTA require transit 
agencies to submit an ASP signature page as part of its annual PTASP 
certification under Sec.  673.13. This signature page would state that 
the ASP was approved and would be signed by the Safety Committee's lead 
union representative and lead management representative.
    Some commenters stated that FTA should take enforcement action 
against noncompliant agencies, including withholding Federal funds. 
Relatedly, one commenter urged that compliance with the PTASP 
regulation should be tied to Federal funding eligibility.
    Response: FTA requires applicable recipients to certify that they 
have established an ASP that meets the requirements of the PTASP 
regulation and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) as part of the annual Certifications 
and Assurances for FTA grants and cooperative agreements. FTA notes 
that per 49 U.S.C. 5307(c)(1)(L), this certification is a required 
condition of receiving section 5307 funding. FTA monitors these 
certifications in its Transit Award Management System (TrAMS) and 
assesses compliance with the PTASP regulation through its existing 
triennial review process. Agencies that are found to have incorrectly 
or falsely certified compliance with the requirements are subject to 
appropriate enforcement actions. FTA investigates specific allegations 
of noncompliance. FTA is authorized through 49 U.S.C. 5329(g) to take 
enforcement action against a recipient that does not comply with 
Federal law with respect to the safety of the public transportation 
system. This includes requiring the use or withholding of funds under 
49 U.S.C. 5329(g)(1)(D) and (E). The manner in which FTA provides 
notice of noncompliance and enforces under this provision depends on 
the particular circumstances.
    Due to the large number of transit agencies and the existing 
certification and review processes, FTA does not believe it is 
practical for FTA to review ASPs annually for each covered transit 
agency for compliance with the PTASP requirements. However, FTA notes 
that it does not need to wait until the Triennial Review process to 
review a transit agency's compliance with PTASP. FTA may do so whenever 
it deems necessary. Further, FTA does not believe that an additional 
requirement for an agency to upload a signature page is necessary at 
this time. FTA is considering the development of a mechanism to receive 
allegations of non-compliance with the PTASP requirements.

E. Section 673.17--Cooperation With Frontline Transit Worker 
Representatives

    Comments: Six commenters addressed proposed Sec.  673.17(b), which 
sets forth the cooperation with frontline transit worker representative 
requirements for transit agencies that do not meet the definition of 
``large urbanized area provider.'' Two commenters urged FTA to specify 
in the final rule what ``cooperation'' means, noting that this is a 
subjective term that is open to varying interpretations. One of these 
commenters recommended that FTA require management at small transit 
agencies to meet with frontline transit worker representatives at least 
60 days before the ASP is due so that both parties can review the ASP 
together. Further, it urged FTA to require management to meet with 
frontline transit worker representatives again at least 30 days, but no 
more than 45 days, before the ASP is due.
    One of these commenters recommended that FTA encourage small 
transit agencies to establish joint labor-management safety committees 
voluntarily. A separate commenter asked what FTA's expectations are for 
labor representative involvement in the cooperation process, and 
whether collecting feedback in safety meetings would be sufficient. The 
same commenter argued that the ambiguity of this requirement and a lack 
of dispute resolution requirements could lead to conflict.
    Two commenters asked how the requirement at Sec.  673.17 dovetails 
with the proposed Safety Committee provisions at Sec.  673.19.
    Response: FTA appreciates comments regarding the requirement for 
transit agencies that do not serve a large urbanized area to cooperate 
with frontline transit worker representatives when developing and 
updating an ASP. This final rule provides each transit agency the 
flexibility to define how it will involve and cooperate with frontline 
transit worker representatives to support the development and 
subsequent updates of the ASP. In Sec.  673.17(b)(2), FTA is requiring 
each transit agency that does not meet the definition of ``large 
urbanized area provider'' to document this process in its ASP. In line 
with existing practice and efforts to ensure flexibility and 
scalability, FTA declines to establish specific timeline requirements 
for the cooperation processes as suggested by the commenter.
    In response to comments received regarding involvement of a labor 
union in the required cooperation with frontline employee 
representatives, FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and Sec.  673.17(b) 
do not require transit agencies that do not serve a large urbanized 
area to involve a labor union in this cooperation process, but that 
transit agencies may opt to do this voluntarily. Similarly, FTA does 
not require transit agencies that do not meet the definition of ``large 
urbanized area provider'' to establish a Safety Committee but notes 
that these transit agencies may establish a Safety Committee 
voluntarily. FTA encourages these transit agencies to voluntarily 
establish Safety Committees and to involve labor unions in the required 
process of cooperating with frontline employee representatives.
    FTA acknowledges the comment that requested clarification of how 
this requirement relates to the requirement

[[Page 25707]]

for a Safety Committee. FTA notes that the requirements for developing, 
reviewing, and approving ASPs differ depending on whether the transit 
agency is considered a large urbanized area provider as defined in the 
rule. Large urbanized area providers must establish a Safety Committee, 
which must review and approve the agency's ASP and subsequent updates. 
For transit agencies that must meet PTASP requirements but are not 
large urbanized area providers as defined in this rule, Sec.  673.17(b) 
requires the agency to develop the ASP and subsequent updates in 
cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives.
    FTA is not establishing additional requirements or guidance on 
cooperation with frontline transit workers in this rule. FTA will 
consider this topic for future guidance and technical assistance.

F. Section 673.19--Safety Committee

1. General
    Comments: FTA received several comments about proposed Sec.  
673.19, which sets forth the requirements regarding Safety Committees 
for large urbanized area providers. Several commenters expressed 
general support for the requirements, noting the importance of a forum 
for labor and management to work cooperatively to remedy safety issues. 
A few commenters provided examples of the successful implementation of 
Safety Committees. One commenter specifically supported limiting the 
applicability of the Safety Committee requirements to large urbanized 
area providers.
    FTA received comments from 30 local labor organizations expressing 
that FTA's proposed Safety Committee requirements are insufficient and 
allow transit agencies to ignore the safety concerns of frontline 
transit workers. These commenters urged FTA to ensure that the voices 
of frontline workers are heard in a meaningful way and that transit 
agencies utilize the safety-related expertise of these workers. They 
provided numerous examples of safety issues occurring at their transit 
agencies, including assaults on transit workers, inadequate restroom 
access, law enforcement response times, premises security, blind spots, 
and unsafe vehicle conditions. Some noted that their Safety Committees 
have not yet been effective because transit agencies are not listening 
to the committees.
    Three commenters expressed concern that establishing and operating 
a Safety Committee will be a significant financial burden for transit 
agencies. One commenter requested FTA provide flexibility regarding the 
Safety Committee requirements, noting that employees on the Safety 
Committee are not always safety professionals.
    Two comments addressed the number of Safety Committees that a 
transit agency may establish. A labor organization commenter stated 
that requiring one Safety Committee to review and approve multiple ASPs 
and to conduct its statutorily required responsibilities for multiple 
ASPs is too burdensome, and recommended that FTA require a ``one ASP, 
one Safety Committee'' approach. The commenter requested that FTA 
specify in the final rule that transit agencies must establish one 
Safety Committee per ASP and may not use the same Safety Committee for 
multiple ASPs. The second commenter raised concerns about committees 
other than the Safety Committee addressing issues related to operator 
assault.
    One SSOA commenter asked when transit agencies must comply with the 
Safety Committee requirements established in the rule.
    Response: FTA acknowledges the appreciation for the new Safety 
Committee requirements received from commenters. FTA also acknowledges 
the feedback received from the 30 local labor organizations that said 
the Safety Committee requirements are insufficient and allow transit 
agencies to ignore the safety concerns of frontline transit workers. 
FTA is committed to ensuring the voices of frontline workers are heard 
in a meaningful way and believes the Safety Committee requirements of 
this final rule accomplish this objective.
    FTA appreciates that the formation and ongoing operation of the 
Safety Committee may increase the burden on transit agencies, both in 
terms of direct cost and worker availability. FTA reminds the 
commenters that the Safety Committee is a statutorily required function 
for applicable agencies and further believes that transit agencies will 
receive safety benefits from establishing and operating a Safety 
Committee. FTA also acknowledges the commenter who pointed out many 
Safety Committee members are not safety professionals. FTA understands 
this reality and does not expect a transit agency's Safety Committee to 
replace a transit agency's safety department. In practice, FTA 
encourages Safety Committees to utilize subject matter expertise from 
non-committee members to support decision-making. FTA understands that 
this is a common support structure for Safety Committees when it comes 
to data analysis and safety risk assessment, as well as information 
gathering related to specific agency systems, technologies, or 
procedures. FTA believes the language of this final rule offers 
sufficient flexibility that ensures the voices of frontline workers are 
heard in a meaningful way and that the Safety Committee can consult 
non-member subject matter expertise to support the Safety Committee's 
needs.
    FTA agrees that using the same Safety Committee for multiple ASPs 
may make meeting Safety Committee requirements more cumbersome. 
However, to the extent that the Safety Committee is convened and 
conducts business as required in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and part 673, FTA 
declines to prohibit transit agencies from using the same Safety 
Committee for multiple ASPs as this may place unnecessary burdens on 
transit agencies that operate under multiple ASPs. FTA notes that if a 
transit agency with multiple ASPs would like to establish a Safety 
Committee for each ASP, this final rule does not prohibit them from 
doing so.
    In response to the commenter that expressed concerns about a 
transit agency addressing issues such as transit worker assault in a 
special committee instead of the joint labor-management Safety 
Committee, FTA confirms that the responsibilities of the Safety 
Committee, as required in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and this final rule, must 
be addressed by the Safety Committee. FTA notes that a transit agency 
may use other mechanisms within the organization to address safety 
risk, such as a special committee, task force, or study, but these 
mechanisms cannot eliminate or satisfy the role of the Safety Committee 
to address any of the applicable requirements in this final rule.
    FTA notes that in response to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it 
established one-time compliance dates of July 31, 2022, and December 
31, 2022, to address certain Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
requirements,\30\ including the establishment of Safety Committees and 
the update and approval of ASPs to reflect the new Safety Committees. 
FTA is not establishing any such fixed deadlines in this final rule. 
Instead, the PTASP regulation includes the requirement for transit 
agencies to review and update their ASPs annually to address needed 
changes, such as regulatory changes. FTA expects transit agencies to 
address any regulatory changes in their next ASP update based on their 
existing ASP

[[Page 25708]]

update process documented in their ASP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Federal Transit Administration (February 17, 2022). ``Dear 
Colleague Letter: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Changes to PTASP 
Requirements.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/dear-colleague-letter-bipartisan-infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Size, Scale and Structure
    Comments: FTA received several comments on proposed Sec.  
673.19(a)(1), which would require Safety Committees to be appropriately 
scaled to the size, scope, and complexity of the transit agency. Two 
commenters explicitly opposed this language and asked FTA to strike it. 
FTA received several comments requesting additional guidance and 
clarification of this provision. Some comments expressed concern about 
the subjectivity of the requirement, including the ambiguity as to who 
determines whether a Safety Committee is scaled appropriately.
    Proposed Sec.  673.19(a)(2) set forth the requirement that Safety 
Committees be convened by a joint labor-management process. Two 
commenters suggested revising this language to state that the Safety 
Committee's structure and operating rules are determined by consensus 
decisions between labor and management.
    Response: FTA's PTASP regulation must address the needs of a wide 
range of transit environments, from large transit systems to very small 
providers, and from basic transit applications to extremely complex 
technologies. As with existing regulatory practice, FTA must ensure 
that part 673 includes sufficient flexibility to support SMS 
implementation across these ranges of transit agencies. As a result, 
FTA expects that Safety Committees will be sized differently based on 
the size, scope, and complexity of the transit agency. Therefore, FTA 
declines to change the proposed language.
    FTA also encourages transit agencies and their Safety Committees to 
hold periodic discussions about the size and scope of the Safety 
Committee to determine whether it is appropriate to add additional 
members or to change the scope of the Safety Committee's purview, while 
ensuring that the Safety Committee's activities still meet all 
statutory and part 673 requirements.
    FTA declines the suggestion to revise Sec.  673.19(a)(2), as FTA's 
proposed language mirrors the statute. FTA notes that Sec.  673.19(c) 
requires Safety Committee procedures to address the committee's 
composition, responsibilities, and operations. FTA refers readers to 
Sections II.F.4 and II.F.6. of the preamble below for additional 
discussion of this topic and Safety Committee decision-making and 
dispute resolution, respectively.
3. Membership
    Comments: Several commenters remarked on the Safety Committee 
membership provisions that FTA proposed in Sec.  673.19(b).
    One commenter stated that the Safety Committee requirements are 
unrealistic for frontline transit worker representatives, noting that 
activities would require Safety Committees to meet at least weekly.
    One transit agency commenter strongly supported FTA's proposed 
language in Sec.  673.19(b) that, to the extent practicable, the Safety 
Committee must include frontline transit worker representatives from 
major transit service functions across the transit system. In contrast, 
a labor organization commenter explicitly opposed this proposed 
language and requested that FTA remove it from Sec.  673.19(b). This 
commenter argued that imposing restrictions on the plurality union's 
choice is inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and FTA's existing 
guidance, and it would be inequitable without any corresponding 
restrictions on a transit agency's choice of management 
representatives. It argued that the plurality union must have 
flexibility to choose the transit worker representatives it finds most 
beneficial for the Safety Committee. A separate commenter requested 
that FTA clarify the rationale for its proposed language and clarify 
its application, given that the language does not appear in the 
statute.
    Several comments pertained to the frontline transit worker 
representative selection process in Sec.  673.19(b)(1). Six commenters 
expressed concern that the plurality union may select frontline transit 
worker representatives that are not representative of the entirety of 
the frontline workforce, particularly in cases where some workers are 
unrepresented or where an agency has more than one labor organization. 
Two of these commenters stated that a fairer selection process would be 
for FTA to require that frontline transit worker representatives be 
selected from each bargaining unit at a transit agency. One of these 
commenters urged FTA to establish Safety Committee selection 
requirements that reflect the objective of informed risk management.
    Some comments requested additional guidance from FTA about the 
selection process. One commenter asked FTA to clarify the definition of 
``frontline transit worker'' and asked whether volunteers and 
contractors need to be represented on the Safety Committee, given they 
are included in the definition of ``transit worker'' in Sec.  673.5. 
Two commenters noted that transit agencies may have multiple 
contractors that provide service and operations and requested more 
guidance on the structure of frontline transit worker representation on 
Safety Committees in such situations. One of these commenters urged FTA 
to confirm that contractors should serve on Safety Committees, given 
that contractors may be impacted by Safety Committee recommendations. 
Another commenter stated that its Safety Committee does not include 
``line-level'' labor representatives and that including such transit 
workers on the Safety Committee is not practical, and that the 
requirement for equal membership of management and frontline transit 
worker representatives is not realistic. Another commenter stated that 
some transit workers might not be interested in serving on the Safety 
Committee and should not be forced to participate.
    One commenter stated that the selection criteria for frontline 
transit worker representatives can allow management to have an unfair 
advantage on the Safety Committee. The commenter cited an example of a 
frontline transit worker representative on the Safety Committee who is 
a member of a union that represents supervisors and asserted this means 
the Safety Committee no longer has equal numbers of frontline workers 
and management.
    One comment pertained to proposed Sec.  673.19(b)(2), which would 
require transit agencies without labor unions to adopt a mechanism for 
frontline transit workers to select the frontline transit worker 
representatives for the Safety Committee. The commenter requested that 
FTA provide its rationale for this requirement and clarify its 
application, noting that it does not appear in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
    One commenter noted that in the preamble to the NPRM, FTA 
distinguished between voting Safety Committee members and alternates 
who serve in a non-voting capacity. The commenter urged FTA to require 
that the number of non-voting members be limited to an equal number of 
management and frontline transit worker representatives. It stated that 
some transit agencies have attempted to add non-voting management 
positions to Safety Committees, which has tipped the balance in favor 
of management in a manner inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
    Response: FTA appreciates the feedback received supporting the 
proposed language in Sec.  673.19(b). FTA acknowledges the comment 
received regarding the challenges of asking frontline transit workers 
to participate

[[Page 25709]]

in the Safety Committee and notes that frontline worker representative 
participation is mandated by statute. As such, the requirement is 
maintained in the final rule.
    Similarly, FTA acknowledges the comment that requested FTA remove 
the language about including frontline transit worker representatives 
from major transit service functions as it may impose restrictions on 
the plurality union's choice and would therefore be inconsistent with 
49 U.S.C. 5329(d) and inequitable without any corresponding 
restrictions on a transit agency's choice of management 
representatives. FTA notes that this language in Sec.  673.19(b) 
provides parameters to strengthen frontline transit worker 
representation without contradicting statutory language on the 
selection of frontline employee representatives by the plurality labor 
organization. FTA expects that, to the extent practicable, the Safety 
Committee will include frontline transit worker representatives from 
major transit service functions. However, FTA notes that this may not 
be feasible in all situations; FTA includes the statement ``to the 
extent practicable'' to ensure flexibility for all transit agency 
applications.
    The language in Sec.  673.19(b) reflects FTA's belief that Safety 
Committees are most effective when they include representatives from 
multiple service functions. It is intended to strengthen the diversity 
of frontline worker representation and to ensure a breadth of 
perspective and expertise to support Safety Committee activity.
    FTA also acknowledges comments expressing concern that the 
plurality union may select frontline transit worker representatives 
that are not representative of the entirety of the frontline workforce 
if workers are unrepresented or if an agency has more than one labor 
organization. FTA also acknowledges the two commenters who recommended 
that the section should require frontline transit worker 
representatives be selected from each bargaining unit at a transit 
agency. FTA agrees that selecting representatives from a narrow pool of 
only one service function or only from one represented labor 
organization can inadvertently reduce the effectiveness of the Safety 
Committee. However, FTA does not agree that FTA should require the 
plurality labor organization to select Safety Committee members who are 
not members of their labor union or who are not members of any labor 
union. FTA acknowledges the potential for narrow representation of 
frontline transit workers in the Safety Committee. As discussed above, 
FTA believes that the language in Sec.  673.19(b) regarding including 
frontline transit worker representatives from major transit service 
functions to the extent practicable appropriately strengthens frontline 
worker representation. As such, FTA declines to establish the 
additional requirements suggested by commenters.
    FTA acknowledges comments requesting additional guidance on the 
frontline transit worker representative selection process and the 
questions about whether volunteers and contractors need to be 
represented on the Safety Committee. While FTA has not established 
requirements for volunteers and contractors to participate as frontline 
transit worker representatives on the Safety Committee, the plurality 
labor organization may decide to include these types of workers on the 
Safety Committee. FTA appreciates that the composition of an agency's 
workforce may mean that individuals from multiple contracting groups 
are selected for the Safety Committee. To the extent the selection 
process meets the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A) and Sec.  
673.19(b), this is permissible. FTA does not currently have any further 
guidance in this final rule on Safety Committee membership at transit 
agencies with more than one contracting group. FTA notes this final 
rule does not require a transit agency that provides contracted service 
to have contractor management representatives on the Safety Committee, 
but the agency may do so.
    FTA acknowledges the comments expressing concern that the Safety 
Committee membership requirements are not practicable, including Safety 
Committee membership by ``line-level'' transit workers and equal 
membership of management and frontline transit worker representatives. 
In response, FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A) requires the labor 
organization that represents the plurality of the transit agency's 
frontline transit workers to select frontline transit worker 
representatives. The statute does not provide the transit agency the 
option to determine that including ``line-level'' transit workers is 
not practicable. Further, FTA reminds the commenters that the Safety 
Committee's equal membership of frontline employee representatives and 
management representatives is required by statute.
    FTA acknowledges that frontline transit worker representatives may 
include workers in a supervisory position, as described by the 
commenter. However, FTA disagrees that this contradicts the requirement 
for equal frontline transit worker and management representation 
because some supervisory roles, such as line, route, or regional 
supervisors, involve work that takes place primarily in frontline 
environments. Such roles can support operators, monitor field 
conditions, adjust service levels or routes to respond to potential 
service disruptions, interact with customers to provide service 
information, and de-escalate situations that have the potential to 
result in assaults on operators and other transit workers. If the 
plurality labor union identifies such an individual as a frontline 
transit worker representative, they may select this individual for the 
Safety Committee.
    FTA acknowledges the comment regarding Sec.  673.19(b)(2), which 
requested that FTA provide its rationale for requiring transit agencies 
without labor unions to adopt a mechanism for frontline transit workers 
to select the frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety 
Committee. FTA notes this requirement helps to ensure that when no 
frontline transit workers are represented by a labor union, the 
frontline transit workforce will still have a voice in the selection of 
their representatives on the agency's Safety Committee.
    Finally, FTA acknowledges the commenter who urged FTA to require 
that the number of non-voting Safety Committee members be limited to an 
equal number of management and frontline transit worker 
representatives. FTA notes that it has removed all references to voting 
in the final rule, as described further in section II.F.4 below, and 
instead, FTA expects Safety Committees to define decision-making 
mechanisms.
4. Safety Committee Procedures
General
    Comments: FTA received several comments regarding Sec.  673.19(c), 
which sets forth requirements for Safety Committee procedures. Two 
commenters expressed their general support for FTA's proposal requiring 
transit agencies to include or incorporate by reference such procedures 
in the ASP.
    One commenter noted that the procedural requirements are not 
present in the statute and asked whether transit agencies are required 
to negotiate the procedures with frontline transit worker 
representatives. The commenter stated this could impact collective 
bargaining agreements and have cost impacts for the transit agency.

[[Page 25710]]

    One commenter expressed general support for this provision but 
suggested that FTA require an agency's Accountable Executive to approve 
the Safety Committee procedures and that they be included by reference 
in the ASP. The commenter expressed concern that disputes over the 
procedures could delay the ASP approval process and result in 
negotiations with labor organizations over issues that are outside of a 
collective bargaining agreement. Two commenters recommended the Safety 
Committee procedures should be approved by the Accountable Executive 
and included by reference in the ASP, but not approved by the Safety 
Committee. One commenter expressed concern that Safety Committees do 
not always function collaboratively, from setting meeting agenda items 
to voting on decision points.
    Two commenters urged FTA to require transit agencies to reach an 
agreement with transit workers about the Safety Committee's structure 
and procedures through either consensus or democratic voting. One of 
these commenters urged that such an agreement must be in writing and 
included or incorporated by reference in the ASP, expressing that 
requiring transit agencies merely to ``address'' the procedural items 
listed in Sec.  673.19(c) is inadequate.
    Response: FTA appreciates the positive feedback received from 
commenters about the requirement to include or incorporate by reference 
the Safety Committee procedures in the ASP.
    FTA acknowledges that the statute does not define specific 
procedures for Safety Committees. FTA notes that, as with existing 
requirements regarding SMS processes and activities, the PTASP 
regulation establishes procedural requirements to ensure effective 
implementation of statutory requirements. In response to the 
commenter's question about potential impacts on collective bargaining 
agreements, FTA notes that negotiation is not explicitly required, but 
Sec.  673.19(a)(2) requires the Safety Committee to be convened by a 
joint labor-management process. FTA acknowledges that, in practice, 
this may involve some level of negotiation.
    FTA acknowledges the commenter that suggested FTA require the 
Accountable Executive to approve the Safety Committee procedures and 
that they be included by reference in the ASP. Section 673.19(c) 
requires agencies to include or incorporate by reference in their ASP 
the Safety Committee procedures. Further, as described in Section 
II.F.5 below, the Accountable Executive's role is to sign the ASP and 
ensure that the ASP and SMS processes are carried out. As such, the 
commenter's request was addressed by the NPRM, and no changes are made 
in the final rule in response to this comment. FTA notes that this 
final rule does not establish Accountable Executive veto power over the 
contents of the ASP, because that would be inconsistent with statutory 
requirements relating to the composition of Safety Committees, as well 
as the statutory requirement that the Safety Committee and Board of 
Directors must approve the ASP--not the Accountable Executive.
    FTA disagrees that it is appropriate to exclude the Safety 
Committee procedures portion of the ASP, even if incorporated by 
reference, from the Safety Committee's approval. The statute requires 
the Safety Committee to approve the ASP, and as noted above, the 
procedures must be included or incorporated by reference in the ASP.
    FTA acknowledges the concern regarding challenges associated with 
operating a Safety Committee with equal frontline transit worker and 
management engagement. FTA encourages Safety Committees to work 
collaboratively to set and execute procedures for determining Safety 
Committee agenda items and making decisions. These items are discussed 
further in the preamble sections below.
    FTA believes that the use of the word ``address'' before listing 
the minimum requirements for Safety Committee procedures is appropriate 
because it provides flexibility, and the accompanying regulatory 
requirements are sufficient to ensure a transparent and standardized 
process. In Sec.  673.19(c), FTA requires each large urbanized area 
provider to include or incorporate by reference in its ASP the 
procedures regarding the composition, responsibilities, and operations 
of the Safety Committee, including the organizational structure, size, 
and composition of the Safety Committee and how it will be chaired; how 
the Safety Committee will reach and record decisions; and how the 
Safety Committee will manage disputes to ensure it carries out its 
operations. FTA notes that the ASP and any referenced documents or 
appendices that are used to address PTASP regulation requirements are 
part of the annual review and approval process to confirm that the ASP 
meets PTASP regulation requirements. Thus, the Safety Committee will 
review and approve Safety Committee procedures included or referenced 
in the ASP through this process. Further, a Safety Committee may opt to 
use its procedure for reaching decisions, which may include voting or 
consensus mechanisms, to formally endorse its structure and procedures.
Meeting Agendas, Notices, and Minutes
    Comments: A local union stated that FTA should require transit 
agency management and frontline transit workers to agree on how often 
the Safety Committee should meet and require the transit agency to 
adhere to the agreed upon schedule. Similarly, a transit agency 
requested that FTA require transit agencies to give advance meeting 
notice to Safety Committee members as part of the Safety Committee 
procedures.
    Two commenters noted the need for Safety Committees to have 
regular, formal meetings. A local union commenter expressed concern 
that at their transit agency, management creates and presents Safety 
Committee meeting agendas without seeking input or a vote from 
frontline transit worker representatives, and that management 
representatives have not shared meeting minutes with the frontline 
transit worker representatives.
    Response: While FTA agrees that establishing a meeting schedule for 
the Safety Committee would be beneficial for Safety Committees, it 
disagrees that the rule should define or require the transit agency to 
define a specific meeting schedule. The PTASP regulation gives 
flexibility to Safety Committees to schedule meetings in a manner 
suitable to the size, scope, and complexity of their agency. Some 
agencies may decide to define a set schedule and document this in their 
Safety Committee procedures. FTA also acknowledges the commenter's 
concern regarding the development and sharing of Safety Committee 
meeting agendas. FTA agrees with commenter concerns regarding 
development and advance notice of Safety Committee meetings. 
Accordingly, FTA has added a requirement in Sec.  673.19(c)(2) for 
Safety Committee procedures to include the process for developing and 
sharing meeting notices.
    In response to the comment about meeting minutes, FTA notes that it 
is adopting the proposed requirement inSec.  673.19(c)(2) for Safety 
Committee procedures to document how meeting minutes will be recorded 
and maintained.
Training and Qualifications
    Comments: Several commenters, as well as an attendee at an FTA 
webinar, expressed concern that some members of Safety Committees may 
not have

[[Page 25711]]

adequate training or qualifications to perform their required 
responsibilities. Two commenters asked whether FTA would provide or 
recommend training for Safety Committee members. One commenter 
recommended that FTA provide training about SMS processes and data 
analysis to frontline transit worker representatives. Another commenter 
noted that training Safety Committee members would add costs to the 
transit agency.
    FTA received two comments on its proposed language in Sec.  
673.19(c)(3), which states that Safety Committee procedures must 
include any required ASP and SMS training for members. A commenter 
asked FTA to clarify whether this training is required, or if a transit 
agency and its SSOA may decide whether to provide it. This commenter 
further recommended that FTA address any safety training requirements 
for Safety Committee members in the Safety Promotion section of the 
regulation at Sec.  673.29 instead.
    Two commenters asked whether Safety Committee members are required 
to comply with the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training 
Program (PTSCTP) requirements established under 49 CFR part 672.
    Response: FTA acknowledges comments that express concern that 
Safety Committee members may not have adequate training or 
qualifications to perform their required responsibilities. While this 
final rule does not establish training requirements specific to Safety 
Committee members, transit agencies may establish their own training 
requirements for their workers in accordance with their comprehensive 
safety training program. Section 673.19(c)(3) provides that any 
required training must be documented in the Safety Committee 
procedures. FTA appreciates the suggestion to include this requirement 
in the Safety Promotion section of the regulation instead, it but 
declines to make this change. For clarity, FTA believes that it is best 
for all Safety Committee-related procedures to be addressed in a single 
section of the regulation.
    FTA acknowledges the comment that noted training for Safety 
Committee members would add costs to the transit agency. FTA 
acknowledges that FTA-provided or FTA-recommended training for Safety 
Committee members is useful and has the potential to reduce burden on 
transit agencies, and FTA will consider this topic for future technical 
assistance.
    The PTSCTP requires at 49 CFR part 672 that RTAs designate transit 
workers who are directly responsible for safety oversight and ensure 
those workers comply with PTSCTP training requirements. The PTSCTP also 
offers a voluntary program for bus transit workers designated by their 
transit agency as having direct safety oversight responsibility. FTA 
agrees that participation in the PTSCTP curriculum can provide valuable 
context for Safety Committee members, but it does not require that 
Safety Committee members participate in the PTSCTP, unless they are 
otherwise required to do so under part 672.
Compensation
    Comments: A transit agency and a labor organization requested that 
FTA require transit agencies to include information about compensation 
for Safety Committee members in their Safety Committee procedures. The 
labor organization urged FTA to require transit agencies to pay 
frontline transit worker representative members at their regular hourly 
rate for all time spent in Safety Committee meetings and conducting 
Safety Committee business. The commenter expressed that this would 
maintain the balance of power between management, which is typically 
compensated on a salary basis, and frontline transit worker members, 
which are usually compensated on an hourly basis.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments and concerns regarding 
compensation for Safety Committee members. FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d) does not require transit agencies to compensate Safety 
Committee members for time spent on Safety Committee activities. While 
FTA does not manage transit agency compensation structures, FTA agrees 
that it is important for Safety Committee procedures to address this 
issue for transparency. In response to comments, FTA therefore is 
adding a requirement at Sec.  673.19(c)(4) for transit agencies to 
document in their Safety Committee procedures the Safety Committee 
compensation policy that the agency has established for participation 
in Safety Committee meetings. FTA is not requiring transit agencies to 
compensate the members of the Safety Committee. FTA is only requiring 
that the agency establish a compensation policy and document such 
policy in its Safety Committee procedures. FTA notes that the transit 
agency must have a policy regarding compensation; however, this may 
include a policy to not provide compensation.
Coordination With Board of Directors and Accountable Executive
    Comments: One commenter recommended that FTA amend the proposed 
requirement at Sec.  673.19(c)(7) from describing how the Safety 
Committee will coordinate with the Board of Directors or equivalent 
entity and the Accountable Executive to ``how the Safety Committee will 
communicate necessary information'' to those entities, noting that this 
change would clarify and more narrowly define the requirement. Two 
commenters requested that FTA provide guidance on this process, 
including FTA's expectations regarding the required amount and level of 
coordination.
    Response: FTA disagrees that the Safety Committee procedures should 
only address how the Safety Committee will communicate information to 
the Board of Directors or equivalent entity and the Accountable 
Executive. The term ``coordinate'' was specifically chosen to reflect 
the flow of information in both directions--to the Safety Committee and 
from the Safety Committee. The term also encompasses joint activities 
the Safety Committee, Board of Directors or equivalent entity, and the 
Accountable Executive may want to undertake. However, FTA recognizes 
that communication between the Safety Committee, Accountable Executive, 
and Board of Directors or equivalent entity is a key element of 
coordination and has revised Sec.  673.19(c)(7) to ``how the Safety 
Committee will coordinate and communicate with the Board of Directors, 
or equivalent entity, and the Accountable Executive'' for clarity.
    Due to the varying operating environments of transit systems, FTA 
is deferring to transit agencies to establish and document the 
appropriate process of coordination between the Safety Committee, Board 
of Directors or equivalent entity, and Accountable Executive, including 
details on the frequency and level of coordination.
Additional Suggested Procedures
    Comments: One commenter stated that the required Safety Committee 
procedures should include a mechanism for holding Safety Committee 
members accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities, such as 
attendance and completion of tasks assigned to the Safety Committee. 
Two commenters stated that FTA should allow transit agencies to set 
minimum qualifications for participation on the Safety Committee, such 
as minimum experience requirements or restrictions for certain 
individuals based on their

[[Page 25712]]

previous safety performance or failure to attend Safety Committee 
meetings. Another commenter urged FTA to strongly encourage frontline 
transit worker representatives to participate fully at Safety Committee 
meetings. Two commenters stated that an agency should have the 
authority to include procedural language to remove Safety Committee 
members who intentionally fail to attend meetings.
    Three commenters requested that FTA require the Safety Committee 
procedures include an agreement between management and frontline 
transit worker representatives regarding participation in Safety 
Committee meetings by non-members. Two commenters stated that at some 
transit agencies, managers who are not on the Safety Committee 
participate in meetings, creating a power imbalance between management 
and frontline transit worker representatives. Another commenter noted 
that it is reasonable to expect that a Safety Committee will seek the 
expertise of others within and outside the transit system as it seeks 
to identify and define safety risk mitigations and suggested that the 
Safety Committee define procedures for non-members to participate in 
Safety Committee meetings.
    Response: Establishing specific minimum Safety Committee 
qualifications or restrictions on frontline transit worker 
representative membership in part 673, such as minimum experience 
requirements or excluding a frontline transit worker representative 
selected for the Safety Committee based on the individual's safety 
performance, would impinge on the statutorily defined role of the labor 
organization representing the plurality of frontline transit workers to 
select frontline employee representatives for the Safety Committee. 
Transit agencies may discuss selection criteria with the entity or 
entities responsible for selecting management and frontline transit 
worker representatives, and these entities may voluntarily adopt their 
own selection criteria. However, FTA declines to require this in the 
final rule.
    FTA agrees that Safety Committee meetings should be attended by all 
members. While FTA is not establishing requirements for attendance, FTA 
recommends that agencies document in their ASPs any Safety Committee 
meeting scheduling and attendance policies.
    FTA appreciates the concern voiced by the commenters that Safety 
Committee participation by non-members may result in a power imbalance. 
FTA agrees that procedures for outside participation in Safety 
Committee meetings helps to ensure that the Safety Committee conducts 
its vital work effectively, while maintaining the balance between 
management and frontline transit worker representatives required by 
statute. FTA defines these requirements at Sec.  673.19(c)(5), which 
requires the Safety Committee procedures include how the Safety 
Committee will access technical experts, including other transit 
workers, to serve in an advisory capacity as needed.
5. Safety Committee Authorities, Accountabilities, and Responsibilities
General
    Comments: Five commenters asked for additional clarity of the 
authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities of the Safety 
Committee. One commenter asked FTA to clarify what ``authorities, 
accountabilities, and responsibilities'' the Safety Committee would 
have, as described in proposed Sec.  673.23(d)(3), arguing that the 
committee has an advisory role. One commenter opposed Safety Committee 
participation in the Safety Risk Management process, as set forth in 
Sec.  673.19(d)(3), expressing that this dilutes the power of data-
decision risk management.
    Response: As established by Sec.  673.23(d), transit agencies must 
identify the authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities for 
the management of safety. FTA notes the Safety Committee does not 
merely serve in an advisory role and instead must meet statutorily 
defined requirements. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established 
several affirmative responsibilities for the Safety Committee at 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d), such as review and approval of the ASP, setting annual 
safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program, and 
supporting the operation of the transit agency's SMS.
    The Safety Committee's participation in the Safety Risk Management 
process is statutorily required under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii). FTA 
does not agree that the Safety Committee's support of the Safety Risk 
Management process dilutes the power of data-driven risk management. 
The Safety Committee's participation in the Safety Risk Management 
process and the related setting of safety performance targets 
explicitly supports data-driven decision-making.
Relationship to the Accountable Executive
    Comments: FTA received several comments voicing opposing views 
regarding the role of the Safety Committee and the Accountable 
Executive.
    Some commenters, including transit agencies, argued that final 
decisions regarding a transit agency's safety program should rest with 
the Accountable Executive, including the contents of an ASP, 
implementation of Safety Committee recommendations, and resolution of 
Safety Committee disputes. Some commenters argued that this aligns 
authority with accountability, as the Accountable Executive is 
ultimately accountable for the agency's safety performance. In support 
of this view, three commenters cited a prior Frequently Asked Question 
(FAQ) on FTA's website about this issue, which FTA removed prior to 
publication of the NPRM.
    Conversely, FTA received two comment letters from certain members 
of Congress explaining Congressional intent in enacting the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law amendments to 49 U.S.C. 5329 relating to Safety 
Committees. These members of Congress stated that the intent of these 
amendments was to require a transit agency's Accountable Executive to 
implement safety risk mitigations that are recommended by the Safety 
Committee and included in the ASP. In their view, the Accountable 
Executive may not revisit, ignore, or reject elements of an approved 
ASP. Both letters urged FTA to remove any language from the rule that 
relegates the Safety Committee to an advisory role, including language 
that FTA proposed in Sec.  673.23 regarding the Accountable Executive's 
role to ``receive and consider'' safety risk mitigations.
    Similarly, several other commenters, including labor organizations, 
opposed Accountable Executive veto power over Safety Committee 
recommendations and urged FTA to require the Accountable Executive to 
implement all Safety Committee recommendations. Commenters stated that 
giving the Accountable Executive veto power would tip the power balance 
on Safety Committees in favor of management and noted that management 
already has a voice on the Safety Committee through the management 
representative members. Several commenters asserted that giving the 
Accountable Executive veto power would make the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law changes to 49 U.S.C. 5329 ineffective. Many stated 
that frontline transit workers already had the opportunity to raise 
safety concerns to management prior to establishing a Safety Committee, 
urging FTA to require transit agency management to act on these 
recommendations to make meaningful change.

[[Page 25713]]

    Two labor organizations noted that FTA removed the FAQ referenced 
by other commenters from FTA's website and one argued that this former 
FAQ should not be relied upon as guidance regarding the role of the 
Safety Committee.
    Response: FTA appreciates the questions and suggestions from 
commenters to clarify the relationship between the Safety Committee and 
Accountable Executive. FTA agrees that the Safety Committee should have 
a strong voice in safety-related decision-making and agrees that the 
Safety Committee is not merely an advisory body.
    In response to comments, FTA is adopting several revisions to the 
rule to clarify the role of the Accountable Executive regarding 
implementation of mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee. As a 
preliminary matter, FTA agrees with the commenters who opined that the 
Accountable Executive must implement safety risk mitigations that are 
included in the ASP. Section 673.5 of FTA's 2018 PTASP final rule 
clearly conveys that the Accountable Executive is ``ultimately 
responsible for carrying out the Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plan of a public transportation agency.'' FTA understands commenters' 
concern about aligning authority and accountability. However, the 
Accountable Executive must implement an ASP that has been duly approved 
by the agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors. If the 
approved ASP includes mitigations, the Accountable Executive must carry 
them out. This is consistent with the 2018 final rule and FTA's current 
practice.
    Further, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) requires transit agencies to 
include mitigations in their ASP related to the safety risk reduction 
program, including mitigations related to vehicular and pedestrian 
accidents involving buses and assaults on transit workers. To harmonize 
the regulation with this statutory requirement, FTA is adopting 
Sec. Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iv) and 673.25(d)(5), which convey that the ASP 
must include safety risk reduction program mitigations when recommended 
by the Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment. FTA refers 
readers to Section II.G of this preamble for more discussion about 
these changes.
    Due to the above, FTA agrees with the commenters who argued that 
proposed Sec.  673.23(d)(1) is contrary to statute. This proposal 
stated that the Accountable Executive ``receives and considers'' 
mitigations from the Safety Committee. Given that the Accountable 
Executive is ultimately responsible for implementing the transit 
agency's approved ASP, FTA agrees that the Accountable Executive must 
implement the safety risk reduction program mitigations included in the 
ASP under Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iv). While FTA acknowledges that the 
Accountable Executive retains control or direction over the human and 
capital resources needed to maintain an agency's ASP under Sec.  673.5, 
the Accountable Executive does not have authority under part 673 to 
decline to implement elements of an approved ASP. Accordingly, FTA is 
adopting revisions to Sec.  673.23(d)(1) to convey that the Accountable 
Executive must implement the safety risk reduction program mitigations 
included in the ASP under Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iv).
    FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329(d) does not require that the ASP 
include mitigations unrelated to the safety risk reduction program. As 
such, and in response to comments, FTA also has revised Sec.  
673.23(d)(1) to clarify the Accountable Executive's role with respect 
to these other mitigations. This provision requires that the 
Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider receives and 
must consider all other safety risk mitigations that are recommended by 
the Safety Committee (i.e., mitigations not related to the safety risk 
reduction program). The Accountable Executive may decide not to 
implement these mitigations, consistent with the Accountable 
Executive's authority over the control or direction over the human and 
capital resources needed to develop and maintain the ASP. However, FTA 
believes that the Accountable Executive should articulate a reasoned 
explanation for this decision. Accordingly, FTA has added Sec.  
673.25(d)(6) to the regulation, which provides that if the Accountable 
Executive declines to implement such a mitigation, the Accountable 
Executive must prepare a written statement explaining this decision 
consistent with the PTASP recordkeeping requirements at Sec.  673.31. 
The Accountable Executive then must submit and present this explanation 
to the Safety Committee and the Board of Directors or equivalent entity 
for discussion. FTA believes that this strikes a reasonable balance 
between the Accountable Executive's ultimate accountability for safety 
performance and the Safety Committee's vitally important role in the 
SMS process. FTA emphasizes that the transit agency may opt to include 
these other mitigations in the ASP if it wishes to do so. As explained 
above, the Accountable Executive would then be required to implement 
these mitigations because they are included in the ASP.
    Regarding the PTASP FAQ mentioned by commenters, FTA rescinded the 
FAQ in 2022. Transit agencies should not rely upon it as current 
guidance regarding the role of the Accountable Executive and Safety 
Committee.
Focus of the Safety Committee
    Comments: Several commenters discussed the focus of the Safety 
Committee. Eight commenters expressed concern that the Safety Committee 
or its activities could be used as a negotiating tactic in collective 
bargaining or other labor negotiation activities. Some of these 
commenters asserted this could delay approval of an ASP and therefore 
impact an agency's ability to receive section 5307 funding. One 
commenter urged FTA to prohibit use of the Safety Committee to conduct 
contract negotiations or other collective bargaining activities.
    Five commenters stated that FTA should require that Safety 
Committees focus exclusively on safety. One of these commenters 
suggested FTA do so by revising the definition of ``Safety Committee'' 
in Sec.  673.5.
    Response: FTA agrees that the Federal statutory responsibilities of 
Safety Committees, as outlined in 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), focus on safety at 
the transit agency. FTA's definition of ``Safety Committee'' at Sec.  
673.5 reflects that the Safety Committee is a joint labor-management 
committee ``on issues related to safety.'' FTA believes that this 
definition sufficiently sets forth the focus of the Safety Committee 
and therefore declines to make any further changes to the regulation. 
However, FTA will not prohibit the Safety Committee from addressing 
issues with a nexus to safety outside of those identified in this final 
rule. FTA appreciates that some safety concerns may overlap with labor-
related concerns and that individual Safety Committees will establish 
their own protocols for addressing safety-related business. Further, 
FTA appreciates that transit agencies may need to amend the terms of 
their collective bargaining agreements or other labor agreements to 
enable transit workers to participate in the Safety Committee.
Relationship to Safety Departments
    Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that certain safety-
critical tasks assigned to the Safety Committee in Sec.  673.19(d) 
should be the responsibility of Safety Department representatives. Two 
commenters expressed concern regarding the practicality of having 
frontline transit worker representatives complete the work described in 
Sec.  673.19(d).
    Three commenters opposed FTA's proposed language in Sec.  673.19(d) 
that

[[Page 25714]]

the Safety Committee conducts activities to ``oversee'' the agency's 
safety performance, expressing that this is the responsibility of the 
agency's Chief Safety Officer and Accountable Executive. These 
commenters suggested that FTA replace the word ``oversee'' with 
alternative language. One commenter further urged FTA to clarify that 
the decisions of an agency's Safety Department are not subject to 
review by the Safety Committee. One commenter urged FTA to clarify that 
``oversee'' refers only to safety performance and advising on safety 
initiatives.
    Response: FTA appreciates the concerns about the potential for 
overlap between the Safety Committee and Safety Department and the 
practicality of having frontline transit workers complete the work 
described in Sec.  673.19(d). However, these Safety Committee 
responsibilities are statutorily required.
    FTA notes that the Safety Committee does not replace the transit 
agency's Safety Department but rather augments the transit agency's SMS 
by supporting Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance processes 
such as the safety risk reduction program. The Safety Committee has 
several statutorily defined responsibilities to oversee safety 
performance through review and approval of the ASP, setting annual 
safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program, and 
supporting the operation of the transit agency's SMS. Therefore, FTA 
does not agree that it is appropriate to replace ``oversee'' with 
alternative language.
    This final rule does not eliminate any existing authority, 
accountability, or responsibility established for the Accountable 
Executive, Safety Department, or Chief Safety Officer. FTA reminds 
commenters the Safety Committee has an equal number of management 
representatives, which may include members of the Safety Department.
Monitoring Safety Committee Performance
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concern about holding Safety 
Committees accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities. Two of 
these commenters asked who has ultimate responsibility for the Safety 
Committee and for overseeing its performance. One commenter further 
asked who is responsible for maintaining compliance with Federal 
requirements in the absence of consensus in the Safety Committee. 
Another commenter argued that the transit agency should have ultimate 
responsibility for the Safety Committee. One commenter urged FTA to add 
Safety Committee accountability measures or best practices to the final 
rule, noting that certain Federal funding is contingent on having an 
ASP that is approved by the Safety Committee.
    Response: FTA appreciates the questions and suggestions from 
commenters on Safety Committee accountability. FTA reiterates that the 
Safety Committee's responsibilities are required by statute. Per Sec.  
673.23(d)(3), transit agencies must identify the authorities, 
accountabilities, and responsibilities necessary for the Safety 
Committee, as they relate to the development and management of the 
transit agency's SMS. FTA believes that transit agencies are capable of 
ensuring appropriate accountability for Safety Committee members and 
Sec.  673.23(d)(3) provides appropriate flexibility for them to do so. 
FTA notes that the existence of the Safety Committee does not eliminate 
any existing authority, accountability, or responsibility established 
for the Accountable Executive, Safety Department, or Chief Safety 
Officer. FTA understands that disputes might occur on the Safety 
Committee and addresses this issue in Section II.F.6 of this preamble 
below.
6. Decision-Making and Dispute Resolution
    Comments: Several commenters offered comments and proposed 
requirements for Safety Committee decision-making processes.
    FTA received comments asking for clarification regarding ``voting'' 
as the mechanism for approving an ASP. One transit agency noted the 
word ``vote'' in proposed Sec.  673.19(c) implies that Safety 
Committees must approve the ASP through voting, which is contrary to 
the commenter's previous understanding. This commenter noted that 
voting is workable if the Accountable Executive is the tiebreaker. Two 
labor commenters stated that Safety Committees should be required to 
use a one-person-one-vote system with majority rule or another voting 
system.
    In contrast, one transit agency stated that FTA should remove the 
word ``vote'' from Sec.  673.19(c), arguing that voting increases 
burden and the likelihood of conflict and that Safety Committees should 
be permitted to establish their own decision-making processes.
    FTA received several comments voicing opinions regarding Safety 
Committee tiebreaking and dispute resolution mechanisms; these 
commenters noted that deadlocks are likely given that committees are 
comprised of equal numbers of management and transit worker 
representatives. FTA received one comment asking what to do if the 
Safety Committee could not come to an agreement.
    Several commenters shared feedback on FTA's proposal in Sec.  
673.19(c)(7), which would require the ASP to include procedures on how 
the Safety Committee will manage disputes and tie votes to ensure it 
carries out its operations. Five commenters stated that FTA should 
require a specific tiebreaking mechanism in the final rule, with one 
commenter noting that leaving this dispute resolution process up to the 
transit agency could lead to confusion and inequity. Several 
commenters, including transit agencies and a transit industry 
association, either suggested that FTA designate the Accountable 
Executive or Chief Safety Officer as the tiebreaker for the Safety 
Committee.
    One of these commenters stated that having the Accountable 
Executive as the tiebreaker ensures the Accountable Executive remains 
accountable and that Federal funds are protected.
    FTA received several comments, including from labor organizations 
and certain members of Congress, arguing that the Accountable Executive 
must not act unilaterally as a tiebreaker for the Safety Committee. 
Commenters stated that designating a member of management as a 
tiebreaker would circumvent the requirement for equal representation on 
the Safety Committee and that FTA should establish a fair and 
consistent process that maintains the power balance between management 
and frontline transit workers. These commenters urged FTA instead to 
require transit agencies to use the dispute resolution procedure in the 
transit agency's collective bargaining agreement or some other mutually 
agreed-upon process.
    One commenter also suggested that FTA require nonunionized transit 
agencies to establish a process to send Safety Committee disputes to a 
neutral third party decisionmaker.
    One commenter noted it would be problematic to send tie votes to a 
third-party decision-maker selected only by one side or to allow a 
committee chair to break ties. Two other commenters opposed sending 
disputes to a neutral arbitrator or mediator, stating that third party 
neutrals might not have appropriate background knowledge to address the 
issue and that this would be a lengthy process.
    One commenter requested clarification regarding who will write the 
dispute resolution process and how it will be approved and noted that 
if the process is subject to labor-management agreement there could be 
two deadlocks

[[Page 25715]]

instead of one. One commenter stated that in the event of deadlock with 
respect to the dispute resolution procedures, the Accountable Executive 
should be the tiebreaker in that one specific scenario only.
    Two commenters requested that FTA provide guidance on Safety 
Committee dispute resolution best practices. One commenter recommended 
that FTA convene a national working group with transit labor and 
management representatives to establish these best practices and 
requested that FTA provide a sample procedure or workflow for Safety 
Committees to use to resolve disputes.
    Response: FTA acknowledges the comments received expressing 
opinions on Safety Committee voting processes. FTA carefully considered 
all such comments and the associated concerns, including the varied 
implications of different voting systems and the potential conflicts 
surrounding tie votes. In this final rule, FTA is not mandating a 
specific mechanism for Safety Committee decision-making and has removed 
the word ``voting'' from Sec.  673.19(c).
    However, FTA agrees with commenters that Safety Committees need an 
agreed-upon decision-making process. It is therefore requiring at 
Sec. Sec.  673.19(c)(6) and (8) that Safety Committee procedures 
include how the committee will reach and record decisions and manage 
disputes to ensure the Safety Committee carries out its operations. 
Safety Committees may decide to adopt a voting mechanism, but FTA is 
not requiring them to do so. This will provide each Safety Committee 
the flexibility to adopt the decision-making mechanism that best works 
for them.
    In response to comments requesting clarification about disputes, 
FTA also has revised Sec.  673.19(c)(8) to clarify that the Safety 
Committee may use the dispute resolution or arbitration process from 
the transit agency's collective bargaining agreement, or a different 
process that the Safety Committee develops and agrees upon. As noted 
above, FTA is not mandating a specific mechanism or avenue for 
resolving disputes, as FTA has determined that transit agencies and 
their Safety Committees should have flexibility to establish the 
procedure best suited to their unique environments. Agencies may decide 
to leverage existing dispute resolution processes, such as sending 
disputes to a neutral third-party or using the dispute resolution or 
arbitration process from the transit agency's collective bargaining 
agreement, but they are not required to do so.
    However, FTA also revised Sec.  673.19(c)(8) to make clear that the 
Accountable Executive, may not be the tiebreaker to resolve Safety 
Committee disputes. FTA has defined the Accountable Executive to have 
the responsibility for signing the ASP prior to it being sent to the 
Safety Committee for approval. Additionally, the Accountable Executive 
is ultimately responsible for implementing the transit agency's 
approved ASP. Because of these unique roles within the PTASP process, 
if the Accountable Executive also were to serve as the tiebreaker, it 
impermissibly would give them authority to perform the roles prescribed 
by Congress for Safety Committees, including approval of an ASP, 
establishment of performance targets for the risk reduction program, 
and determination of risk reduction program mitigations for inclusion 
in the ASP. See 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A) and (I) and (d)(4)(A).
    FTA agrees that the dispute resolution process must be agreed upon 
by the members of the Safety Committee using the Safety Committee 
procedures in Sec.  673.19(c)(6) to reach and record decisions and 
subject to the provisions in Sec.  673.19(c)(8). The ASP and any 
documents incorporated by reference that are necessary for fulfilling 
PTASP requirements, including the Safety Committee procedures, are 
subject to the Safety Committee's review through the annual ASP review 
and approval process. FTA also strongly encourages transit agencies and 
Safety Committees to work collaboratively to establish these procedures 
prior to the ASP approval process.
    FTA appreciates the comments requesting additional guidance and 
will consider actions relating to Safety Committee decision-making in 
the future.
7. Agency Safety Plan Approval
    Comments: Eight commenters expressed concern with requiring the 
Safety Committee to approve the ASP, as set forth in proposed 
Sec. Sec.  673.19(d)(1) and 673.11(a)(1).
    Three commenters stated the Safety Committee should not be involved 
in ASP approval process and argued that labor should participate in the 
development process in an advisory role instead. Two of these 
commenters asked FTA to mirror the language regarding Safety Committee 
ASP review on proposed Sec.  673.17(b)(1), which states the ASP is 
developed in cooperation with frontline transit workers. Three 
commenters suggested that the final rule state that the Safety 
Committee reviews ``draft'' ASP language, arguing that the Safety 
Committee has no authority to change policies or procedures summarized 
or referenced in the ASP. Similarly, a separate commenter asked FTA to 
clarify that the underlying drafting of the ASP most likely will be 
completed by agency management or safety consultants, not the Safety 
Committee. One commenter noted that Safety Committee approval of the 
ASP adds burden for transit agencies without any additional funding 
support.
    In contrast, FTA received other comments supporting Safety 
Committee approval of the ASP. Comments from members of Congress and a 
labor organization stated that congressional intent was for Safety 
Committees to have more than an advisory role, with the labor 
organization stating that Congress intended Safety Committees to be 
delegated decisions on safety matters.
    One commenter stated that transit agencies do not always provide 
sufficient time for Safety Committee members to review ASP updates, 
which means that Safety Committees cannot reasonably and adequately 
approve the ASP.
    Two commenters stated that the rule should establish explicit 
requirements for how Safety Committees approve ASPs.
    Response: FTA acknowledges the commenters that expressed concern 
with the requirement for Safety Committees to review and approve ASPs. 
FTA notes that ASP approval is a key Safety Committee responsibility 
required by statute at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(A). FTA reiterates that per 
the statute, the Safety Committee's role is not merely advisory.
    FTA declines to establish more specific requirements for how Safety 
Committees approve ASPs. As discussed in section II.F.6 of this 
preamble, FTA is adopting requirements at Sec.  673.19(c)(6) for 
documenting how the Safety Committee will reach and record decisions 
and at Sec.  673.19(c)(8) for documenting how the Safety Committee will 
manage disputes to ensure it carries out its operations. FTA is 
providing each Safety Committee flexibility to adopt the decision-
making mechanism that best works for them. FTA understands the concern 
regarding Safety Committees potentially not having sufficient time to 
review the ASP. Section 673.11(a) requires the transit agency to 
establish a timeline for the annual ASP review and update. Further, 
Sec.  673.19(c)(9) requires that Safety Committee procedures address 
how the committee will carry out its responsibilities, which includes 
ASP approval. FTA encourages transit agencies and Safety Committees to

[[Page 25716]]

establish the ASP update timeline cooperatively and to ensure that the 
timeline permits each applicable group sufficient time to review the 
ASP and any referenced materials.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established a role for the Safety 
Committee to approve the ASP as one vitally important step in the ASP 
approval process. This final rule reflects the critical role Congress 
established for the Safety Committee.
8. Access to Agency Data and Resources
    Comments: FTA received several comments related to the Safety 
Committee's access to transit agency data. Several commenters stated 
that FTA should require transit agencies to provide Safety Committees 
access to all safety data available to the transit agency, including 
safety event information and any information that is reasonably 
relevant for accomplishing the Safety Committee's responsibilities. One 
commenter stated that this information should include each hazard 
report that a transit agency receives from workers and any action taken 
in response. One commenter stated that this should include any 
information described in Sec.  673.31 when requested by the Safety 
Committee. This commenter argued that a Safety Committee cannot 
meaningfully review or approve an ASP without access to this 
information. Another commenter noted that it is difficult for labor 
representatives to be partners in solving safety issues if the Safety 
Committee does not have quick access to relevant information. One local 
union stated anecdotally that its transit agency does not permit the 
Safety Committee to access certain information unless the committee 
files an information request.
    Two commenters stated that FTA should require transit agencies to 
allow Safety Committees to inspect all transit system vehicles and 
properties at least once per year and to inspect any vehicle or 
workspace involved in an accident, assault, or other serious safety 
event within 48 hours of the incident. One local union noted 
anecdotally that its transit agency has not permitted the Safety 
Committee to conduct walk-through inspections of transit property.
    Response: FTA appreciates that the Safety Committee's work will 
require transit agencies and Safety Committees to agree upon the 
appropriate level of access the Safety Committee needs to perform its 
work. Section 673.19(c)(5) requires that Safety Committee procedures 
address how the committee will access transit agency information, 
resources, and tools to support its deliberations. This provision also 
requires that the procedures address how the Safety Committee will 
access submissions to the agency's transit worker safety reporting 
program. While the requirement at 673.19(c)(5) does not require a 
transit agency to provide the Safety Committee with every piece of data 
and information maintained by the agency, the requirement is inclusive 
of all data reasonably necessary for the Safety Committee to perform 
its statutorily required responsibilities. Transit agencies must 
provide access to information necessary for the Safety Committee to 
execute their duties established under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and as 
described in this part and in the transit agency's ASP.
    FTA disagrees that it is appropriate for FTA to require transit 
agencies to permit Safety Committee access to specific locations for 
inspections. Congress granted specific RTA inspection authority to 
State Safety Oversight Agencies but has not established this authority 
for Safety Committees. Further, transit agency safety departments 
typically conduct these types of activities. FTA does not expect a 
transit agency's Safety Committee to replace a transit agency's safety 
department. As noted above, FTA expects that Safety Committees will 
have access to information reasonably necessary for them to fulfill 
their statutory responsibilities. This may include information related 
to inspections, to the extent it is reasonably necessary for the Safety 
Committee to identify and recommend mitigations under 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(I).

G. Section 673.20--Safety Risk Reduction Program

1. Applicability
    Comments: One commenter supported limiting the applicability of the 
safety risk reduction program to large urbanized area providers. One 
commenter asked whether the safety risk reduction program applies only 
to bus modes. Another commenter noted that the safety risk reduction 
program does not appear to address historic streetcars and other open 
cab rail vehicles.
    Response: FTA appreciates the support from commenters. FTA notes 
that the definition of ``large urbanized area provider'' in this rule 
at Sec.  673.5 does not distinguish modes of service. The safety risk 
reduction program requirements therefore apply to any transit agency 
that meets the definition of a large urbanized area provider. The 
safety risk reduction program includes all modes of service except for 
modes that are excluded from PTASP generally under Sec.  673.11(e) 
(i.e., passenger ferries regulated by the United States Coast Guard and 
rail fixed guideway public transportation service regulated by the 
Federal Railroad Administration). The safety risk reduction program 
applies to historic streetcar service provided by large urbanized area 
providers, to the extent this service is otherwise subject to the PTASP 
regulation.
2. Connection to SMS
    Comments: Several commenters sought clarification about FTA's 
expectations for the safety risk reduction program.
    Many commenters, including transit agencies and an SSOA, asked FTA 
to clarify the relationship between the safety risk reduction program 
and FTA's existing SMS requirements. One commenter recommended that FTA 
clarify that the safety risk reduction program is a prescribed example 
of the Safety Risk Management (SRM) process under SMS. Another 
commenter argued that if the safety risk reduction program is just a 
component of the SRM process, then FTA should consider including it in 
the SRM section of the regulation (Sec.  673.25). Relatedly, two 
commenters requested that FTA clarify the difference between safety 
risk reduction and safety risk mitigation.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments identifying the connection 
between the safety risk reduction program and a transit agency's SMS 
processes. FTA agrees that a safety risk reduction program operates 
within an agency's SMS to support efforts to manage safety. FTA 
clarifies that it does not intend for safety risk reduction programs to 
exist outside of or separate from a transit agency's SMS.
    In the NPRM, FTA proposed that all safety risk reduction program 
requirements would be in a distinct section of the regulation (Sec.  
673.20). In response to comments, FTA has determined that this 
organization creates confusion by obscuring the program's relationship 
with SMS. To clarify this understanding and to ensure the consistent 
application of SMS processes, FTA has removed Sec.  673.20 from the 
final rule and has relocated these provisions to other sections of the 
regulation, including the Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance 
sections. FTA believes this change reinforces that a safety risk 
reduction program is not separate from SMS and that required safety 
risk reduction program elements and activities should operate within 
the Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance components of SMS.

[[Page 25717]]

    Accordingly, provisions regarding identifying mitigations for the 
safety risk reduction program are now located in the Safety Risk 
Mitigation section of the regulation at Sec. Sec.  673.25(d)(3) through 
(d)(6). Provisions regarding continuous improvement requirements for 
the safety risk reduction program are now located in the Safety 
Assurance section at Sec. Sec.  673.27(d)(1) through (d)(3).
    In addition, FTA has located the provisions setting forth the 
general elements of the safety risk reduction program to Sec.  
673.11(a)(7). FTA believes that this is the most appropriate location 
because Sec.  673.11 sets forth the elements that a transit agency's 
ASP must contain. As mentioned previously, the safety risk reduction 
program must be in the ASP per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I).
3. Safety Performance Targets
General
    Comments: Several commenters, including an FTA webinar participant, 
requested additional guidance on how Safety Committees set safety 
performance targets for the safety risk reduction program. One 
commenter asked that FTA set specific guidelines for how to set 
targets. Another commenter recommended that Safety Committees should 
advise the transit agency on safety performance targets but should not 
set them, given that the targets have financial consequences for the 
transit agency if they are missed. One commenter argued that Safety 
Committee deadlocks or setting unattainable targets could require 
transit agencies to spend funding on mitigations that are inappropriate 
or outside of an agency's budget.
    Several comments pertained to approval of safety risk reduction 
program performance targets. One commenter urged FTA to require that 
the Accountable Executive approve the performance targets. One 
commenter stated that both labor and management should certify their 
satisfaction with the safety performance targets, as well as whether 
the targets have been met. A separate commenter stated that FTA should 
require management to adopt any safety performance targets that the 
Safety Committee sets.
    Another commenter noted that setting safety performance targets to 
reduce vehicular and pedestrian accidents involving buses through the 
safety risk reduction program would require data from local and State 
highway agencies and railroad companies. The commenter stated that this 
would add considerable burden but would be effective and would increase 
interagency cooperation.
    Response: FTA appreciates that Safety Committees will need to work 
carefully to develop safety performance targets that are reasonable and 
attainable. Although FTA does not believe rulemaking is the appropriate 
forum for additional guidance, it will consider issuing technical 
assistance on setting safety performance targets in the future. 
Further, as required by statute, FTA defines required safety 
performance measures for the safety risk reduction program in the 
National Safety Plan.
    FTA notes that per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4), the Safety Committee is 
the entity required by statute to set the safety performance targets 
for the safety risk reduction program. The Safety Committee's role is 
not merely to ``advise'' on the performance targets, but rather to set 
them.
    FTA acknowledges the comments recommending FTA establish additional 
requirements for approval of safety performance targets for the safety 
risk reduction program. FTA appreciates the recommendations and has 
carefully considered each but declines to make any changes in response. 
FTA notes that, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(F) safety performance 
targets must be included in the ASP, which is then approved by the 
Safety Committee and transit agency's Board of Directors or equivalent 
entity. This approval process incorporates the perspectives of both 
frontline transit worker and transit agency management representatives, 
as well as the Board of Directors. Because the PTASP regulation 
requires the ASP to undergo annual review and approval, and Safety 
Committee approval of the ASP is part of the annual review and approval 
process, FTA does not believe that an additional approval process for 
safety performance targets is necessary. In addition, FTA believes that 
the equal representation of labor and management on the Safety 
Committee sufficiently addresses the commenter's concern that the 
Safety Committee might set unattainable performance targets. FTA also 
notes that the safety set-aside is a minimum amount that a transit 
agency must spend on safety related projects.
    As discussed in section II.F.5 of this preamble, the rule does not 
establish Accountable Executive veto power over the contents of the 
ASP. The Accountable Executive is ultimately responsible for carrying 
out the ASP that has been approved by the Safety Committee and the 
transit agency's Board of Directors, including safety performance 
targets.
    In response to the comment that data would be required from local 
and State highway agencies and railroad companies to set safety 
performance targets, FTA notes that the required safety performance 
measures for the safety risk reduction program are defined in FTA's 
National Safety Plan and only require data that transit agencies are 
already required to report to the NTD. A transit agency will not need 
to gather additional data from local and State highway agencies and 
railroad companies to set safety performance targets for these required 
measures.
Three-Year Rolling Average
    Comments: Several comments pertained to the requirement to set 
safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program based 
on a three-year rolling average of NTD data. One of these commenters 
recommended that Safety Committees should simply be given the three-
year rolling average instead of establishing the safety performance 
target, arguing that there is no need for the Safety Committee to 
establish the target under FTA's proposed language. This commenter 
further asked whether the Safety Committee is permitted to select a 
target higher or lower than the three-year rolling average. Two 
commenters suggested that FTA encourage Safety Committees to use 
existing data from other processes, such as SSOA and internal agency 
reviews, to determine whether a transit agency has made progress toward 
meeting its safety performance targets.
    Three commenters expressed concern regarding setting targets using 
a three-year rolling average of NTD data when the industry has not 
previously tracked the related metrics or has tracked the metrics under 
different thresholds. One of these commenters urged FTA to communicate 
to SSOAs that transit agencies do not need to set safety performance 
targets for the safety risk reduction program until they have three 
years of NTD data. Two commenters recommended that FTA require agencies 
to report data based on historical NTD assault definitions until three 
years of data under the new NTD ``assault on a transit worker'' 
definition is available. One of them expressed that transit agencies 
should not compare assault data using more than one metric, as this 
could lead to inaccuracies. Another commenter noted that the public 
might oppose an agency setting a fatality target higher than zero based 
on a 3-year rolling average of NTD data; however, setting a target at 
zero might be unattainable.
    Response: FTA appreciates the feedback received by commenters 
regarding the statutory requirement for Safety Committees to set safety 
performance targets for the safety risk

[[Page 25718]]

reduction program using a three-year rolling average of NTD data. The 
statute requires at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(A) that Safety Committees set 
these targets ``using a 3-year rolling average of the data submitted'' 
to the NTD. FTA interprets this to mean Safety Committees must base 
their target on the three-year rolling average. To reflect an annual 
reduction, the safety performance target must be set below the three-
year rolling average. However, Safety Committees have flexibility 
regarding the amount of annual reduction defined by their targets, as 
long as the methodology uses a three-year rolling average of data 
reported to the NTD and the targets reflect an annual reduction. For 
example, a Safety Committee may decide to set a target that is a 5% 
reduction from the previous three-year rolling average. Alternatively, 
a Safety Committee may set a target that represents an annual reduction 
of 10 injuries from the previous three-year rolling average. FTA 
therefore declines to adopt a requirement for the Safety Committee 
merely to be ``given'' the 3-year rolling average as the target. This 
would undermine the Safety Committee's statutory role in setting these 
targets and be contrary to the statute.
    In response to the commenters that suggested that FTA encourage 
Safety Committees to use existing data from other processes to support 
safety performance measurement, FTA agrees that a range of monitoring 
techniques can be useful for assessing progress towards reaching 
established safety performance targets, including existing processes 
identified by the commenter such as internal safety reviews and SSOA 
reviews. FTA notes that Sec.  673.19(d)(3)(iii) establishes the 
responsibility for Safety Committees to identify safety deficiencies, 
including any instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual 
safety performance target set for the safety risk reduction program. 
Transit agencies and their Safety Committees define the processes they 
will use to monitor safety performance and progress toward targets and 
instances where the agency does not meet an established safety 
performance target.
    FTA appreciates that several transit agencies may not previously 
have reported certain metrics and therefore do not have three years of 
historical NTD data on which to base their safety performance targets. 
FTA proposed in the NPRM that Safety Committees will not be required to 
set safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program 
until the agency has been required to report three years of data to the 
NTD corresponding to such performance measure. FTA is adopting this 
proposal in the final rule without change. FTA also intends to 
communicate this to transit agencies and SSOAs through guidance and 
technical assistance.
    FTA acknowledges the two commenters that recommended FTA require 
agencies to report data based on historical NTD definitions until three 
years of data under the new NTD ``assault on a transit worker'' 
definition is available. As explained above, this final rule 
incorporates the statutory requirement that Safety Committees use a 
three-year rolling average of data reported to the NTD. Therefore, 
target setting for a safety risk reduction program performance measure 
would begin only once an agency has been required to report data to the 
NTD for three years corresponding to such performance measure. In 
response to the comment about public perception of a non-zero safety 
performance target, FTA notes that Safety Committees are statutorily 
required to set safety performance targets using a three-year rolling 
average of data reported by the transit agency to the NTD and that this 
may mean establishing safety performance targets that are zero or non-
zero.
Annual Reduction
    Comments: Some comments related to FTA's statement in the preamble 
of the NPRM that safety performance targets for the safety risk 
reduction program must reflect an annual reduction. One commenter asked 
whether setting a target that reduces the rate of increase would count 
as a ``reduction.''
    Two commenters noted that safety performance typically ebbs and 
flows, particularly at smaller transit agencies. These commenters 
argued that some variation is mere ``noise,'' thus agencies should not 
be expected to have their safety performance targets reflect a 
continual reduction every year. One of these commenters stated that 
requiring an annual reduction might incentivize transit agencies to 
underreport safety events to the NTD. In addition, this commenter 
expressed concern that SSOAs and FTA might use this requirement as a 
justification to develop corrective action plans or other enforcement 
action.
    Another commenter expressed confusion about FTA's statement in the 
NPRM that Safety Committees have flexibility to determine the amount of 
annual reduction defined by the targets, stating that this seems 
inconsistent with FTA's role in establishing performance measures 
through the National Safety Plan.
    Response: In response to the commenter that asked whether setting a 
target that reduces the rate of increase would count as an annual 
``reduction'' for purposes of the target setting requirement, FTA notes 
that reducing the rate of increase does not necessarily result in an 
actual reduction. Therefore, a target that uses a reduction in the rate 
of increase would not necessarily meet the requirement to establish a 
target that requires an actual reduction. As described earlier, the 
safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee for the safety 
risk reduction program must reflect an annual reduction in the 
associated safety performance measure. However, FTA agrees that safety 
performance typically ebbs and flows, particularly at smaller transit 
agencies and notes that failure to meet a safety performance target set 
for the safety risk reduction program does not reflect a failure of 
safety management at the transit agency. Rather, the safety risk 
reduction program helps direct safety resources based on safety 
performance.
    FTA acknowledges the commenter that raised a concern that requiring 
an annual reduction could incentivize transit agencies to underreport 
safety events to the NTD. All transit agencies that are recipients or 
subrecipients of section 5307 funds are statutorily required to submit 
data to the NTD in uniform categories. Failure to report data in 
accordance with NTD requirements may result in a transit agency being 
ineligible to receive certain funding under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
    This final rule does not establish any SSOA safety performance 
measurement requirements or requirements relating to corrective action 
plans or SSOA enforcement. FTA encourages the commenter to refer to 49 
CFR part 674 for SSO Program requirements. However, FTA notes that this 
final rule does not limit or restrict existing FTA or SSOA enforcement 
authority.
    FTA acknowledges the commenter that expressed confusion about FTA's 
statement in the NPRM that Safety Committees have flexibility to 
determine the amount of annual reduction defined by the targets. The 
statute requires Safety Committees to set safety performance targets 
for the safety risk reduction program requirements ``using a 3-year 
rolling average of the data submitted'' to the NTD. FTA interprets this 
to mean Safety Committees do not have to set a target that matches the 
three-year rolling average, but that they must base their target on 
this average. For example, a

[[Page 25719]]

Safety Committee may decide to set a target that is a 5% reduction from 
the previous three-year rolling average. FTA notes that the Safety 
Committee's role in setting performance targets is different from FTA's 
role in establishing the safety performance measures through the 
National Safety Plan. The Safety Committee must set targets for the 
measures that FTA defines, but it has flexibility when setting these 
targets, as discussed above.
Timing of Target Setting
    Comments: A few comments pertained to the timing of setting safety 
performance targets for the safety risk reduction program. One 
commenter asked FTA to explain its reasoning for requiring these safety 
performance targets to be set on an annual basis, noting that certain 
actions to meet safety performance targets could take well over a year 
to implement and monitor. Another commenter asked FTA to clarify that 
Safety Committees set forward-looking targets (i.e., for the following 
year). The commenter stated that the ASP approval timeline for many 
agencies is in December, so a requirement to set targets for a year in 
which an ASP is approved is nonsensical.
    Response: FTA appreciates that policies, procedures, or mitigations 
put in place to help a transit agency achieve a safety performance 
target may become more effective over time and that a transit agency 
may not see the full safety performance benefit within one calendar 
year. However, FTA believes that an annual assessment of safety 
performance targets is appropriate. This allows transit agencies to 
monitor their progress, even when their progress may continue over 
multiple years. FTA disagrees with the perspective that because safety 
performance targets are forward-looking, safety performance targets 
cannot be set in the same year as an ASP is reviewed. FTA expects an 
ASP to be reviewed, updated as necessary, and approved (if necessary) 
every year. FTA also expects the Safety Committee of a large urbanized 
area provider to set safety performance targets for the safety risk 
reduction program every year. Transit agencies may establish ASP update 
schedules that coincide with Safety Committee target setting schedules 
as they see fit.
4. Safety Risk Mitigations
    Comments: FTA received several comments regarding the safety risk 
mitigation process for the safety risk reduction program, including one 
comment during an FTA webinar expressing confusion about the 
requirements.
    A labor organization stated that FTA's proposed language in Sec.  
673.20(a)(1), which sets forth the two statutory areas that must be 
included in a safety risk reduction program, is insufficient because it 
requires programs to merely ``address'' those two topics. This 
commenter and one additional commenter urged FTA to require transit 
agencies to set forth in their safety risk reduction programs specific 
actions that the transit agency will take, as recommended by the Safety 
Committee, to address the mitigation of vehicular and pedestrian safety 
events involving transit vehicles, and the mitigation of assaults on 
transit workers. It also requested that these specific actions include 
project timelines.
    One transit agency opposed the identification of the two areas in 
Sec.  673.20(a)(1), stating that FTA's identification of safety 
concerns conflicts with SMS and an agency's Safety Risk Management 
process. This commenter recommended that FTA either delete the 
reference to the two areas or revise the provision to allow the transit 
agency to identify the top hazards for the safety risk reduction 
program.
    Several commenters discussed whether transit agencies should be 
required to implement safety risk mitigations for the safety risk 
reduction program that are identified and recommended by the Safety 
Committee.
    Several commenters opposed FTA's proposed language at Sec.  
673.20(a)(4), which would require the Accountable Executive to 
implement certain mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee but 
allowed the Accountable Executive to decline to do so if they determine 
the mitigation will not improve the agency's overall safety 
performance. FTA received two comment letters from certain members of 
Congress stating that allowing the Accountable Executive to decline a 
safety risk reduction program mitigation recommended by the Safety 
Committee is contrary to Congressional intent in enacting the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These members of Congress urged FTA to 
remove this language, asserting there is no statutory authority for 
transit agency management to ignore or reject elements of an approved 
ASP, including safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction 
program identified by the Safety Committee. Several labor organization 
commenters expressed similar views and stated that transit agencies 
must implement all safety risk mitigations for the safety risk 
reduction program identified by the Safety Committee.
    Four commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed 
requirement for the Accountable Executive to ``consider'' specific 
safety risk mitigations, as proposed at Sec. Sec.  673.20(a)(2) and 
(a)(3). One commenter argued that this does not go far enough and urged 
FTA to require agencies to implement these mitigations when directed by 
the Safety Committee. Of these commenters, three supported their view 
by asserting that the safety risk reduction program is included in the 
ASP. Thus, when an ASP is approved, safety risk reduction program 
safety risk mitigations are approved as well.
    Other commenters, including transit agencies and a transit industry 
association, opposed proposed Sec.  673.20(a)(4) because it stated that 
the Accountable Executive ``must'' implement one or more of the 
mitigations recommended by the Safety Committee. Arguments raised by 
these commenters include that the provision is (1) too prescriptive, 
(2) overrides the agency's existing SMS and safety risk management 
process, (3) impinges upon the relationship between RTAs and SSOAs, (4) 
exceeds statutory requirements, and (5) diminishes the authority of the 
Accountable Executive. These commenters argued that the transit agency 
and Accountable Executive should not be required to implement Safety 
Committee recommendations, with one stating that mitigation 
implementation should be in accordance with the agency's hazard matrix. 
One commenter recommended replacing the word ``must'' with ``shall 
consider.''
    Two commenters expressed that requiring the consideration of 
specific mitigations in the safety risk reduction program, as proposed 
at Sec. Sec.  673.20(a)(2) and (a)(3), is inconsistent with SMS 
principles and will cause SMS to be less scalable and flexible. One of 
these commenters stated that the identification of two safety concerns 
and specific safety risk mitigations is inconsistent with data-driven 
risk assessment. The other commenter stated that a transit agency 
should have flexibility to determine mitigations based on its SMS 
processes. This commenter also asked FTA to clarify how it will gauge 
compliance with the requirement, urging FTA not to find an agency non-
compliant if a mitigation is not appropriate for the agency's unique 
operating characteristics. Another commenter expressed concern that the 
mitigations mentioned in this provision are not readily available and 
require

[[Page 25720]]

significant testing to be fully operational, arguing that there are no 
accepted standards for these technologies.
    One commenter observed that the preamble to the NPRM stated that 
transit agencies must consider mitigations related to assault 
mitigation infrastructure and technology in any type of transit vehicle 
and in transit facilities, but Sec.  673.20(a)(3) only included 
``transit vehicles.''
    Response: FTA acknowledges the large number of comments summarized 
above related to requirements for safety risk mitigations resulting 
from the safety risk reduction program. FTA has reviewed and thoroughly 
considered all comments received.
    FTA notes that the two program areas for the safety risk reduction 
program identified in Sec.  673.20(a)(1) are statutorily required. FTA 
therefore declines to adopt the suggestion to delete or revise them. As 
described in section II.G.2 of the preamble above, FTA is adopting the 
provision originally proposed at Sec.  673.20(a)(1) but has relocated 
it to Sec.  673.11(a)(7).
    FTA did not state explicitly in the NPRM that mitigations for the 
safety risk reduction program are included in the ASP. However, FTA 
agrees with commenters that this is what the statute requires. 
Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1) sets forth the required elements of 
a transit agency's ASP. This includes the safety risk reduction program 
at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I). This provision further requires that the 
safety risk reduction program include mitigations, including (1) 
measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus operators that 
contribute to accidents, including retrofits to vehicles in revenue 
service and specifications for future procurements that reduce 
visibility impairments; and (2) the deployment of assault mitigation 
infrastructure and technology on buses. FTA therefore understands that 
per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I), the ASP must include the safety risk 
reduction program, which in turn must include mitigations. To harmonize 
the regulation with the statutory requirement, and in response to 
comments, FTA has added Sec. Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iv) and 673.25(d)(5) to 
the regulation. Together, these provisions convey that for large 
urbanized area providers, the ASP must include mitigations for the 
safety risk reduction program, including mitigations relating to 
vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles or 
assaults on transit workers, when identified and recommended by a 
Safety Committee based on a safety risk assessment. FTA notes that this 
is consistent with the standard SRM process in Sec.  673.25(d)(1), in 
which safety risk mitigations are identified when they are ``necessary 
as a result of the agency's safety risk assessment to reduce the 
likelihood and severity of the consequences.'' However, FTA does not 
agree that the ASP must also include specific project timelines for 
carrying out these mitigations. Transit agencies may include timelines 
but are not required by statute or regulation to do so.
    FTA appreciates the numerous comments discussing whether the 
transit agency must implement the safety risk reduction program 
mitigations that the Safety Committee recommends. FTA proposed at Sec.  
673.20(a)(4) of the NPRM that the Accountable Executive must implement 
one or more mitigations related to assaults and injuries to transit 
workers when recommended by the Safety Committee based on a safety risk 
analysis. This provision would have allowed the Accountable Executive 
to decline to implement the mitigation if the Accountable Executive 
determined it would not improve the agency's overall safety 
performance. FTA further stated in the NPRM preamble that the 
Accountable Executive could reject a mitigation due to its ``direction 
over the human and capital resources needed to develop and maintain the 
ASP and . . . ultimate accountability for the agency's safety 
performance.'' Upon thorough consideration of the comments received and 
re-analysis of 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I), FTA has determined that this 
proposal is inconsistent with the statute. Accordingly, FTA is adopting 
several revisions to the safety risk reduction program provisions to 
harmonize the regulation with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
    FTA agrees with the commenters who argued that the Accountable 
Executive must implement safety risk mitigations that are included in 
the ASP. Given that the statute requires a transit agency's ASP to 
include certain mitigations for the safety risk reduction program, the 
Accountable Executive must implement these mitigations. While FTA 
acknowledges that the Accountable Executive has discretion over the 
human and capital resources needed to carry out the ASP under Sec.  
673.5, the Accountable Executive does not have authority to decline to 
implement elements of an ASP that has been duly approved by the 
agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors.
    FTA therefore declines to adopt proposed Sec.  673.20(a)(4), as it 
would have allowed the Accountable Executive to decline to implement 
certain mitigations in a manner that is inconsistent with the statute. 
FTA instead is adopting provisions at Sec. Sec.  673.25(d)(6) and 
673.23(d)(1) to set forth the responsibilities of the Accountable 
Executive regarding Safety Committee mitigations for the safety risk 
reduction program. Readers should refer to section II.F.5 of the 
preamble above for more discussion about these changes and the role of 
the Accountable Executive.
    Given these revisions that FTA is adopting in this final rule, FTA 
does not agree that it is necessary to change the word ``consider,'' as 
proposed in Sec. Sec.  670.20(a)(2)-(3). The word ``consider'' reflects 
the flexibility inherent in SMS. Transit agencies and their Safety 
Committees have flexibility to recommend the safety risk mitigations 
through the safety risk reduction program that are appropriate to their 
unique operating environments. FTA therefore substantively adopts the 
provisions originally proposed at Sec. Sec.  670.20(a)(2)-(3) but has 
relocated them to Sec. Sec.  673.25(d)(3)-(4), as explained in section 
II.G.2 of this preamble above.
    FTA acknowledges the numerous commenters that opposed FTA requiring 
an Accountable Executive to implement safety risk mitigations 
recommended by the Safety Committee due to concerns regarding conflict 
with existing SMS principles, conflict with the authority of the 
Accountable Executive, reduced implementation flexibility, a lack of 
accepted standards for the associated technologies, and a lack of 
availability of mitigations. FTA notes that this requirement is 
established by statute. As discussed in the Safety Committee section 
above, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) requires the ASP to include mitigations 
related to the safety risk reduction program, including (1) measures to 
reduce visibility impairments for bus operators that contribute to 
accidents and (2) the deployment of assault mitigation infrastructure 
and technology on buses when a safety risk assessment determines such 
measures would be effective at reducing associated safety events. FTA 
further notes that this final rule maintains the role of the 
Accountable Executive as having control or direction over the human and 
capital resources needed to develop and implement both the transit 
agency's ASP and the transit agency's Transit Asset Management Plan. 
Further, FTA notes that not all safety risk mitigations are required to 
be included in the ASP; only those identified by the Safety Committee 
through the safety risk reduction program.

[[Page 25721]]

    FTA also acknowledges commenters that urged FTA to require transit 
agencies to implement all safety risk mitigations identified by the 
Safety Committee as part of the safety risk reduction program. FTA 
confirms that this final rule requires the implementation of all such 
safety risk mitigations. One of the Safety Committee's key 
responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii) is ``identifying 
and recommending risk-based mitigations or strategies necessary to 
reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences identified through 
the agency's safety risk assessment.'' As discussed in the Safety 
Committee section above, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I) requires the ASP to 
include mitigations related to the safety risk reduction program, 
including (1) measures to reduce visibility impairments for bus 
operators that contribute to accidents and (2) the deployment of 
assault mitigation infrastructure and technology on buses when a safety 
risk assessment determines such measures would be effective at reducing 
associated safety events.
    The statute does not require an agency to include mitigations 
unrelated to the safety risk reduction program in the ASP. For any 
mitigations identified and recommended by the Safety Committee that are 
not included in the ASP, FTA is requiring at Sec.  673.23(d)(1)(ii) 
that an Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider 
receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigations that are 
recommended by the Safety Committee. In response to the comment 
regarding FTA's evaluation of compliance with requirements related to 
safety risk mitigations established through the safety risk reduction 
program, FTA notes that it monitors compliance with part 673 
requirements through its existing triennial review process. However, 
FTA notes that transit agencies are required to allocate their safety 
set aside to address a missed safety performance target in the safety 
risk reduction program. This means that an agency will still be 
required to allocate resources in an instance of an inappropriate or 
ineffective safety risk mitigation that has not enabled the agency to 
meet the associated safety performance target. In this way, the 
requirements of the safety risk reduction program help support 
continuous improvement by ensuring that ineffective safety risk 
mitigations are addressed to support improvement in safety performance.
    Regarding the inconsistency between the preamble and regulatory 
text in the NPRM regarding consideration of the deployment of assault 
mitigation infrastructure and technology, FTA notes that there was an 
error in proposed Sec.  673.20(a)(3). FTA confirms that the preamble 
was correct: This requirement is intended to apply to both transit 
vehicles and transit facilities and assaults on transit workers are not 
limited to assaults that occur on transit vehicles. In response to 
comments, FTA has revised this provision to include the deployment of 
assault mitigation infrastructure and technology in transit facilities. 
FTA has relocated this provision from Sec.  673.20(a)(3) to Sec.  
673.25(d)(4), as discussed in section II.G.2 of this preamble above.
5. Scope of the Safety Risk Reduction Program
    Comments: One commenter recommended removing the word ``injury'' 
from the description of the safety risk reduction program in Sec.  
673.20(a) and safety performance targets in Sec.  673.20(b). The 
commenter noted that the definition of safety event includes the term 
``injury,'' so this deletion would avoid unnecessary repetition. 
Another commenter asked for clarification of this term and recommended 
that it be defined in the same way as in the NTD.
    Response: FTA acknowledges that some safety events may result in 
injuries. However, FTA disagrees that addressing a reduction of safety 
events and injuries through the safety risk reduction program is 
duplicative. Trends in injuries and injury rates may occur distinctly 
from trends in safety events and safety event rates. For example, an 
agency that experiences more severe safety event outcomes may show 
increasing injury trends as compared to its safety event trends. 
Further, addressing a reduction of both accidents and injuries is 
required by statute at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I). FTA agrees with the 
commenter that adding a definition of ``injury' would be helpful and 
that this definition should match the one used by the NTD. FTA 
therefore is adding a definition of ``injury'' to Sec.  673.5, which 
mirrors the definition used by the NTD.
6. Safety Set-Aside
General
    Comments: Several commenters, including during an FTA webinar, 
asked for additional clarification and FTA guidance on using the 0.75% 
safety set-aside, as described in proposed Sec.  673.20(e). 
Specifically, one commenter asked for clarification about whether the 
set-aside is always linked to a missed safety performance target. The 
same commenter noted that allocating the set-aside in the following 
year is problematic, given that section 5307 funds likely already are 
forecasted and budgeted in a multi-year plan. Two commenters asked 
whether the safety set-aside may be used to supplement existing safety 
projects or whether it must be used only for new safety projects. A 
participant at an FTA webinar asked whether the set-aside is limited to 
capital projects. One commenter asked for clarification on the lifespan 
of the set-aside, and whether it is subject to section 5307 grant 
requirements. One commenter stated that the set-aside amount might not 
be enough for small RTAs. Two commenters asked how transit agencies 
that are not direct recipients of section 5307 funds should meet the 
safety set-aside requirements, noting that such agencies do not 
determine the transit funding in their metropolitan areas.
    Response: FTA notes that the safety set-aside is required under 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d)(4). While FTA understands the concern regarding funding 
being forecasted in a multi-year plan, FTA does not have discretion to 
make the safety set-aside optional. Per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(B), the 
safety set-aside is required of every recipient receiving assistance 
under section 5307 that is serving an urbanized area with a population 
of 200,000 or more (a large urbanized area provider). This means that 
all large urbanized area providers must allocate at least 0.75% of 
section 5307 funds to safety-related projects eligible under section 
5307. This requirement exists whether the agency misses a safety 
performance target under the safety risk reduction program or not. In 
an instance where a large urbanized area provider does not meet a 
safety performance target established under the safety risk reduction 
program, the safety set-aside must be used on projects that are 
reasonably likely to assist the agency in meeting the safety 
performance target in the future, per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(C)-(D).
    In response to the commenter that asked about safety set-aside 
application to existing safety projects, FTA notes that transit 
agencies may allocate the set-aside to ongoing safety initiatives 
rather than completely new safety projects under certain circumstances. 
The funds must be directed to safety-related activities. If the 
recipient is meeting the safety performance targets established under 
the safety risk reduction program, the recipient may continue to direct 
the set-aside funds to any safety-related purpose, including ongoing 
initiatives and new safety projects.

[[Page 25722]]

    Some safety expenditures identified to satisfy the safety 
requirement may also be used to support the 1% requirement for 
security-related projects for the urbanized area (UZA) under 49 U.S.C. 
5307(c)(1)(J) if the recipient can justify the expense as both a safety 
and a security expense. If the recipient is not meeting its established 
safety performance target(s) established under the safety risk 
reduction program, the recipient may continue to expend the safety set-
aside on ongoing safety initiatives if those initiatives are reasonably 
likely to assist the recipient in meeting the missed target(s). If the 
ongoing initiatives are not reasonably likely to assist the recipient 
in meeting the applicable target(s), it may be necessary for the 
recipient to expend its set-aside funds on new safety projects.
    FTA acknowledges additional comments requesting clarification on 
the safety set-aside and its applications. In response, FTA notes that 
the safety set-aside establishes a minimum amount of funds that must be 
allocated to safety-related projects eligible under section 5307. In 
response to the commenter that expressed concern that the safety set-
aside for a small RTA may be insufficient, FTA notes that the set-aside 
is statutorily defined as ``not less than'' 0.75 percent of the transit 
agency's section 5307 funds. It is therefore a floor, not a ceiling. 
Transit agencies' safety-related spending is not limited to the amount 
of the safety set-aside, and transit agencies may spend section 5307 
funds on safety projects that exceed the amount of the safety set-
aside. Further, FTA notes that this final rule does not alter existing 
project funding eligibilities under section 5307; project expenses must 
be eligible for reimbursement under section 5307.
    FTA acknowledges the comments regarding the application of safety 
set-aside requirements for large urbanized area providers that are not 
direct recipients, and notes that most large urbanized area providers 
receiving section 5307 funds are direct recipients. This final rule and 
the safety set-aside requirements apply to all operators of public 
transportation systems that are recipients and subrecipients of section 
5307 funds. It is the direct recipient's responsibility to ensure its 
subrecipients are complying with the requirement, similarly to how they 
are required to ensure any subrecipients are complying with other 
requirements, such as civil rights or procurement requirements. FTA 
plans on developing technical assistance related to the safety set-
aside, including application to subrecipients.
Missed Safety Risk Reduction Program Safety Performance Target
    Comments: Two commenters opposed the requirement in Sec.  
673.20(e)(3) to allocate the set-aside when an agency misses a safety 
risk reduction program performance target. One stated that allocation 
should be based on an agency's Safety Risk Management process rather 
than a missed performance target set by the Safety Committee. The other 
commenter requested that FTA delete the word ``must'' to give agencies 
flexibility to use any funding source to address a missed target. Two 
commenters urged FTA to clarify that when an agency misses a safety 
risk reduction program performance target, it may allocate its set-
aside toward ongoing or planned safety projects rather than just new 
ones. Both commenters noted that the results of safety investments 
might not be felt immediately.
    In addition, several commenters sought clarification about set-
aside allocation requirements in Sec.  673.20(e)(3). One commenter 
asked whether an agency needs to specifically call out the missed 
safety performance target when it applies the set-aside and asked for 
guidance for section 5307 recipients to better understand how to 
address the requirement at the time of application for section 5307 
funds. Three commenters asked whether the entire set-aside must be 
allocated to address a single unmet performance target or if a transit 
agency may use this funding to address additional safety performance 
targets. Two of these commenters noted that some safety risk 
mitigations, such as a bus stop relocation or a new Standard Operating 
Procedure, may cost significantly less than the set-aside and asked 
whether the entire set-aside nonetheless must be allocated in such 
cases.
    One commenter asked who at the transit agency determines whether a 
project is ``reasonably likely to assist the agency in meeting the 
target'' when allocating the safety set-aside under Sec.  673.20(e)(3). 
A separate commenter urged FTA to give transit agencies flexibility to 
identify eligible expenses that are ``reasonably likely'' to achieve 
safety performance targets, noting that some agencies may already be 
working to address the specific safety issue. One commenter asked FTA 
to clarify the meaning of a ``safety related project.''
    Another commenter asked how allocating the set-aside will work when 
an agency continues to miss a safety performance target, but the set-
aside has already been allocated to a mitigation addressing a 
previously missed target.
    One commenter asked whether the use of safety set-aside funds in 
the following fiscal year referred to the Federal fiscal year or the 
transit agency's fiscal year.
    Response: FTA acknowledges the two commenters that opposed the 
requirement in Sec.  673.20(e)(3) to allocate the set-aside to specific 
projects when an agency misses a safety risk reduction program 
performance target. However, because these are statutory requirements 
under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, FTA does not have discretion 
to make them optional. Further, while statute links the allocation of 
the set-aside to specific projects when an agency misses a safety risk 
reduction program performance target, FTA notes that an agency's Safety 
Risk Management process plays a large role in the safety risk reduction 
program as the means to assess safety risk and implement safety risk 
mitigations. FTA notes that this final rule adopts requirements at 
Sec. Sec.  673.25(d)(3)-(6) related to the use of Safety Risk 
Management processes for the safety risk reduction program.
    FTA acknowledges the commenters seeking clarification on the 
ability for transit agencies to allocate the set-aside toward ongoing 
or planned safety projects rather than just new ones when an agency 
misses a safety risk reduction program performance target. FTA notes, 
as discussed in the section above, that transit agencies may allocate 
the safety set-aside to ongoing safety initiatives rather than 
completely new safety projects, to the extent they are reasonably 
likely to assist the agency in meeting the safety performance target in 
the future, as required by statute. If the initiatives are not 
reasonably likely to assist the recipient in meeting the applicable 
safety performance target(s), it may be necessary for the recipient to 
expend its set-aside funds on new safety projects.
    FTA also acknowledges the commenter's question about addressing the 
set-aside at the time an agency is applying for section 5307 funds. 
Recipients must identify when they are using the safety set-aside to 
address a missed safety performance target in the applicable grant 
application in TrAMS; reserve funds to assist the recipient in meeting 
any missed targets; and document intended compliance with the 
requirement at the pre-award stage. Recipients should note the safety 
goal or safety-related project in a section 5307 grant's executive 
summary.
    FTA appreciates the comments received requesting clarification 
about whether they must allocate the entire set-aside to address a 
single unmet performance target. FTA clarifies that if

[[Page 25723]]

the identified projects cost less than the transit agency's safety set-
aside, the agency may use the remaining safety set-aside for other 
safety-related projects eligible under section 5307. Transit agencies 
with specific questions regarding the use of section 5307 funding 
should contact their FTA regional office.
    FTA appreciates the comments received requesting clarification 
about who determines whether a mitigation is ``reasonably likely'' to 
assist the transit agency in meeting the safety performance target in 
the future. FTA notes that Sec.  673.27(d)(3)(iii) requires the transit 
agency to allocate its set aside to projects reasonably likely to 
assist in meeting the missed safety risk reduction program safety 
performance target in the future. As described in Sec.  
673.19(d)(3)(i), one of the Safety Committee's statutory 
responsibilities is identifying and recommending safety risk 
mitigations, including safety risk mitigations associated with any 
instance where the transit agency did not meet a safety performance 
target for the safety risk reduction program. FTA interprets the 
identification of safety risk mitigations by the Safety Committee under 
Sec.  673.19(d)(3)(i) to mean that the Safety Committee under their 
authority may identify mitigations that are reasonably likely to assist 
in meeting the missed safety risk reduction program safety performance 
target. FTA also notes that under the agency's Safety Risk Management 
process, sources outside of the Safety Committee may also identify 
safety risk mitigations, such as through a transit agency's safety 
department.
    FTA acknowledges the commenter's question about an agency that 
continually misses a safety performance target. FTA notes that the 
safety set-aside is calculated annually based on a transit agency's 
section 5307 funding. If an agency fails to meet a safety performance 
target under the safety risk reduction program for a second year, the 
agency must again use its safety set-aside for safety risk mitigations 
reasonably likely to assist the transit agency in meeting the target in 
the future. FTA clarifies that the term ``fiscal year'' in this final 
rule refers to the Federal fiscal year.
    FTA is adopting the proposed provisions relating to the safety set-
aside, but has relocated them from Sec.  673.20(e) to Sec.  
673.27(d)(3), as explained in Section II.G.2 of this preamble above.
Compliance
    Comments: One commenter asked for clarification regarding the 
SSOA's role in overseeing the safety set-aside for RTAs under their 
jurisdiction. Another commenter asked how FTA will enforce the 
reallocation requirement and what FTA will review during triennial 
reviews relating to this requirement.
    Response: This final rule does not establish new oversight 
requirements for SSOAs related to the safety set-aside. SSO Program 
requirements are established through part 674. Further, FTA notes that 
it plans to use its existing triennial review process to monitor 
compliance with part 673. Following regulatory updates, FTA modifies 
the Comprehensive Review Contractor's Manual used to conduct triennial 
reviews to address changes to review procedures based on new regulatory 
requirements. FTA publishes the Comprehensive Review Contractor's 
Manual upon update. For additional discussion about FTA oversight and 
enforcement, see Section II.D.2 of this preamble.

H. Sec.  673.23--Safety Management Policy

    Comments: FTA received one comment asking for clarification about 
how the proposal to require large urbanized area providers to establish 
the necessary authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities for 
the management of safety for the Safety Committee is different from 
what transit agencies are currently doing.
    FTA received comments related to the transit worker safety 
reporting program from several commenters. Commenters suggested that 
the requirements at Sec.  673.23(b) should include requirements for 
anonymous reporting. These commenters expressed concern that transit 
workers are reluctant to report hazards due to fear of retaliation and 
without comprehensive near-miss reports, management cannot address root 
causes adequately.
    One commenter asked for an example of when the transit worker 
safety reporting program should be used for an assault. Another 
commenter stated that FTA should clarify or more narrowly define the 
kinds of things that are meant to be reported to ensure transit 
agencies and workers have a clear understanding of what exactly should 
be reported. One commenter stated that it appeared that the proposed 
changes would impact Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) whistleblower requirements.
    Response: FTA appreciates the question regarding the proposal at 
Sec.  673.23(d) to require large urbanized areas providers to establish 
the necessary authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities for 
the management of safety for the Safety Committee. FTA notes that Sec.  
673.23(d) sets forth the groups or individuals within a transit agency 
for which the agency must establish the necessary authorities, 
accountabilities, and responsibilities for the management of safety, as 
they relate to the development and management of the transit agency's 
SMS. While transit agencies may have already defined the Safety 
Committee's authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities in 
their ASP in response to the enactment of the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, this final rule adds the formal requirement to part 673 and 
establishes specific Safety Committee requirements in Sec.  673.19, 
which impact the Safety Committee's authorities, accountabilities, and 
responsibilities.
    As for the comments that asked FTA to require transit worker safety 
reporting programs to include anonymous reporting mechanisms, FTA 
declines to establish anonymity requirements at this time. As discussed 
in section II.M.3 of this preamble, FTA received several responses 
related to its request for information on confidential close-call/near-
miss reporting systems. FTA thanks commenters for this feedback and is 
considering this information to inform future FTA action and technical 
assistance. FTA encourages transit agencies to consider providing ways 
for transit workers to anonymously report safety concerns and to 
consider participating in third-party confidential close-call reporting 
programs such as the Close Call Data Program operated by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics (November 2023). 
``Close Call Data Program.'' https://www.closecall.bts.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter who asked for an example of when 
transit workers may use a transit worker safety reporting program to 
report instances of transit worker assault, FTA requires transit 
agencies at Sec.  673.23(b) to establish transit worker safety 
reporting programs that allow transit workers to report safety 
concerns, ``including assaults on transit workers.'' FTA expects 
transit worker safety reporting programs to allow transit workers to 
report any instance of an assault on a transit worker as defined at 
Sec.  673.5. FTA declines to more narrowly define the types of concerns 
that may be reported through a transit worker safety reporting program, 
as that may have the unintended impact of limiting safety concern 
reporting. In accordance with existing SMS implementation principles, 
FTA preserves the flexibility for transit agencies to establish the 
transit worker safety reporting processes that are most effective for 
their

[[Page 25724]]

operating realities. Finally, FTA does not believe that any of the 
requirements in this final rule impact OSHA whistleblower requirements. 
FTA notes that nothing in this final rule is intended to limit a 
transit worker's ability to file an OSHA complaint. Further, Sec.  
673.23(b) requires transit agencies to develop and implement transit 
worker reporting programs that include protections for transit workers 
who report.

I. Section 673.25--Safety Risk Management

1. Hazard Identification
    Comments: One commenter requested that FTA expand the list of 
sources of hazard identification under Sec.  673.25(b)(2) to include 
data provided by the agency's Safety Committee and data provided by 
transit workers through the agency's transit worker safety reporting 
program.
    One commenter requested that FTA clarify which data and information 
regarding exposure to infectious disease transit agencies must consider 
as part of the hazard identification process.
    Response: FTA agrees that the list of required sources for hazard 
identification at Sec.  673.25(b)(2) is not comprehensive, but it is 
not intended to be exhaustive. FTA notes that transit agencies can 
consider other sources such as Safety Committee recommendations. FTA 
will consider providing examples of additional hazard identification 
sources in technical assistance.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law establishes a requirement at 49 
U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(D) for ASPs to address minimizing exposure to 
infectious diseases, consistent with guidelines from the CDC or a State 
health authority. This statutory requirement is incorporated into the 
final rule at Sec.  673.25(b)(2)(ii). Data and information regarding 
exposure to infectious disease could include, but are not limited to, 
CDC or State public health authority advisories, warnings, and 
recommendations for preventing the spread of infectious disease and 
best practices identified during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
2. Safety Risk Mitigation
    For a discussion of Safety Risk Mitigations for the Safety Risk 
Reduction Program, please refer to Section II.G.4 of the preamble 
above.
    Comments: Several commenters suggested that FTA consider requiring 
agencies to implement specific safety risk mitigations. One labor 
organization commenter recommended several safety standards regarding 
pedestrian safety, operator safety, passenger safety, bus mechanic 
safety, and health safety. The commenter also requested that FTA take 
specific actions in these areas, such as bolstering funding for police 
programs. Other suggestions from commenters include crowdsourced 
incident reporting systems to combat assaults on transit workers, video 
surveillance systems, and prohibitions on certain criminal offenders 
using transit.
    One transit agency noted that FTA should fund pilot programs for 
fully enclosed bus operator compartments to mitigate assault risk. 
Relatedly, one commenter applauded FTA's pilot program for bus 
compartment redesign.
    FTA also received a comment arguing that requiring agencies to 
``address'' the role of the Safety Committee in Sec.  673.25(d)(1) is 
inadequate. The commenter stated that FTA should require transit 
agencies to use their Safety Committees to identify safety risk 
mitigations and other safety improvements and require management to act 
on safety risk mitigation information and requests from the Safety 
Committee and implement these changes. This commenter also requested 
that FTA add the Safety Committee to proposed Sec.  673.25(d)(2), which 
lists the sources that transit agencies must consider for safety risk 
mitigation. Another commenter recommended that transit agencies should 
use a threshold based on a hazard matrix to decide when safety risk 
mitigations should be submitted to the Accountable Executive to reduce 
the number of mitigations that must be reviewed by the Accountable 
Executive.
    Response: FTA appreciates the recommendations. FTA's National 
Safety Plan includes a list of voluntary minimum safety standards and 
recommended practices to support mitigation of safety risk and to 
improve safety performance throughout the transit industry. FTA 
declines to adopt mandatory standards or mitigations through the PTASP 
rulemaking. FTA is considering the development of certain mandatory 
safety standards and will take commenters' suggestions into 
consideration to inform potential future FTA action, including through 
its Transit Worker and Public Safety rulemaking.
    In response to the commenter who requested that FTA fund pilot 
programs for fully enclosed bus operator compartments, FTA notes that 
its Bus Operator Compartment Program supports research projects that 
protect operators from assault and improve their view of the road 
through innovative designs. FTA appreciates the comment in support of 
this program. FTA has launched the Transit Worker and Rider Safety Best 
Practices Research Project, which supports research to identify public 
safety concerns for transit workers and riders, determine the most 
effective mitigation strategies to minimize the safety risk associated 
with those safety concerns, and promote the implementation of those 
strategies.
    FTA acknowledges the commenter that argued that FTA should require 
transit agencies to use their Safety Committee to identify mitigations 
and safety improvements, and that transit agency management implement 
safety risk mitigations that are recommended by the Safety Committee. 
The final rule incorporates at Sec.  673.19(d) the statutory 
requirement that Safety Committees identify and recommend risk-based 
mitigations or strategies necessary to reduce the likelihood and 
severity of consequences identified through the agency's safety risk 
assessment. As discussed in Section II.G.4 of the preamble above, the 
final rule requires a transit agency's Accountable Executive to 
implement safety risk mitigations that have been included in the ASP, 
including mitigations for the safety risk reduction program recommended 
by the Safety Committee. The Accountable Executive does not have 
authority to decline to implement elements of an ASP that has been duly 
approved by the agency's Safety Committee and Board of Directors, 
including safety risk mitigations. FTA declines to add the Safety 
Committee to the list of required sources for safety risk mitigations 
in Sec.  673.25(d)(2). FTA notes that the list is intended to be 
limited to external sources, such as FTA and oversight bodies such as 
an SSOA, and does not include internal transit agency sources such as a 
Safety Committee, subject matter experts, a transit agency's safety 
department, or other internal sources.
    FTA declines to add a new requirement for transit agencies to use a 
threshold based on a hazard matrix to decide when safety risk 
mitigations should be submitted to the Accountable Executive because 
this would conflict with requirements at Sec. Sec.  673.11(a), 
673.25(d), and 673.27(d) regarding the role of the Safety Committee to 
identify and recommend safety risk mitigations and would reduce the 
flexibility afforded transit agencies to develop safety risk management 
processes based on the size, scope, and complexity of the transit 
agency.

J. Section 673.27--Safety Assurance

    Comments: One commenter argued that it is unrealistic for FTA to 
require

[[Page 25725]]

all transit agencies to conduct continuous improvement and that this 
would cause SMS to be less scalable.
    One commenter asked whether transit agencies must describe their 
annual safety performance assessment processes under Sec.  673.27(d) in 
a document separate from the ASP. They further asked for additional 
information on FTA's expectations for this annual safety performance 
assessment, including whether the Safety Committee is required to play 
a role in the performance assessment. The commenter noted the Safety 
Committee members may lack the training or time to do so. One commenter 
argued that FTA should require large urbanized area providers to use 
their Safety Committee to conduct this safety performance assessment.
    Another commenter asked whether the continuous improvement 
component of SMS occurs only after the full implementation of SMS and 
whether activities that a transit agency undertakes to improve SMS 
processes or safety performance during SMS implementation are 
considered to be continuous improvement.
    Another commenter asked for clarification regarding the differences 
between Management of Change, System Modification, and Configuration 
Management. Similarly, another commenter asked FTA to clarify how to 
measure deficiencies for purposes of Sec.  673.27(d)(4) and how to 
audit deficiencies. The commenter also argued that requiring transit 
agencies to integrate SSOA concerns into the continuous improvement 
process would make it difficult to prioritize risk management in a 
data-driven way without a process for appealing SSOA decisions. The 
commenter requested clarification as to whether there are limits to 
what the SSOA may require an RTA to include in the continuous 
improvement process.
    Regarding the role of the Safety Committee in the Safety Assurance 
process, one commenter urged FTA to require transit systems to use 
their Safety Committees to identify ineffective, inappropriate, and 
poorly implemented mitigations and for the transit agency to implement 
any changes that the Safety Committee directs. This commenter also 
suggested that FTA should require the Accountable Executive to 
implement the plan to address deficiencies identified the annual safety 
performance assessments required under proposed Sec.  673.27(d)(2).
    Response: In the NPRM, FTA proposed to extend the continuous 
improvement requirements to small public transportation providers. This 
proposal was responsive to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which 
requires large urbanized area providers to establish a Safety Committee 
and a safety risk reduction program that involves key elements of 
continuous improvement, such as safety performance target setting, 
safety performance monitoring, and the identification of safety 
deficiencies and safety performance issues. FTA believes that requiring 
the processes for small public transportation providers eliminates 
possible inconsistencies in enforcement among small public 
transportation providers: some small public transportation providers 
operate in large urbanized areas and are therefore subject to statutory 
requirements for continuous improvement. FTA appreciates that this may 
increase the level of effort required for small providers compared to 
the 2018 PTASP final rule. However, FTA does not agree that this is an 
unrealistic requirement for these transit agencies, or that it would 
make SMS less scalable. As noted in the NPRM, these providers already 
are required to set safety performance targets based on the safety 
performance measures established in the National Safety Plan. Based on 
the experience that these providers have gained by operating an SMS and 
carrying out required safety performance measurement activities, FTA 
expects they will be able to formalize these continuous improvement 
activities and document them in their ASP.
    Transit agencies may describe their annual safety performance 
assessment process within their ASP or incorporate it in the ASP by 
reference. FTA agrees with the commenter that argued the Safety 
Committee must be involved in a large urbanized area provider's safety 
performance assessment process. One of the Safety Committee's key 
responsibilities established under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii) is 
``identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous 
improvement.'' FTA therefore adopts the proposed requirement at Sec.  
673.27(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the safety performance assessment 
process for large urbanized area providers address the role of the 
agency's Safety Committee. Transit agencies and their Safety Committee 
have flexibility to determine how to implement these continuous 
improvement activities. However, the Safety Committee's procedures must 
address how the Safety Committee will carry out this responsibility, as 
required by Sec.  673.19(c)(9). FTA understands the concerns regarding 
Safety Committee training and refers readers to section II.F.4 above 
for discussion of this topic.
    In response to the question regarding when continuous improvement 
requirements apply, FTA confirms that the continuous improvement 
requirements established at Sec.  673.27(d) are not dependent on an 
agency reaching a specific level of SMS implementation.
    In response to the commenter that asked for clarification regarding 
the differences between Management of Change, System Modification, and 
Configuration Management, FTA notes that ``management of change'' is a 
subheading under Sec.  673.27 and a required process within the Safety 
Assurance component of an SMS. Given that ``system modification'' and 
``configuration management'' are not found in part 673, FTA does not 
believe it is necessary to define these two terms in this final rule.
    FTA appreciates the question from the commenter regarding the term 
``deficiencies'' used in Sec.  673.27(d). FTA notes that Sec.  
673.27(d) references two specific types of deficiencies: deficiencies 
in the transit agency's SMS and deficiencies in the transit agency's 
performance against safety performance targets. Deficiencies in the 
transit agency's SMS include concerns with the processes and procedures 
defined by the agency to carry out the transit agency's SMS. 
Deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against safety 
performance targets include instances where the transit agency fails to 
meet a safety performance target, including targets for the safety risk 
reduction program for large urbanized area providers. This final rule 
does not establish any audit requirements related to safety performance 
deficiencies. Defining requirements for an RTA to appeal the decisions 
of an SSOA are out of scope for this final rule. FTA notes that Sec.  
673.27(d)(1)(iii) requires an RTA's continuous improvement process to 
address any specific SSOA internal safety review requirements. FTA 
confirms that incorporation of internal safety review processes into 
the continuous improvement element of the ASP should not interfere with 
an agency's ability to prioritize safety risk.
    FTA appreciates the comment recommending that FTA require transit 
systems to use their safety committees to identify ineffective, 
inappropriate, and poorly implemented mitigations. FTA agrees with the 
commenter and notes that it is a key statutorily required 
responsibility under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii) for the Safety 
Committee to identify ``mitigations or

[[Page 25726]]

strategies that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not 
implemented as intended.'' Accordingly, Sec.  673.19(d)(3)(iii) of the 
final rule incorporates this statutory requirement. Further, FTA agrees 
with the commenter's perspective that the Accountable Executive is 
responsible for carrying out the plan to address safety performance 
deficiencies required under Sec.  673.27(d)(4). FTA notes that Sec.  
673.27(d)(4) states that the plan must be carried out ``under the 
direction of the Accountable Executive.'' FTA reiterates further that 
per Sec.  673.5, the Accountable Executive is ultimately responsible 
for carrying out the ASP. FTA believes additional clarification in the 
regulation is not necessary.

K. Section 673.29--Safety Promotion

1. Safety Training
    Comments: One commenter asked whether the required safety concern 
identification and reporting training in Sec.  673.29(a)(1) needs to be 
a standalone training course or if it could be incorporated into 
another element of the training program. Another commenter asked 
whether transit workers in an agency's Safety Department are considered 
``directly responsible for safety'' for purposes of the PTASP training 
requirements, and whether FTA expects these workers to complete the 
Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (PTSCTP) 
under 49 CFR part 672,\32\ as well as de-escalation training and safety 
concern identification and reporting training. Another commenter asked 
whether transit workers who have completed training under the PTSCTP 
must retake TSI training courses after the changes adopted in this 
final rule have been incorporated into the TSI training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Public Transportation Safety Certification Training 
Program, 83 FR 34067 (2018) (Codified at 49 CFR part 672). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter asked FTA to clarify the requirement to provide 
refresher training ``as necessary,'' and who decides whether refresher 
training is necessary. One commenter stated anecdotally that their 
transit agency has not provided safety-related refresher training in a 
decade and that some transit workers have not received safety training 
at all.
    One commenter stated that FTA's proposed requirements are not 
specific enough to ensure agencies provide effective training. This 
commenter suggested that FTA require transit agencies to provide safety 
training to new hires within 30 days of their hiring date and annual 
refresher training to all frontline transit workers. It also suggested 
that FTA should require safety training to be interactive and for 
transit agencies to update training materials at least every five 
years. Another commenter suggested that training on how to report 
safety issues be included in the ASP.
    One commenter expressed concern about the feasibility and cost of 
the new training requirements. Another commenter suggested that FTA 
provide technical assistance to assist agencies and their contractors 
implement training programs.
    One commenter asked FTA to clarify the proposed requirement in 
Sec.  673.29(a)(2) for large urbanized area providers to include 
maintenance workers in their safety training program, specifically 
whether this includes technical maintenance training. A separate 
commenter suggested that FTA create a certification program for 
mechanics regarding repair of electric and alternative fuel buses, and 
other new technologies. One commenter agreed with limiting FTA's 
proposal in Sec.  673.29(a)(2) to large urbanized area providers. 
Conversely, one commenter suggested that FTA broaden this requirement 
to all transit agencies, including small transit providers and another 
commenter similarly suggested that FTA combine Sec.  673.29(a)(1) with 
Sec.  673.29(a)(2) for ease of implementation.
    Response: Transit agencies may develop standalone training on 
safety concern identification and reporting, may incorporate this 
training into existing courses or programs, or both. FTA has not 
identified transit workers within a transit agency's Safety Department 
as automatically needing to be covered by the comprehensive safety 
training program. FTA gives agencies flexibility to define who is 
``directly responsible for safety'' for the purposes of the PTASP 
safety training program. For questions related to PTSCTP applicability 
and requirements, FTA encourages individuals to refer to 49 CFR part 
672.
    Under Sec.  673.29(a)(1), FTA requires transit agencies to 
implement refresher training ``as necessary'' for their comprehensive 
safety training program. FTA appreciates the recommendation to 
establish more specific requirements related to timelines for initial 
and refresher training. However, FTA believes that the flexibility 
regarding the type and frequency of refresher training ensures that 
agencies can establish requirements that are responsive to the size, 
scope, and complexity of their organization. For example, transit 
agencies may determine that annual refresher training is necessary for 
certain elements of their PTASP comprehensive safety training program. 
In response to the commenter who stated that their transit agency has 
not provided safety-related refresher training in a decade and that 
some transit workers have not received safety training at all, FTA 
notes that this final rule requires transit agencies to establish a 
comprehensive safety training program for all operations transit 
workers and transit workers directly responsible for safety in the 
transit agency's public transportation system. For large urbanized area 
providers, the agency's comprehensive safety training program also must 
include maintenance transit workers. FTA notes that SSOAs may implement 
specific refresher training requirements for RTAs under their 
jurisdiction.
    FTA agrees that interactive training and routine updates of 
training materials are good practices for training programs. FTA 
declines to require these practices or the commenter's suggested 
timelines for initial and refresher training due to the flexibility 
afforded to transit agencies by the PTASP regulation, but FTA will 
consider these topics for future technical assistance. FTA appreciates 
the suggestion that it establish requirements for the development and 
delivery of training on how to report safety issues. FTA agrees that 
training on safety concern reporting and transit worker safety 
reporting processes at an agency are important. This final rule does 
not establish specific training requirements related to these 
individual program elements. However, FTA encourages transit agencies 
to document all such training as part of its comprehensive safety 
training program.
    FTA acknowledges the comment that noted training requirements would 
add costs to the transit agency. FTA acknowledges that FTA-provided or 
FTA-recommended training is useful and has the potential to reduce 
burden on transit agencies, and FTA will consider the development of 
additional training resources to support these efforts.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires at 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d)(1)(H)(ii) that large urbanized area providers include 
maintenance workers in their PTASP comprehensive safety training 
program. FTA appreciates the benefit transit agencies could receive 
from including maintenance transit workers in the comprehensive safety 
training program. Transit agencies that are not large urbanized area 
providers may include portions of their maintenance

[[Page 25727]]

workforce in the comprehensive safety training program based on their 
agency's definition of ``transit workers directly responsible for 
safety'' or on a voluntary basis. However, FTA declines to extend the 
requirement to all agencies due to concerns related to industry burden.
    Transit agencies do not need to include technical maintenance-
specific training in their comprehensive safety training program. 
Rather, under Sec.  673.29(a), large urbanized area providers must 
include maintenance transit workers in their comprehensive safety 
training program, which includes de-escalation training, safety concern 
identification and reporting training, and refresher training as 
necessary.
    FTA appreciates the suggestion received from the commenter 
regarding the creation of a certification program for mechanics 
regarding repair of electric and alternative fuel buses, and other new 
technologies but notes that this final rule does not establish a new 
certification program and that existing safety certification training 
requirements are defined at 49 CFR part 672.
    FTA declines to combine Sec. Sec.  673.29(a)(1) and 673.29(a)(2). 
Given that these two paragraphs have different applicability, FTA 
believes that keeping them separate is the clearest way to articulate 
these requirements.
2. De-Escalation Training
    Comments: One commenter requested general clarification about the 
de-escalation training requirement in Sec.  673.29(a)(1). One commenter 
recommended that FTA establish a uniform de-escalation training 
curriculum and require all bus operators and transit workers who work 
directly in the field to receive de-escalation training, including 
retraining for operators who previously received this training. The 
commenter noted that some bus operators have not had de-escalation 
refresher training in years, and some have never had this kind of 
training at all. They also argued that transit agencies' existing de-
escalation training sometimes is not thorough or is focused on the 
wrong type of transit workers.
    One commenter expressed concern regarding the time and cost of de-
escalation training. Another commenter requested technical assistance 
from FTA about the requirement, including a list of vendors on FTA's 
website similar to the COVID-19 resources page that FTA established 
during the pandemic. Another commenter argued that if RTAs are allowed 
to create their own de-escalation training, FTA should provide them 
with guidelines.
    Two commenters recommended that FTA update the de-escalation 
training offered through NTI using current industry standards, with one 
commenter expressing concern that the current training course is 
outdated and ineffective.
    A participant at an FTA webinar and several commenters expressed 
concern that the de-escalation training requirement is just a ``check-
the-box'' exercise. One commenter stated that crime prevention and 
workplace violence are complex issues that frequently involve 
individuals experiencing mental health or substance abuse crises or 
repeat criminal offenders who do not respond to de-escalation 
techniques. It stated that the transit industry needs more than this 
rule change to address these issues.
    Two commenters requested that FTA more clearly define which 
individuals must complete de-escalation training. This commenter also 
asked if a transit agency should consider any metrics for determining 
whether to provide de-escalation training and if it can use a threshold 
for requiring de-escalation training based on the number of assaults 
experienced at an agency per year.
    One commenter stated that FTA did not specify how often de-
escalation training must occur.
    Response: FTA agrees that de-escalation training is beneficial for 
transit operators and any transit worker who works directly in the 
field. In Sec.  673.29(a), FTA is requiring training programs to 
include de-escalation training for operations transit workers and 
transit workers directly responsible for safety, which could include 
transit workers directly in the field. For large urbanized area 
providers, this requirement also extends to maintenance transit 
workers. FTA worked with the National Transit Institute and the TSI to 
develop and provide Assault Awareness and Prevention and Violence in 
the Transit Workplace train-the-trainer and direct delivery 
courses.\33\ While transit agencies are not required to use these 
courses as part of their training program, transit agencies may use 
these courses as part of their de-escalation training. FTA understands 
the concerns that this training course is outdated and ineffective and 
will consider updating the existing training and developing a voluntary 
curriculum for de-escalation training as part of its ongoing technical 
assistance. Fundamentally, FTA believes that de-escalation training has 
a significant ability to improve transit worker responses to 
challenging and potentially dangerous situations and does not view de-
escalation training as a ``check-the-box'' exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2023). ``FTA-
Sponsored Training Courses.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-sponsored-training-courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA acknowledges the commenter that noted refresher training 
requirements would add costs to the transit agency. FTA notes that FTA-
provided or FTA-recommended training is useful and has the potential to 
reduce burden on transit agencies, and FTA will consider the 
development of additional refresher training resources to support these 
efforts. FTA acknowledges the SSOA commenter that argued that if RTAs 
are allowed to create their own de-escalation training, FTA should 
provide them with guidelines. In keeping with the inherent flexibility 
on an SMS, FTA believes that an RTA may develop its own de-escalation 
training and declines to establish specific guidelines that may 
restrict an RTA from addressing its own specific de-escalation needs. 
Further, FTA notes that SSOAs may establish additional requirements for 
the RTAs they oversee, including requirements related to the 
comprehensive safety training program.
    FTA also appreciates the commenters that recommended FTA provide a 
list of vendors on FTA's website similar to the approach used by FTA to 
publish the COVID-19 resources toolkit, as well as guidelines to RTAs. 
FTA will consider these suggestions as it develops additional technical 
assistance related to de-escalation training.
    FTA agrees that ongoing de-escalation training is beneficial. While 
FTA is not requiring a specific frequency for de-escalation training, 
FTA encourages transit agencies to establish a routine cadence for de-
escalation training. FTA appreciates that transit workers may encounter 
a variety of situations, including ones involving individuals 
experiencing mental health or substance abuse crises, and believes that 
de-escalation training can help prepare transit workers to handle these 
situations. Transit agencies could consider using metrics, such as the 
number of assaults experienced per year, to determine how often to 
provide de-escalation refresher training.
3. Safety Communication
    Comments: One commenter requested that FTA clarify when a transit 
agency must communicate hazards relevant to an employee's roles or 
responsibilities under Sec.  673.29(b), and whether this requirement 
applies to all relevant hazards or only hazards that meet a determined 
risk rating. The commenter

[[Page 25728]]

also requested clarification on the required timing for informing 
employees of actions taken in response to safety reporting.
    Three commenters stated that FTA should clarify the requirements 
for integrating the results of cooperation with frontline transit 
worker representatives and Safety Committee activities into the 
agency's overall safety communication process at Sec.  673.29(b). One 
commenter requested further clarification on whether FTA is mandating 
routine communications to the organization regarding safety and what 
those communications must include.
    One commenter asked whether these safety communication activities 
should be included in the ASP or in separate documentation.
    Response: FTA is not establishing a specific threshold for 
determining which hazards and associated safety risk information 
relevant to a transit worker's roles and responsibilities a transit 
agency must communicate. Similarly, FTA has not established a time 
frame for informing transit workers of hazards, associated safety risk, 
or actions taken in response to reports received through a transit 
worker safety reporting program. FTA believes that the flexibility 
regarding these requirements ensures that agencies can establish 
processes that are responsive to the size, scope, and complexity of 
their organization. This final rule provides sufficient flexibility for 
transit agencies to make these determinations themselves.
    FTA is not establishing more explicit requirements regarding 
minimum communication relating to frontline transit worker 
representatives and Safety Committees. In deference to the significant 
differences in scope and mechanisms for communication throughout the 
transit industry, FTA believes that transit agencies should have 
flexibility in this area. FTA will consider technical assistance on 
safety communication processes in the future.
    Finally, FTA appreciates the question regarding whether these 
safety communication activities should be included in the ASP or in 
separate documentation. Under Sec.  673.11(a)(2), a transit agency's 
ASP must document the processes and activities related to SMS 
implementation, which a transit agency may include or incorporate by 
reference. This includes the safety communication processes established 
under Sec.  673.29(b). However, FTA does not expect transit agencies to 
document the actual communications in an ASP. Please note that each 
transit agency must keep these records for a minimum of three years 
consistent with the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  673.31.

L. Section 673.31--Safety Plan Documentation

    Comments: One commenter stated that FTA should more clearly define 
the required documentation of the programs, policies, and procedures 
that the agency uses to carry out its ASP as stated in Sec.  673.31. 
Another commenter requested FTA specify that a transit agency must 
maintain documents related to ASP approval.
    Response: FTA notes that safety plan documentation is an existing 
requirement under the 2018 PTASP final rule. FTA disagrees that this 
section requires additional specificity, as the documentation of SMS 
processes and activities, will differ among transit agencies. 
Therefore, FTA declines to make any changes to the final rule in 
response to these comments. FTA provides technical assistance to 
transit agencies with questions about documentation requirements via 
the PTASP Technical Assistance Center (TAC).\34\ As noted above, under 
Sec.  673.11(a)(2), a transit agency's ASP must document the processes 
and activities related to SMS implementation, consistent with the 
recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  673.31, which cover SMS processes 
and procedures, and results from SMS activities, including ASP 
approvals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2023). ``PTASP 
Technical Assistance Center.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Other Topics

1. Assaults on Transit Workers
    Comments: Several commenters expressed concern that the 
requirements of this rule do not go far enough to prevent assaults on 
transit workers. Commenters noted that assaults on transit workers are 
widespread and worsening and that FTA should take swift and decisive 
action to address assaults on transit workers. Several commenters 
expressed that FTA should immediately begin the study and attendant 
rulemaking required by Section 3022 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation (FAST) Act to protect transit workers from attacks.
    One commenter stated that, in many transit agencies, bus operators 
who leave the driver's seat to de-escalate a developing situation or to 
defend a passenger or themselves from an active assault are dismissed 
from their position. They stated that policies like these make 
operators feel vulnerable and powerless in the lead up to or during an 
assault. An additional commenter stated that, when an assault involving 
a transit worker and a passenger occurs, regardless of who initiated or 
actively participated in the assault, the driver is often punished and 
not the passenger.
    One commenter stressed the importance of an Employee Assistance 
Program (EAP) for transit workers who are involved in assaults or other 
events, as well as access to paid time off to address physical and 
mental health needs following an event.
    One commenter urged for increased Federal penalties for assaults on 
transit workers, specifically elevating the crime to a felony and 
banning offenders from using public transportation, noting that some 
state legal codes include passenger bans.
    Response: FTA appreciates that some stakeholders may have desired 
this rulemaking to impose more specific requirements relating to 
assaults on transit workers. The PTASP rulemaking is one element of 
FTA's approach to addressing this important issue. The processes 
outlined in SMS and reinforced in this regulation are critical to the 
transit industry's response to assaults on transit workers. By 
following the processes of SMS, the transit industry can make effective 
changes at their agencies to reduce the incidence of assaults on 
transit workers.
    FTA has also initiated a separate rulemaking on Transit Worker and 
Public Safety. This rule 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 the requirements of Section 3022 of the 
FAST Act. The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce serious injury 
events and fatalities from assaults involving transit workers, 
passengers, and the public.
    FTA appreciates that de-escalation and response to an assault are 
complicated in a transit environment, particularly when aboard a moving 
vehicle. FTA encourages transit agencies to work with their frontline 
transit workforce and Safety Committees as appropriate to identify 
policies and techniques that enable transit workers to respond in a 
safe and effective manner.
    FTA agrees that EAPs can benefit transit workers and transit 
agencies after a traumatic event. While FTA is not requiring transit 
agencies to implement an EAP, transit agencies may voluntarily develop 
such a program to support their workforce. FTA has aggregated a list of 
mental health resources to support transit workers during challenging

[[Page 25729]]

times.\35\ FTA encourages transit agencies to share these online 
resources widely with their workers and with other transit agencies in 
their networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Federal Transit Administration (May 2023). ``Mental Health 
Resources for Transit Workers.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-programs/safety/mental-health-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA notes that legal remedies such as increased Federal penalties 
for assaults on transit workers, elevation of assaults on transit 
workers to a felony, and banning offenders from using public 
transportation are outside the scope of FTA's authority.
2. Assaults on Transit Workers Data
    Comments: FTA received several comments about data reporting on 
assaults on transit workers. One commenter recommended that FTA create 
a mandatory nationwide database for transit agencies to report assaults 
on transit workers, and for FTA to publish reports about the data on a 
regular basis. One commenter expressed concern that the new NTD 
requirement to report assaults on transit workers could result in the 
perception that the number of assaults on transit workers has increased 
significantly. The commenter recommended that FTA provide context 
regarding new reporting requirements when it makes this data publicly 
available.
    One commenter stated that transit agencies should collect 
information from transit passengers who witness assaults on transit 
workers, noting that assaults may otherwise go unreported. Another 
commenter stated that some transit agencies are not keeping accurate 
records of the assaults that transit workers are experiencing. Other 
commenters expressed that assaults on transit workers are severely 
underreported. One comment requested clarification on whether assaults 
on transit workers data are safety data or security data.
    One commenter also stated their transit dispatch ``tends to over-
report'' and offered the example of an argument being reported as 
verbal assault. The commenter stated the data cleanup and training 
required under the rule as written would lead to a great administrative 
burden.
    Response: FTA requires transit agencies that are recipients of 
certain Federal funding to report to the NTD on the financial, 
operating, and asset condition of transit systems. The NTD program 
publishes data products on a regular basis containing information and 
statistics, including statistics on transit safety. The NTD program 
serves as FTA's system for collection of assaults on transit workers 
data and ensures all associated reporting requirements are clarified. 
FTA's published safety data includes notes regarding NTD reporting 
threshold changes that may impact how data is interpreted. FTA notes 
that such information will be included in publicly available data 
related to assaults on transit workers, to the extent that it includes 
data reported prior to the NTD's implementation of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law assault reporting requirements.
    FTA appreciates the value of witnesses when investigating instances 
of assaults on transit workers. FTA encourages transit agencies to 
leverage witness information as possible to help inform investigative, 
safety reporting, and Safety Risk Management activities.
    FTA appreciates the comments regarding the challenges of reporting 
assaults on a transit worker and questions about classification of 
assaults as safety events or security events. FTA acknowledges that 
assaults on transit workers historically have been severely 
underreported and that this has created challenges for remedying this 
issue. The new NTD assault reporting requirements enacted by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will help transit industry stakeholders 
better understand and address assaults on transit workers. FTA notes 
that the NTD has already established reporting requirements for 
assaults on transit workers. Nothing in this final rule changes those 
requirements or increases data collection or reporting burden related 
to assaults on transit workers. As explained in Section II.B.3 of the 
preamble above, the NTD communicates guidance to the NTD reporting 
community to clarify these reporting requirements. FTA refers readers 
to that section of the preamble for additional discussion of this 
topic.
3. Confidential Close Call/Near-Miss Transit Worker Safety Reporting 
Systems
    In the NPRM, FTA requested information from stakeholders regarding 
their experience establishing confidential reporting methods for 
transit workers. FTA did not propose any new requirements on this topic 
in the NPRM. FTA received several responses relating to its request for 
information. FTA thanks commenters for this feedback and is considering 
this information to inform future FTA action and technical assistance.

N. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Comments: Several comments requested that FTA reevaluate the labor 
hour assumptions it used to estimate costs for regulated entities to 
meet the requirements of the rule.
    For de-escalation training, one commenter recommended that FTA 
provide hours for agency personnel to provide and track the progress of 
such training. The commenter sought additional clarification about the 
de-escalation training estimates, including whether FTA is requiring 
0.25 hours of annual de-escalation training.
    For the Safety Committee requirement, one commenter claimed that 
the first-year estimates for HR managers and safety managers seemed too 
low. Another commenter claimed that the estimates only provided hours 
for six individuals, although Safety Committees at larger transit 
agencies might be much larger; it also did not account for the 
administrative burden of preparing meeting materials and minutes.
    For continuous improvement, one commenter stated that the first-
year hours for the Chief Safety Officer and Safety Manager do not fully 
account for the cost of developing and implementing continuous 
improvement. In addition, the estimates should include hours for the 
Accountable Executive.
    For the safety risk reduction program, one commenter claimed that 
estimates do not accurately reflect the resources needed to develop and 
implement the program, given the number of safety events the 
commenter's agency experienced annually.
    For frontline worker involvement with ASP, one commenter claimed 
that the estimates do not include frontline personnel and that the hour 
estimates are too low.
    Finally, one comment stated the estimated costs are generally too 
low but did not identify specific issues.
    Response: In response to comments, FTA reviewed and revised the 
labor hour estimates as detailed in Section IV. ``Regulatory Analyses 
and Notices'' below. The updated cost estimates reflect the revised 
labor hours. For annual de-escalation training, FTA is estimating a 
half-hour training every two years, for an average of 0.25 hours per 
year.

O. Regulatory Burden

    Comments: One commenter opposed this rulemaking generally, arguing 
that it imposes too much regulation on the transit industry. Some 
comments expressed that the new PTASP requirements impose burden 
without additional funding. Two commenters stated that FTA should 
provide funding for transit agencies to meet these requirements, with 
one asking for

[[Page 25730]]

funding to be available without additional steps or grant applications. 
One commenter stated that some transit agencies may need to hire 
additional workers to meet PTASP requirements. They recommended that 
FTA provide relief from some requirements for smaller transit agencies. 
They also requested that FTA provide substantive technical assistance 
and resources to assist agencies comply with the final rule.
    One commenter expressed concern that the proposed requirements are 
more prescriptive than the 2018 final rule and that this increases the 
burden on transit agencies, particularly small and mid-sized RTAs who 
also must comply with their SSOA's Risk-Based Inspection programs. They 
expressed concern that FTA's safety rulemakings have forced transit 
agencies to constantly evolve their safety programs to accommodate 
increasingly burdensome requirements and that FTA should provide a 
grace period for transit agencies to evaluate and implement staffing 
and resources needed to comply with the new requirements.
    Response: FTA appreciates the comments received on the relative 
increase in costs related to this rule. FTA's cost-benefit analysis is 
based on the average estimated impact to transit agencies. The transit 
agencies that must comply with this regulation receive Chapter 53 funds 
and, with very few exceptions, receive section 5307 funds. Regarding 
the comment requesting funding be made available without additional 
steps or grant applications, FTA notes that agencies can use their 
existing section 5307 formula funds for eligible safety projects.
    This final rule is implementing requirements statutorily mandated 
by Congress, and FTA has attempted to implement the statutory 
requirements by imposing the least burden on transit agencies. To 
minimize the de-escalation training burden on all transit agencies 
subject to part 673, FTA has made de-escalation training freely 
available to all transit agencies via the FTA-sponsored Assault 
Awareness and Prevention for Transit Operators courses offered by the 
National Transit Institute.\36\ Regarding continuous improvement, under 
the PTASP rule currently in effect, small public transportation 
providers are already required to set safety performance targets. Based 
on the experience that the providers have gained by implementing SMS 
and carrying out required safety performance measurement activities, 
FTA expects that the providers will be able to formalize their 
continuous improvement activities and document them in their ASP. FTA 
intends to continue its existing PTASP technical assistance program and 
will consider assistance geared towards smaller providers in the 
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2023). ``FTA-
Sponsored Training Courses.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-sponsored-training-courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA disagrees that a ``grace period'' for part 673 implementation 
is necessary and notes that to the extent the final rule incorporates 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requirements, those requirements have 
been in effect since November 15, 2021.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart A--General

673.1--Applicability
    This section sets forth the applicability of the PTASP regulation. 
The regulation applies to any State, local governmental authority, and 
any other operator of a public transportation system that receives 
Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53. FTA has 
deferred applicability to operators that only receive Federal financial 
assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5310 or 5311, or both 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 
5311, and that do not operate a rail fixed guideway system.
673.3--Policy
    This section explains that FTA is utilizing the principles and 
methods of SMS as the basis for this regulation and all other 
regulations and policies FTA has issued and will issue under the 
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329. FTA's standards for SMS are flexible and 
scalable and may be tailored to the size and operating complexity of 
the transit operator.
673.5--Definitions
    This section sets forth the definitions of key terms used in the 
regulation. Most notably, readers should refer to ``assault on a 
transit worker,'' ``safety event,'' ``safety performance target,'' and 
``transit worker.''

Subpart B--Safety Plans

673.11--General Requirements
    This section establishes general PTASP requirements.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1), this section requires each 
operator of public transportation subject to this rule to develop a 
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (ASP) consistent with this 
part. Section 673.11(a)(1) requires the ASP and subsequent updates be 
signed by the Accountable Executive. For large urbanized area 
providers, the Safety Committee must also approve the ASP, and any 
updates, followed by the transit agency's Board of Directors or 
equivalent entity. For all other transit agencies, the transit agency's 
Board of Directors or equivalent entity must approve the ASP.
    Section 673.11(a)(2) requires the ASP to document the processes and 
activities related to SMS.
    Section 673.11(a)(3) requires that ASPs must include annual safety 
performance targets based on the safety performance measures 
established under FTA's National Safety Plan. The ASP of a large 
urbanized area provider must also include safety performance targets 
for the safety risk reduction program.
    Section 673.11(a)(4) requires the ASP to address all applicable 
requirements and standards of FTA's Safety Program.
    Section 673.11(a)(5) requires each transit agency to establish a 
process and timeline for reviewing annually its ASP.
    Section 673.11(a)(6) requires the ASP of each RTA to include or 
incorporate by reference an emergency preparedness plan, any policies 
and procedures relating to rail transit workers on the roadway, and 
policies and procedures related to the State Safety Oversight Agency's 
risk-based inspection program.
    Section 673.11(a)(7) requires the ASP of each large urbanized area 
provider to include a safety risk reduction program for transit 
operations to improve safety by reducing the number and rates of safety 
events, injuries, and assaults on transit workers. The safety risk 
reduction program must address the reduction and mitigation of 
vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles, and 
the reduction and mitigation of assaults on transit workers. The safety 
risk reduction program must also include the safety performance targets 
set by the Safety Committee. These targets must be based on a three-
year rolling average of the data submitted by the large urbanized area 
provider to the National Transit Database (NTD); for all modes of 
public transportation; and based on the level of detail the large 
urbanized area provider is required to report to the NTD. The Safety 
Committee is not required to set a target for a performance measure 
until the large urbanized area provider has been required to report 
three years of data to the NTD corresponding to such performance 
measure.
    Finally, the safety risk reduction program must include or 
incorporate by reference the safety risk mitigations identified and 
recommended by the Safety Committee as described in Sec.  673.25(d)(5).

[[Page 25731]]

    Section 673.11(b) provides that a transit agency may develop one 
ASP for all modes of transit service, or it may develop separate ASP 
for each mode of service not subject to safety regulation by another 
Federal entity.
    Section 673.11(c) requires each transit agency to maintain its ASP 
in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of this Part.
    Section 673.11(d) requires a State to draft and certify an ASP for 
a small public transportation provider that is located in that State. 
FTA notes a small public transportation provider may also be a large 
urbanized area provider and thus required to have an ASP with the 
attendant provisions, such as a Safety Committee and safety risk 
reduction program.
    Section 673.11(e) exempts agencies that operate passenger ferries 
regulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) or rail fixed 
guideway public transportation service regulated by the Federal 
Railroad Administration (FRA) from the requirement to develop an ASP 
for those modes of service.
673.13--Certification of Compliance
    This section sets forth certification requirements. Section 
673.13(a) lays out the requirement that a State's initial PTASP 
certification for a small transportation provider, or direct 
recipient's certification, must occur by the start of operations. This 
section also requires SSOAs to review and approve the ASP developed by 
a rail fixed guideway public transportation system. Section 673.13(b) 
requires the certification on an annual basis and that direct 
recipients must certify compliance on behalf of any subrecipients.
673.15--Coordination With Metropolitan, Statewide, and Non-Metropolitan 
Planning Processes
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B) and 5304(d)(2)(B), 
section 673.15(a) requires that each State and transit agency must make 
its safety performance targets available to States and Metropolitan 
Planning Organizations to aid in the planning process. Section 
673.15(b) requires, to the maximum extent practicable, a State or 
transit agency to coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations in the selection of State and MPO safety performance 
targets.

Subpart C--Safety Committees and Cooperation With Frontline Transit 
Worker Representatives

    Subpart C, ``Safety Committees and Cooperation with Frontline 
Transit Worker Representatives'' incorporates Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law requirements for Safety Committees and cooperation with frontline 
transit worker representatives.
673.17--Cooperation With Frontline Transit Worker Representatives
    Section 673.17 establishes requirements for transit agency 
cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives, as required 
by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In Sec.  673.17(a), FTA 
incorporates the statutory requirement that a large urbanized area 
provider must establish a Safety Committee. Section 673.17(b) 
incorporates the statutory requirement that a transit agency that is 
not a large urbanized area provider must develop its ASP, and 
subsequent updates, in cooperation with frontline transit worker 
representatives, as required by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. In 
this section, FTA also requires that such providers must include or 
incorporate by reference in the ASP a description of how frontline 
transit worker representatives cooperate in the development and update 
of the ASP.
673.19--Safety Committee
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law requires that transit agencies 
serving a large urbanized area establish a Safety Committee that meets 
certain requirements.
    Section 673.19(a) incorporates the statutory requirement that the 
Safety Committee be convened by a joint-labor management process and 
provides that the Safety Committee be appropriately scaled to the size, 
scope, and complexity of the transit agency.
    Section 673.19(b) incorporates the statutory requirement that the 
Safety Committee consist of an equal number of frontline transit worker 
representatives and management representatives. This section also 
requires that the Safety Committee include frontline transit worker 
representatives from major transit service functions to the extent 
practicable.
    Section 673.19(b) also incorporates the statutory requirement that 
the frontline transit worker representatives on the Safety Committee be 
selected by a labor organization representing the plurality of the 
frontline workforce. If a transit agency's frontline transit workers 
are not represented by a labor organization, the transit agency must 
adopt a mechanism to ensure that frontline transit workers select 
frontline transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee.
    Section 673.19(c) requires each large urbanized area provider 
include or incorporate by reference in its ASP procedures about the 
composition, responsibilities, and operations of the Safety Committee. 
Of note are the requirements to include procedures related to how 
meeting agendas and notices will be developed and shared, and how 
meeting minutes will be recorded, maintained, and shared; the 
compensation policy for participation in Safety Committee meetings, 
procedures for reaching and recording decisions, and procedures for 
resolving disputes, such as the existing dispute resolution process at 
the agency.
    Section 673.19(d) identifies statutorily required activities that 
the Safety Committee must take, including ASP review and approval, 
setting annual safety performance targets to support the safety risk 
reduction program, and support of SMS activities.

Subpart D--Safety Management Systems

673.21--General Requirements
    This section outlines the SMS elements that each transit agency 
must establish in its ASP. Each transit agency must establish processes 
and procedures which include the four main pillars of SMS: (1) Safety 
Management Policy; (2) Safety Risk Management; (3) Safety Assurance; 
and (4) Safety Promotion. Each transit agency's SMS must be 
appropriately scaled to the size and complexity of the system.
673.23--Safety Management Policy
    Section 673.23(a) requires the transit agency's Safety Management 
Policy to include a description of the transit agency's Safety 
Committee or approach to cooperation with frontline transit worker 
representatives, as applicable.
    Section 673.23(b) directs each transit agency to establish and 
implement a process that allows transit workers to report safety 
concerns.
    Section 673.23(c) requires that the Safety Management Policy be 
communicated throughout the transit agency's organization.
    Section 673.23(d) requires the transit agency to establish the 
necessary authorities, accountabilities, and responsibilities necessary 
to meet its safety objectives, particularly as they relate to the 
development and management of the transit agency's SMS. Section 
673.23(d)(1) requires each transit agency to identify an Accountable 
Executive and describes their role. Under Sec.  673.25(d)(1)(i), the 
Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider must implement 
all safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program that

[[Page 25732]]

are included in the ASP under Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iv). Under Sec.  
673.23(d)(1)(ii), the Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area 
provider receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigation 
recommendations of the Safety Committee, consistent with requirements 
in Sec. Sec.  673.19(d) and 673.25(d)(6).
    Sections 673.23(d)(2)-(5) require each transit agency to designate 
a Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive, Safety Committee (for large 
urbanized area providers), identify transit agency leadership and 
executive management, and designate key staff.
673.25--Safety Risk Management
    Section 673.25(a) requires that each transit agency must develop 
and implement a Safety Risk Management (SRM) process for all elements 
of its system. The SRM process includes hazard identification, safety 
risk assessment, and safety risk mitigation.
    Section 673.25(b) discusses hazard identification. Section 
673.25(b)(1) requires a transit agency to establish processes to 
identify hazards and potential consequences. Section 673.25(b)(2) lists 
certain data that a transit agency must consider as a source for hazard 
identification, including data regarding exposure to infectious disease 
provided by the CDC or a State health authority.
    Section 673.25(c) describes the requirements for safety risk 
assessments.
    Section 673.25(d) discusses safety risk mitigation. Section 
673.25(d)(1) requires a transit agency to establish methods or 
processes to identify safety risk mitigations necessary as a result of 
the transit agency's safety risk assessment. For large urbanized area 
providers, these methods or processes must address the role of the 
agency's Safety Committee.
    Section 673.25(d)(2) requires transit agencies to consider guidance 
provided by an oversight authority, if applicable, and FTA as a source 
for safety risk mitigation as well as CDC or State health authority 
guidelines to prevent or control exposure to infectious diseases.
    Sections 673.25(d)(3) and (d)(4) require each large urbanized area 
provider and its Safety Committee to consider specific safety risk 
mitigations related to vehicular and pedestrian safety events involving 
transit vehicles and assaults on transit workers when identifying 
safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction program, 
including when addressing a missed safety risk reduction program safety 
performance target. Section 673.25(d)(3) requires consideration of 
operator visibility impairment mitigations for any type of transit 
vehicles, not just buses. Similarly, Sec.  673.25(d)(4) requires 
consideration of assault mitigation infrastructure and technology in 
any type of transit vehicle and in transit facilities, not just buses.
    Section 673.25(d)(5) requires a large urbanized area provider to 
include or incorporate by reference in its ASP, as required by Sec.  
673.11(a)(7)(iv), any safety risk mitigations recommended by the Safety 
Committee based on a safety risk assessment as part of the safety risk 
reduction program. This includes mitigations relating to vehicular and 
pedestrian safety events or assaults on transit workers.
    Section 673.25(d)(6) provides that if the Safety Committee 
recommends a safety risk mitigation unrelated to the safety risk 
reduction program and the Accountable Executive decides not to 
implement the safety risk mitigation, the Accountable Executive is 
required to prepare a written statement explaining their decision. The 
Accountable Executive must submit and present this explanation to the 
Safety Committee and Board of Directors, or equivalent entity.
673.27--Safety Assurance
    Section 673.27(a) requires transit agencies to develop and 
implement a safety assurance process.
    Section 673.27(b) requires transit agencies to establish safety 
performance monitoring and measurement activities. This section 
requires that large urbanized area providers address the role of the 
Safety Committee. This ensures that the SMS of these transit agencies 
incorporates the Safety Committee's statutorily required 
responsibilities relating to safety performance monitoring and 
measurement.
    Section 673.27(c) requires transit agencies to establish a process 
for identifying and addressing changes to the system or operating 
conditions.
    Section 673.27(d) addresses the requirement of continuous 
improvement. This requirement applies to all transit agencies subject 
to part 673. Section 673.25(d)(1) requires that a transit agency must 
establish a process to assess its safety performance annually. This 
process must include identifying deficiencies in the transit agency's 
SMS and in the agency's safety performance against its safety 
performance targets, including safety performance targets required for 
all transit agencies at Sec.  673.11(a)(3). For large urbanized area 
providers, the continuous improvement process must address the role of 
the transit agency's Safety Committee and include the identification of 
deficiencies in the transit agency's performance against annual safety 
performance targets set by the Safety Committee under Sec.  
673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program. Additionally, this 
section requires that RTAs must address internal safety review 
requirements established by SSOAs as part of the continuous improvement 
element of Safety Assurance.
    Sections 673.27(d)(2) through (d)(4) address continuous improvement 
requirements related to safety performance targets as part of a large 
urbanized area provider's safety risk reduction program. Section 
673.27(d)(2) requires the large urbanized area provider to monitor 
safety performance against the annual safety targets. Section 
673.27(d)(3) identifies the requirements for a large urbanized area 
provider that does not meet an annual safety performance target set by 
the Safety Committee for the safety risk reduction program. 
Specifically, the transit agency must: (1) assess the associated safety 
risk; (2) mitigate associated safety risk using the safety risk 
mitigation process under Sec.  673.25(d) and include those mitigations 
in the plan described in Sec.  673.27(d)(4); and (3) allocate its 
safety set-aside in the following fiscal year to safety related 
projects that are reasonably likely to assist in meeting the safety 
performance target.
    Section 673.27(d)(4) requires a transit agency to develop and carry 
out, under the direction of the Accountable Executive, a plan to 
address any deficiencies identified through the safety performance 
assessment.
673.29--Safety Promotion
    This section requires each transit agency to establish competencies 
and training for all agency employees directly responsible for safety, 
and to establish and maintain the means for communicating safety 
performance and SMS information. Section 673.29(a) requires transit 
agencies to include de-escalation and safety concern identification and 
reporting training in their comprehensive safety training program. This 
requirement applies to all agencies, not just large urbanized area 
providers.
    This section also incorporates the statutory requirement that large 
urbanized area providers must include maintenance workers in their 
training programs.
    Section 673.29(b) requires transit agencies to integrate the 
results of cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives 
and joint labor-management Safety Committee activities

[[Page 25733]]

into their safety communication activities. This requirement addresses 
the communication impacts resulting from the new requirements for 
cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives and Safety 
Committee activities and to make sure that the results of these 
activities are communicated throughout the organization.

Subpart E--Safety Plan Documentation and Recordkeeping

673.31--Safety Plan Documentation
    This section requires each transit agency to keep records of its 
documents that are developed in accordance with this part. FTA expects 
a transit agency to maintain documents that set forth its ASP, 
including those related to the implementation of its SMS such as the 
results from SMS processes and activities. For the purpose of reviews, 
investigations, audits, or other purposes, this section requires each 
transit agency to make these documents available to FTA, SSOAs in the 
case of rail transit systems, States, and other Federal agencies as 
appropriate. A transit agency must maintain these documents for a 
minimum of three years.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review''), as 
supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review'') and Executive Order 14094 (``Modernizing 
Regulatory Review''), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits 
and costs of regulations, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits when possible, and to consider economic, environmental, 
and distributional effects. It also directs the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) to review significant regulatory actions, including 
regulations with annual economic effects of $200 million or more. OMB 
has determined the final rule is significant within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12866 and has reviewed the rule under that order.

Updates From the NPRM

    The NPRM analysis assessed the benefits and costs of self-enacting 
statutory requirements as well as discretionary provisions. The 
analysis for the final rule clarifies which provisions are 
discretionary and assesses their benefits and costs separately, as 
described in ``Baseline.''
    In addition, as described in ``II.N. Regulatory Impact Analysis,'' 
commenters on the NPRM requested that FTA reevaluate the staff and 
labor-hour assumptions it used to estimate costs for regulated entities 
to meet the requirements of the rule. After reviewing the assumptions, 
FTA made the following changes, which incorporate all the comments 
involving discretionary provisions of the rulemaking:
     De-escalation training: Added 2 hours in the first year 
and 2 hours in later years for agency staff to track employee training. 
The NPRM did not include hours for tracking employee training.
     Continuous Improvement: Added 2 hours per year for the 
Accountable Executive to participate. The NPRM did not include hours 
for the Accountable Executive.

Overview and Need for Regulation

    The final rule adds requirements for transit agencies subject to 
the existing regulation for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. 
The applicable agencies include all RTAs and all transit agencies 
receiving section 5307 funding.
    Most provisions implement self-enacting statutory amendments made 
by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 49 U.S.C. 5329. Agencies in 
large urbanized areas must incorporate de-escalation training into 
their safety training programs and incorporate guidelines for 
infectious disease exposure into their safety management system 
processes. Agencies serving urbanized areas with 200,000 or more people 
must establish safety committees, safety risk reduction programs with 
safety performance targets, and include maintenance workers in their 
safety training programs. The agencies must allocate at least 0.75 
percent of their section 5307 funding to eligible safety projects. If 
an agency does not meet a safety performance target established under 
its safety risk reduction program, it will need to allocate its set-
aside funding to projects that are reasonably likely to assist the 
agency in meeting the target. Agencies serving urbanized areas with 
fewer than 200,000 people must develop their agency safety plans in 
cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives.
    The final rule also includes discretionary requirements. The rule 
extends the de-escalation training requirement to all transit agencies 
subject to part 673. In addition, small public transportation providers 
must establish continuous improvement processes to assess safety 
performance; previous regulation required transit agencies to establish 
continuous improvement processes but exempted small public 
transportation providers.

Baseline for Analysis

    The rule implements self-enacting statutory requirements as well as 
discretionary elements. Circular A-4 (p. 12) notes that, in such cases, 
the analysis can use a with-statute baseline, focusing on the 
discretionary elements of the rule and potential alternatives. Table 2 
outlines the statutory and discretionary elements of the final rule.

                               Table 2--Statutory and Discretionary Rule Elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Provision                   Statutory elements       Statutory citation     Discretionary elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Committee.....................  Require transit          49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)...
                                        providers in large
                                        UZAs to establish
                                        safety committees.
                                       Require the plurality    49 U.S.C.
                                        union to choose          5329(d)(5)(A)(ii)(I).
                                        frontline worker
                                        representatives for
                                        the Safety Committee.
                                       Require the Safety       49 U.S.C.
                                        Committee to approve     5329(d)(1)(A); 49
                                        the Agency Safety Plan   U.S.C.
                                        and conduct certain      5329(d)(5)(A)(iii).
                                        SMS activities.
De-escalation training...............  Require transit          49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(H)  Extend new requirement
                                        providers in large                                to all transit
                                        UZAs to incorporate de-                           agencies subject to
                                        escalation training                               part 673.
                                        into safety training
                                        programs.
Risk Reduction Program...............  Require transit          49 U.S.C.
                                        providers in large       5329(d)(1)(I); 49
                                        UZAs to establish        U.S.C. 5329(d)(4).
                                        safety risk reduction
                                        programs with safety
                                        performance targets
                                        and engage in
                                        performance monitoring.
Continuous improvement...............  .......................  .......................  Extend existing
                                                                                          requirements for
                                                                                          continuous improvement
                                                                                          processes to small
                                                                                          public transportation
                                                                                          providers.

[[Page 25734]]

 
Frontline transit worker cooperation.  Require small transit    49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B)
                                        providers to develop
                                        agency safety plans in
                                        cooperation with
                                        frontline transit
                                        worker representatives.
Section 5307 funding allocation......  Requires transit         49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(B)-
                                        providers in large       (D)).
                                        UZAs to allocate at
                                        least 0.75 of Section
                                        5307 funding to
                                        eligible safety
                                        projects and re
                                        reallocate the set-
                                        aside when risk
                                        reduction performance
                                        targets are not met.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits

    The requirements for de-escalation training and continuous 
improvement processes are predicted to reduce the risk of fatalities 
and injuries for transit workers, passengers, drivers, and pedestrians 
if transit agencies adopt safety risk mitigations that they would not 
have adopted otherwise. Example mitigations include bus sensors and 
surveillance systems to detect objects and pedestrians, and bus 
operator barriers to protect drivers. At the same time, some 
mitigations, like de-escalation training for transit operators, have 
already been widely adopted. While FTA expects that providers will be 
more likely to adopt safety risk mitigations after implementing 
continuous improvement processes, it does not have information to 
quantify or monetize potential benefits.

Costs

    All transit agencies subject to part 673 will incur costs to meet 
the new requirement for de-escalation training, and small public 
transportation providers will incur costs to meet the new requirement 
for continuous improvement processes. FTA determined that the 
requirements would affect 572 transit agencies (299 providers in large 
UZAs; 273 providers in small UZAs) and 62 rail transit authorities (58 
in large UZAs; 4 in small UZAs), as well as 3 large agencies in small 
UZAs. While FTA will incur costs to notify agencies, update technical 
assistance resources, and conduct training, the expected costs are 
minimal.
    To estimate the value of staff time spent on the requirements, FTA 
used occupational wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of 
May 2021 (Table 3).\37\ FTA used median hourly wages for workers in the 
Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation industry (North American 
Industry Classification System code 485000) as a basis for the 
estimates, multiplied by 1.62 to account for employer benefits.\38\ FTA 
then used the estimates to calculate costs for the first ten years of 
the rule from 2024--the assumed effective date of the rule--to 2033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (March 2022). ``May 2021 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: United 
States.'' https://www.bls.gov/oes/2021/may/oes_nat.htm.
    \38\ Multiplier derived using Bureau of Labor Statistics data on 
employer costs for employee compensation for June 2022 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09202022.pdf). Employer costs 
for state and local government workers averaged $55.47 an hour, with 
$34.23 for wages and $21.25 for benefit costs. To estimate full 
costs from wages, one would use a multiplier of $55.47/$34.23, or 
1.62.

                       Table 3--Occupational Categories and Wages Used To Value Staff Time
                                                     [$2021]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Median hourly     Wage with
                 Staff                    Occupational category        Code            wage          benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontline personnel...................  Transportation and               53-0000          $22.10          $35.72
                                         Material Moving
                                         Occupations.
HR manager............................  Human Resources Managers         11-3121           45.64           73.77
Accountable Executive.................  General and Operations           11-1021           45.60           73.70
                                         Manager.
Chief Safety Officer..................  Health and Safety                17-2111           49.21           79.54
                                         Engineers.
Safety manager........................  Occupational Health and          19-5011           37.29           60.27
                                         Safety Specialists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2021 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.

De-Escalation Training

    Table 4 outlines the estimated staff and labor hours for transit 
providers and rail transit agencies in small UZAs (273 small agencies; 
3 large agencies; 4 rail transit authorities) to engage in de-
escalation training and track employee training activities. Almost all 
agencies established programs after the Transportation Security 
Administration issued a security directive in January 2021 requiring 
mask use on public transportation.\39\ The directive, which is no 
longer in effect as of April 2022,\40\ required agencies to brief 
employees responsible for enforcing the directive. Agencies established 
de-escalation training programs as part of their briefings, and FTA 
developed free online training resources allowing frontline employees 
to complete training by themselves.\41\ For these reasons, FTA 
estimates that 95 percent of employees already receive training, 
although agencies may not already engage in tracking of the training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Transportation Security Administration (January 31, 2021). 
``Security Directive SD 1582/84-21-01.'' https://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/sd-1582_84-21-01.pdf.
    \40\ Transportation Security Administration (April 18, 2022). 
``Statement regarding face mask use on public transportation.'' 
https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/statements/2022/04/18/statement-regarding-face-mask-use-public-transportation.
    \41\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2023). ``FTA-
Sponsored Training Courses.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-sponsored-training-courses.

[[Page 25735]]



                   Table 4--Staff and Hours Needed To Meet De-Escalation Training Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    First-year
               Affected entities                              Staff                    hours       Annual hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
280 providers and RTAs in small UZAs..........  Frontline personnel (5% of                     2            0.25
                                                 14,800 employees; 740 employees
                                                 total).
                                                HR manager (1 per entity).......               2               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For the de-escalation training requirement, FTA uses an estimate of 0.5 hours every two years, for an
  average of 0.25 hours a year.

    The training and tracking have estimated first-year costs of 
$94,000 in the first year and annual costs of $55,000 in later years 
(Table 5).

                         Table 5--First-Year and Annual Costs for De-Escalation Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Wage with
                                                      Number           Hours         benefits          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-year costs:
    Frontline personnel.........................             740               2          $35.72         $52,866
    HR managers.................................             280               2           73.77          41,311
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        First-year total........................  ..............  ..............  ..............          94,177
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual costs:
    Frontline personnel.........................             740             0.5           35.72          13,216
    HR managers.................................             280               2           73.77          41,311
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Annual total............................  ..............  ..............  ..............          54,528
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuous Improvement Processes

    Table 5 outlines the estimated staff and labor hours for small 
transit providers to maintain and establish continuous improvement 
processes. The hours include time to update the Agency Safety Plan to 
reflect new processes and to complete an annual assessment of safety 
performance.

               Table 5--Staff and Hours Needed To Meet Continuous Improvement Process Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    First-year
               Affected entities                              Staff                    hours       Annual hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
572 small public transit providers............  Accountable Executive (1 per                   2               4
                                                 entity).
                                                Chief Safety Officer (1 per                    2               4
                                                 entity).
                                                Safety manager (1 per entity)...               2               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The continuous improvement processes have estimated first-year 
costs of $244,000 in the first year and annual costs of $626,000 in 
later years (Table 6).

                    Table 6--First-Year and Annual Costs for Continuous Improvement Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Wage with
                                                      Number           Hours         benefits          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-year costs:
    Accountable Executive.......................             572               2          $73.70         $84,313
    Chief Safety Officer........................             572               2           79.54          90,994
    Safety manager..............................             572               2           60.27          68,949
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        First-year total........................  ..............  ..............  ..............         244,255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual costs:
    Accountable Executive.......................             572               4           73.70         168,626
    Chief Safety Officer........................             572               4           79.54         181,988
    Safety manager..............................             572               8           60.27         275,796
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Annual total............................  ..............  ..............  ..............         626,409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 25736]]

Total Costs

    The requirements for de-escalation training and continuous 
improvement processes have total estimated costs of $339,000 (2021 
dollars) in the first year and annual costs of $680,000 in later years 
(Table 7).

    Table 7--First-Year Costs and Annual Costs for Administrative and
                         Reporting Requirements
                                 [$2021]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Requirement               First-year costs    Annual costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-escalation training..............             $94,177         $54,528
Continuous improvement processes....             244,255         626,409
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................             338,432         680,936
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

    Table 8 summarizes the economic effects of the final rule. Over the 
ten-year analysis period, the rule has estimated costs of $6.5 million 
in 2021 dollars. On an annualized basis (discounted to 2023), the rule 
has estimated costs of $642,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and 
$635,000 at 7 percent. To quantify benefits and assess net benefits, 
FTA would need information on the specific safety interventions transit 
agencies would adopt to address the requirements

                                 Table 8--Summary of Economic Effects, 2023-2033
                                           [$2021, discounted to 2023]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Total        Annualized (3%   Annualized (7%
                            Item                               (undiscounted)      discount)        discount)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits....................................................      Unquantified  ...............  ...............
Costs:
    De-escalation training..................................          $584,925          $59,040          $59,803
    Continuous improvement processes........................         5,881,933          582,913          575,558
        Total costs.........................................         6,466,858          641,954          635,362
        Net benefits........................................      Unquantified  ...............  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Alternatives

    While most requirements in the final rule are statutorily mandated, 
the rule includes two discretionary elements: de-escalation training 
for all transit agencies subject to part 673; and continuous 
improvement for small public transportation providers. In developing 
the rule, FTA considered whether to adopt the statutorily mandated 
requirements without modification. Because the rule uses a with-statute 
baseline for analysis, the rule would not have incremental costs or 
benefits under this regulatory alternative.
    For de-escalation training, FTA considered data reported to the NTD 
on assaults on transit workers and found that these assaults occur on 
transit systems that serve large urbanized areas as well as those that 
serve small urbanized areas. Preliminary NTD data show that agencies 
serving small urbanized areas reported more than 300 assaults on 
transit workers from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023. FTA expects 
the number to increase after 2023 data are finalized and annual 
submissions from hundreds of smaller agencies are added. For this 
reason, FTA believes that requiring de-escalation training for 
operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety at 
all transit agencies subject to part 673 is appropriate and necessary 
to enhance safety for all transit workers and users of transportation, 
not just those in large urbanized areas. To minimize the de-escalation 
training burden on all transit agencies subject to part 673, FTA has 
made de-escalation training freely available to all transit agencies 
via the FTA-sponsored Assault Awareness and Prevention for Transit 
Operators courses offered by the National Transit Institute.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Federal Transit Administration (October 2023). ``FTA-
Sponsored Training Courses.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/fta-sponsored-training-courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For continuous improvement, FTA believes that requiring the 
processes for small public transportation providers eliminates possible 
inconsistencies in enforcement among small public transportation 
providers: some small public transportation providers operate in large 
urbanized areas and are therefore subject to statutory requirements for 
continuous improvement. In addition, small public transportation 
providers are already required to set safety performance targets based 
on the safety performance measures established in the National Safety 
Plan. Based on the experience that the providers have gained by 
operating SMS and carrying out required safety performance measurement 
activities, FTA expects that the providers will be able to formalize 
their continuous improvement activities and document them in their ASP.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of a regulation on small 
entities unless the agency determines that the regulation is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. FTA has determined that the final rule does not have 
a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
    Most provisions in the final rule implement self-enacting statutory 
amendments made by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 49 U.S.C. 5329, 
although some provisions are discretionary. The provisions include 
extending the de-escalation training requirement to all transit 
agencies subject to part 673, as well as requiring small public 
transportation providers to establish continuous improvement processes.
    Under the Act, local governments and other public-sector 
organizations qualify

[[Page 25737]]

as a small entity if they serve a population of less than 50,000. The 
rule affects 280 agencies in small UZAs, with some qualifying as small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. FTA estimates that, to 
meet the ongoing annual requirements for continuous improvement 
processes, a transit agency will need 4 hours of time for a Chief 
Safety Officer, 8 hours for a safety manager, and 2 hours for an 
Accountable Executive. To meet the ongoing annual requirements for de-
escalation training, employees of a single agency would spend an 
average of 0.5 hours on annual refresher training, with an HR manager 
spending 2 hours on tracking and reporting. Using occupational wage 
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of May 2021, FTA estimates 
the value of the time spent at $1,068.00, which would not have a 
significant effect on the agency.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    FTA has determined that this rule does not impose unfunded 
mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, March 22, 1995). This rule does not include a Federal mandate 
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million 
or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Additionally, the 
definition of ``Federal mandate'' in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or 
tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the 
program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal 
Government. The Federal Transit Act permits this type of flexibility.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that may have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. This action has been analyzed in 
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and FTA determined this action will 
not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism 
implications on the States. FTA also determined this action will not 
preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to 
discharge traditional State governmental functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply 
to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.) (PRA), and the White House Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) implementing regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA is 
seeking approval from OMB for a currently approved information 
collection that is associated with an existing regulation. The 
information collection (IC) was previously approved on October 4, 2022. 
However, this submission includes revised requirements authorized by 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including cooperation with frontline 
transit worker representatives in the development of an Agency Safety 
Plan (ASP), establishment of a Safety Committee, Safety Committee 
approval of an ASP, establishment of a safety risk reduction program 
for transit operations, establishment of safety performance targets for 
the safety risk reduction program, and establishment of strategies to 
minimize exposure to infectious diseases.
    OMB Control Number: 2132-0580.
    Type of Collection: Operators of public transportation systems.
    Type of Review: OMB Clearance. Previously Approved Information 
Collection Request.
    Summary of the Collection: The information collection includes (1) 
the development and certification of a Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan; (2) the implementation and documentation of the SMS 
approach; (3) associated recordkeeping; and (4) periodic requests.
    Need for and Expected Use of the Information to be Collected: 
Collection of information for this program is necessary to ensure that 
operators of public transportation systems are performing their safety 
responsibilities and activities required by law at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). 
Without the collection of this information, FTA would be unable to 
determine each recipient's and State's compliance with 49 U.S.C. 
5329(d).
    Respondents: Respondents include operators of public transportation 
as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302. FTA is deferring regulatory action at 
this time on recipients of FTA financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 
5310 and/or 49 U.S.C. 5311, unless those recipients operate rail 
transit. The total number of respondents is 758. This figure includes 
186 respondents that are States, rail fixed guideway systems, or large 
bus systems that receive Urbanized Area Formula Program funds under 49 
U.S.C. 5307. This figure also includes 572 respondents that receive 
Urbanized Area Formula Program funds under 49 U.S.C. 5307, operate one 
hundred or fewer vehicles in revenue service, and do not operate rail 
fixed guideway service that may draft and certify their own safety 
plans.
    Frequency: Annual, Periodic.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific 
criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1) 
Those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact 
Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an 
Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This rule qualifies for 
categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and 
administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to 
construction). FTA has evaluated whether the rule will involve unusual 
or extraordinary circumstances and has determined that it will not.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights. FTA does not believe this rule affects a taking of 
private property or otherwise has taking implications under Executive 
Order 12630.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA 
certifies that this action will not cause an environmental risk to 
health or safety

[[Page 25738]]

that might disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13175, dated 
November 6, 2000, and believes that it will not have substantial direct 
effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not 
preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is 
not required.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. FTA has determined that this action is not a 
significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Executive Orders 14096, 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All) (Apr. 21, 2023) (which builds upon 
Executive Order 12898) and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10, 
2012) \43\ require DOT agencies to make achieving environmental justice 
(EJ) part of their mission consistent with statutory authority by 
identifying, analyzing, and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects, 
including those related to climate change and cumulative impacts of 
environmental and other burdens on communities with EJ concerns. All 
DOT agencies seek to advance these policy goals and to engage in this 
analysis as appropriate in rulemaking activities. On August 15, 2012, 
FTA's Circular 4703.1 became effective, which contains guidance for 
recipients of FTA financial assistance to incorporate EJ principles 
into plans, projects, and activities.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Department of Transportation Updated Environmental Justice 
Order 5610.2(a): Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 77 FR 27534 (May 
10, 2012). https://www.transportation.gov/transportation-policy/environmental-justice/department-transportation-order-56102a.
    \44\ Federal Transit Administration (February 2020). 
``Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit 
Administration Recipients.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/environmental-justice-policy-guidance-federal-transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA has evaluated this action under its environmental justice 
policies and FTA has determined that this action will not cause 
disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on 
communities with EJ concerns.

Regulation Identifier Number

    A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading 
of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 673

    Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Safety.

Veronica Vanterpool,
Acting Administrator.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 
5329 and 5334, and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, the 
Federal Transit Administration revises 49 CFR part 673 to read as 
follows:

PART 673--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SAFETY PLANS

Subpart A--General
Sec.
673.1 Applicability.
673.3 Policy.
673.5 Definitions.
Subpart B--Safety Plans
673.11 General requirements.
673.13 Certification of compliance.
673.15 Coordination with metropolitan, statewide, and non-
metropolitan planning processes.
Subpart C--Safety Committees and Cooperation With Frontline Transit 
Worker Representatives
673.17 Cooperation with frontline transit worker representatives.
673.19 Safety Committees.
Subpart D--Safety Management Systems
673.21 General requirements.
673.23 Safety Management Policy.
673.25 Safety Risk Management.
673.27 Safety Assurance.
673.29 Safety Promotion.
Subpart E--Safety Plan Documentation and Recordkeeping
673.31 Safety plan documentation.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329, 5334; 49 CFR 1.91.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  673.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part applies to any State, local governmental authority, 
and any other operator of a public transportation system that receives 
Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
    (b) This part does not apply to an operator of a public 
transportation system that only receives Federal financial assistance 
under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C. 5311, or both 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 49 
U.S.C. 5311 unless it operates a rail fixed guideway public 
transportation system.


Sec.  673.3  Policy.

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted the principles 
and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for 
enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. FTA 
will follow the principles and methods of SMS in its development of 
rules, regulations, policies, guidance, best practices, and technical 
assistance administered under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329. This 
part sets standards for the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, 
which will be responsive to FTA's Public Transportation Safety Program, 
and reflect the specific safety objectives, standards, and priorities 
of each transit agency. Each Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan 
will incorporate SMS principles and methods tailored to the size, 
complexity, and scope of the public transportation system and the 
environment in which it operates.


Sec.  673.5  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Accountable Executive means a single, identifiable person who has 
ultimate responsibility for carrying out the Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan of a transit agency; responsibility for carrying out 
the transit agency's Transit Asset Management Plan; and control or 
direction over the human and capital resources needed to develop and 
maintain both the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plan, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and the transit agency's 
Transit Asset Management Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326.
    Assault on a transit worker means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302, 
a circumstance in which an individual knowingly, without lawful 
authority or permission, and with intent to endanger the safety of any 
individual, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, 
interferes with, disables, or incapacitates a transit worker while the

[[Page 25739]]

transit worker is performing the duties of the transit worker.
    CDC means the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the 
United States Department of Health and Human Services.
    Chief Safety Officer means an adequately trained individual who has 
responsibility for safety and reports directly to a transit agency's 
chief executive officer, general manager, president, or equivalent 
officer. A Chief Safety Officer may not serve in other operational or 
maintenance capacities, unless the Chief Safety Officer is employed by 
a transit agency that is a small public transportation provider as 
defined in this part, or a public transportation provider that does not 
operate a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
    Direct recipient means an entity that receives Federal financial 
assistance directly from the Federal Transit Administration.
    Emergency means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5324, a natural 
disaster affecting a wide area (such as a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, 
earthquake, severe storm, or landslide) or a catastrophic failure from 
any external cause, as a result of which the Governor of a State has 
declared an emergency and the Secretary has concurred; or the President 
has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170).
    Equivalent entity means an entity that carries out duties similar 
to that of a Board of Directors, for a recipient or subrecipient of FTA 
funds under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, including sufficient authority to 
review and approve a recipient or subrecipient's Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan.
    FTA means the Federal Transit Administration, an operating 
administration within the United States Department of Transportation.
    Hazard means any real or potential condition that can cause injury, 
illness, or death; damage to or loss of the facilities, equipment, 
rolling stock, or infrastructure of a public transportation system; or 
damage to the environment.
    Injury means any harm to persons as a result of an event that 
requires immediate medical attention away from the scene.
    Investigation means the process of determining the causal and 
contributing factors of a safety event or hazard, for the purpose of 
preventing recurrence and mitigating safety risk.
    Joint labor-management process means a formal approach to discuss 
topics affecting transit workers and the public transportation system.
    Large urbanized area provider means a recipient or subrecipient of 
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that serves an urban area 
with a population of 200,000 or more as determined by the most recent 
decennial Census.
    National Public Transportation Safety Plan means the plan to 
improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive 
Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
    Near-miss means a narrowly avoided safety event.
    Operator of a public transportation system means a provider of 
public transportation.
    Performance measure means an expression based on a quantifiable 
indicator of performance or condition that is used to establish targets 
and to assess progress toward meeting the established targets.
    Potential consequence means the effect of a hazard.
    Public transportation means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302, 
regular, continuing shared-ride surface transportation services that 
are open to the general public or open to a segment of the general 
public defined by age, disability, or low income; and does not include:
    (1) Intercity passenger rail transportation provided by the entity 
described in 49 U.S.C. chapter 243 (or a successor to such entity);
    (2) Intercity bus service;
    (3) Charter bus service;
    (4) School bus service;
    (5) Sightseeing service;
    (6) Courtesy shuttle service for patrons of one or more specific 
establishments; or
    (7) Intra-terminal or intra-facility shuttle services.
    Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan means the documented 
comprehensive agency safety plan for a transit agency that is required 
by 49 U.S.C. 5329 and this part.
    Rail fixed guideway public transportation system means any fixed 
guideway system, or any such system in engineering or construction, 
that uses rail, is operated for public transportation, is within the 
jurisdiction of a State, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Railroad Administration. These include but are not limited to 
rapid rail, heavy rail, light rail, monorail, trolley, inclined plane, 
funicular, and automated guideway.
    Rail transit agency means any entity that provides services on a 
rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
    Recipient means a State or local governmental authority, or any 
other operator of a public transportation system, that receives 
financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.
    Roadway means land on which rail transit tracks and support 
infrastructure have been constructed to support the movement of rail 
transit vehicles, excluding station platforms.
    Safety Assurance means processes within a transit agency's Safety 
Management System that functions to ensure the implementation and 
effectiveness of safety risk mitigation, and to ensure that the transit 
agency meets or exceeds its safety objectives through the collection, 
analysis, and assessment of information.
    Safety Committee means the formal joint labor-management committee 
on issues related to safety that is required by 49 U.S.C. 5329 and this 
part.
    Safety event means an unexpected outcome resulting in injury or 
death; damage to or loss of the facilities, equipment, rolling stock, 
or infrastructure of a public transportation system; or damage to the 
environment.
    Safety Management management Policy means a transit agency's 
documented commitment to safety, which defines the transit agency's 
safety objectives and the accountabilities and responsibilities for the 
management of safety.
    Safety Management System (SMS) means the formal, organization-wide 
approach to managing safety risk and assuring the effectiveness of a 
transit agency's safety risk mitigation. SMS includes systematic 
procedures, practices, and policies for managing hazards and safety 
risk.
    Safety Management System (SMS) Executive means a Chief Safety 
Officer or an equivalent.
    Safety performance target means a quantifiable level of performance 
or condition, expressed as a value for the measure, related to safety 
management activities, to be achieved within a specified time period.
    Safety Promotion means a combination of training and communication 
of safety information to support SMS as applied to the transit agency's 
public transportation system.
    Safety risk means the composite of predicted severity and 
likelihood of a potential consequence of a hazard.
    Safety risk assessment means the formal activity whereby a transit 
agency determines Safety Risk Management priorities by establishing the 
significance or value of its safety risk.
    Safety risk management means a process within a transit agency's 
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan for identifying hazards and 
analyzing, assessing, and mitigating the safety risk of their potential 
consequences.
    Safety risk mitigation means a method or methods to eliminate or 
reduce the

[[Page 25740]]

severity and/or likelihood of a potential consequence of a hazard.
    Safety set-aside means the allocation of not less than 0.75 percent 
of assistance received by a large urbanized area provider under 49 
U.S.C. 5307 to safety-related projects eligible under 49 U.S.C. 5307.
    Small public transportation provider means a recipient or 
subrecipient of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that 
has one hundred (100) or fewer vehicles in peak revenue service across 
all non-rail fixed route modes or in any one non-fixed route mode and 
does not operate a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
    State means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
the Virgin Islands.
    State of good repair means the condition in which a capital asset 
is able to operate at a full level of performance.
    State Safety Oversight Agency means an agency established by a 
State that meets the requirements and performs the functions specified 
by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and (k) and the regulations set forth in 49 CFR 
part 674.
    Subrecipient means an entity that receives Federal transit grant 
funds indirectly through a State or a direct recipient.
    Transit agency means an operator of a public transportation system 
that is a recipient or subrecipient of Federal financial assistance 
under 49 U.S.C. 5307 or a rail transit agency.
    Transit Asset Management Plan means the strategic and systematic 
practice of procuring, operating, inspecting, maintaining, 
rehabilitating, and replacing transit capital assets to manage their 
performance, risks, and costs over their life cycles, for the purpose 
of providing safe, cost-effective, and reliable public transportation, 
as required by 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 CFR part 625.
    Transit worker means any employee, contractor, or volunteer working 
on behalf of the transit agency.
    Urbanized area means, as defined under 49 U.S.C. 5302, an area 
encompassing a population of 50,000 or more that has been defined and 
designated in the most recent decennial census as an urban area by the 
Secretary of Commerce.

Subpart B--Safety Plans


Sec.  673.11  General requirements.

    (a) A transit agency or State must establish a Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan that meets the requirements of this 
part and, at a minimum, consists of the following elements:
    (1) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and subsequent 
updates, must be signed by the Accountable Executive and approved by--
    (i) For a large urbanized area provider, the Safety Committee 
established pursuant to Sec.  673.19, followed by the transit agency's 
Board of Directors or an equivalent entity; or
    (ii) For all other transit agencies, the transit agency's Board of 
Directors or an equivalent entity.
    (2) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must document the 
processes and activities related to Safety Management System (SMS) 
implementation, as required under subpart D of this part.
    (3) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must include 
annual safety performance targets based on the safety performance 
measures established under the National Public Transportation Safety 
Plan. Safety performance targets for the safety risk reduction program 
are only required for large urbanized area providers.
    (4) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan must address all 
applicable requirements and standards as set forth in FTA's Public 
Transportation Safety Program and the National Public Transportation 
Safety Plan. Compliance with the minimum safety performance standards 
authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(C) is not required until 
standards have been established through the public notice and comment 
process.
    (5) Each transit agency must establish a process and timeline for 
conducting an annual review and update of the Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan.
    (6) A rail transit agency must include or incorporate by reference 
in its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan:
    (i) An emergency preparedness and response plan or procedures that 
addresses, at a minimum, the assignment of transit worker 
responsibilities during an emergency; and coordination with Federal, 
State, regional, and local officials with roles and responsibilities 
for emergency preparedness and response in the transit agency's service 
area;
    (ii) Any policies and procedures regarding rail transit workers on 
the roadway the rail transit agency has issued; and
    (iii) The transit agency's policies and procedures developed in 
consultation with the State Safety Oversight Agency to provide access 
and required data for the State Safety Oversight Agency's risk-based 
inspection program.
    (7) The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan of each large 
urbanized area provider must include a safety risk reduction program 
for transit operations to improve safety performance by reducing the 
number and rates of safety events, injuries, and assaults on transit 
workers. The safety risk reduction program must, at a minimum:
    (i) Address the reduction and mitigation of vehicular and 
pedestrian safety events involving transit vehicles that includes 
safety risk mitigations consistent with Sec.  673.25(d)(3);
    (ii) Address the reduction and mitigation of assaults on transit 
workers that includes safety risk mitigations consistent with Sec.  
673.25(d)(4);
    (iii) Include the safety performance targets set by the Safety 
Committee pursuant to Sec.  673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction 
program performance measures established in the National Public 
Transportation Safety Plan. These targets must be set--
    (A) Based on a three-year rolling average of the data submitted by 
the large urbanized area provider to the National Transit Database 
(NTD);
    (B) For all modes of public transportation; and
    (C) Based on the level of detail the large urbanized area provider 
is required to report to the NTD. The Safety Committee is not required 
to set a target for a performance measure until the large urbanized 
area provider has been required to report three years of data to the 
NTD corresponding to such performance measure.
    (iv) Include or incorporate by reference the safety risk 
mitigations identified and recommended by the Safety Committee as 
described in Sec.  673.25(d)(5).
    (b) A transit agency may develop one Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan for all modes of service or may develop a Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for each mode of service not subject 
to safety regulation by another Federal entity.
    (c) A transit agency must maintain its Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements in 
subpart E of this part.

[[Page 25741]]

    (d) A State must draft and certify a Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan on behalf of any small public transportation provider that 
is located in that State. A State is not required to draft a Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan for a small public transportation 
provider if that transit agency notifies the State that it will draft 
its own plan. In each instance, the transit agency must carry out the 
plan. If a State drafts and certifies a Public Transportation Agency 
Safety Plan on behalf of a transit agency, and the transit agency later 
opts to draft and certify its own Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plan, then the transit agency must notify the State. The transit agency 
has one year from the date of the notification to draft and certify a 
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan that is compliant with this 
part. The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan drafted by the State 
will remain in effect until the transit agency drafts its own Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
    (e) Agencies that operate passenger ferries regulated by the United 
States Coast Guard (USCG) or rail fixed guideway public transportation 
service regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are not 
required to develop Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans for those 
modes of service.


Sec.  673.13  Certification of compliance.

    (a) Each direct recipient, or State as authorized in Sec.  
673.11(d), must certify that it has established a Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan meeting the requirements of this part by the start 
of operations. A direct recipient must certify that it and all 
applicable subrecipients are in compliance with the requirements of 
this part. A State Safety Oversight Agency must review and approve a 
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan developed by a rail fixed 
guideway public transportation system, as authorized in 49 U.S.C. 
5329(e) and its implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 674.
    (b) On an annual basis, a direct recipient or State must certify 
its compliance with this part. A direct recipient must certify that it 
and all applicable subrecipients are in compliance with the 
requirements of this part.


Sec.  673.15  Coordination with metropolitan, statewide, and non-
metropolitan planning processes.

    (a) A State or transit agency must make its safety performance 
targets available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to 
aid in the planning process.
    (b) To the maximum extent practicable, a State or transit agency 
must coordinate with States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations in 
the selection of State and MPO safety performance targets.

Subpart C--Safety Committees and Cooperation With Frontline Transit 
Worker Representatives


Sec.  673.17  Cooperation with frontline transit worker 
representatives.

    (a) Each large urbanized area provider must establish a Safety 
Committee that meets the requirements of Sec.  673.19.
    (b) Each transit agency that is not a large urbanized area provider 
must:
    (1) Develop its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and 
subsequent updates, in cooperation with frontline transit worker 
representatives; and
    (2) Include or incorporate by reference in its Public 
Transportation Agency Safety Plan a description of how frontline 
transit worker representatives cooperate in the development and update 
of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.


Sec.  673.19  Safety Committees.

    (a) Establishing the Safety Committee. Each large urbanized area 
provider must establish and operate a Safety Committee that is:
    (1) Appropriately scaled to the size, scope, and complexity of the 
transit agency; and
    (2) Convened by a joint labor-management process.
    (b) Safety Committee membership. The Safety Committee must consist 
of an equal number of frontline transit worker representatives and 
management representatives. To the extent practicable, the Safety 
Committee must include frontline transit worker representatives from 
major transit service functions, such as operations and maintenance, 
across the transit system.
    (1) The labor organization that represents the plurality of the 
transit agency's frontline transit workers must select frontline 
transit worker representatives for the Safety Committee.
    (2) If the transit agency's frontline transit workers are not 
represented by a labor organization, the transit agency must adopt a 
mechanism for frontline transit workers to select frontline transit 
worker representatives for the Safety Committee.
    (c) Safety Committee procedures. Each large urbanized area provider 
must include or incorporate by reference in its Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan procedures regarding the composition, 
responsibilities, and operations of the Safety Committee which, at a 
minimum, must address:
    (1) The organizational structure, size, and composition of the 
Safety Committee and how it will be chaired;
    (2) How meeting agendas and notices will be developed and shared, 
and how meeting minutes will be recorded and maintained;
    (3) Any required training for Safety Committee members related to 
the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan and the 
processes, activities, and tools used to support the transit agency's 
SMS;
    (4) The compensation policy established by the agency for 
participation in Safety Committee meetings;
    (5) How the Safety Committee will access technical experts, 
including other transit workers, to serve in an advisory capacity as 
needed; transit agency information, resources, and tools; and 
submissions to the transit worker safety reporting program to support 
its deliberations;
    (6) How the Safety Committee will reach and record decisions;
    (7) How the Safety Committee will coordinate and communicate with 
the transit agency's Board of Directors, or equivalent entity, and the 
Accountable Executive;
    (8) How the Safety Committee will manage disputes to ensure it 
carries out its operations. The Safety Committee may use the dispute 
resolution or arbitration process from the transit agency's Collective 
Bargaining Agreement, or a different process that the Safety Committee 
develops and agrees upon, but the Accountable Executive may not be 
designated to resolve any disputes within the Safety Committee; and
    (9) How the Safety Committee will carry out its responsibilities 
identified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) Safety Committee responsibilities. The Safety Committee must 
conduct the following activities to oversee the transit agency's safety 
performance:
    (1) Review and approve the transit agency's Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan and any updates as required at Sec.  
673.11(a)(1)(i);
    (2) Set annual safety performance targets for the safety risk 
reduction program as required at Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iii); and
    (3) Support operation of the transit agency's SMS by:
    (i) Identifying and recommending safety risk mitigations necessary 
to reduce the likelihood and severity of

[[Page 25742]]

potential consequences identified through the transit agency's safety 
risk assessment, including safety risk mitigations associated with any 
instance where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety 
performance target in the safety risk reduction program;
    (ii) Identifying safety risk mitigations that may be ineffective, 
inappropriate, or were not implemented as intended, including safety 
risk mitigations associated with any instance where the transit agency 
did not meet an annual safety performance target in the safety risk 
reduction program; and
    (iii) Identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous 
improvement as required at Sec.  673.27(d), including any instance 
where the transit agency did not meet an annual safety performance 
target in the safety risk reduction program.

Subpart D--Safety Management Systems


Sec.  673.21   General requirements.

    Each transit agency must establish and implement a Safety 
Management System under this part. A transit agency Safety Management 
System must be appropriately scaled to the size, scope and complexity 
of the transit agency and include the following elements:
    (a) Safety Management Policy as described in Sec.  673.23;
    (b) Safety Risk Management as described in Sec.  673.25;
    (c) Safety Assurance as described in Sec.  673.27; and
    (d) Safety Promotion as described in Sec.  673.29.


Sec.  673.23  Safety Management Policy.

    (a) A transit agency must establish its organizational 
accountabilities and responsibilities and have a written statement of 
Safety Management Policy that includes the transit agency's safety 
objectives and a description of the transit agency's Safety Committee 
or approach to cooperation with frontline transit worker 
representatives.
    (b) A transit agency must establish and implement a process that 
allows transit workers to report safety concerns, including assaults on 
transit workers, near-misses, and unsafe acts and conditions to senior 
management, includes protections for transit workers who report, and 
includes a description of transit worker behaviors that may result in 
disciplinary action.
    (c) The Safety Management Policy must be communicated throughout 
the transit agency's organization.
    (d) The transit agency must establish the necessary authorities, 
accountabilities, and responsibilities for the management of safety 
amongst the following individuals or groups within its organization, as 
they relate to the development and management of the transit agency's 
SMS:
    (1) Accountable Executive. The transit agency must identify an 
Accountable Executive. The Accountable Executive is accountable for 
ensuring that the transit agency's SMS is effectively implemented 
throughout the transit agency's public transportation system. The 
Accountable Executive is accountable for ensuring action is taken, as 
necessary, to address substandard performance in the transit agency's 
SMS. The Accountable Executive may delegate specific responsibilities, 
but the ultimate accountability for the transit agency's safety 
performance cannot be delegated and always rests with the Accountable 
Executive.
    (i) The Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider 
must implement safety risk mitigations for the safety risk reduction 
program that are included in the Agency Safety Plan under Sec.  
673.11(a)(7)(iv).
    (ii) The Accountable Executive of a large urbanized area provider 
receives and must consider all other safety risk mitigations 
recommended by the Safety Committee, consistent with requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  673.19(d) and 673.25(d)(6).
    (2) Chief Safety Officer or Safety Management System (SMS) 
Executive. The Accountable Executive must designate a Chief Safety 
Officer or SMS Executive who has the authority and responsibility for 
day-to-day implementation and operation of a transit agency's SMS. The 
Chief Safety Officer or SMS Executive must hold a direct line of 
reporting to the Accountable Executive. A transit agency may allow the 
Accountable Executive to also serve as the Chief Safety Officer or SMS 
Executive.
    (3) Safety Committee. A large urbanized area provider must 
establish a joint labor-management Safety Committee that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  673.19.
    (4) Transit agency leadership and executive management. A transit 
agency must identify those members of its leadership or executive 
management, other than an Accountable Executive, Chief Safety Officer, 
or SMS Executive, who have authorities or responsibilities for day-to-
day implementation and operation of a transit agency's SMS.
    (5) Key staff. A transit agency may designate key staff, groups of 
staff, or committees to support the Accountable Executive, Chief Safety 
Officer, Safety Committee, or SMS Executive in developing, 
implementing, and operating the transit agency's SMS.


Sec.  673.25   Safety Risk Management.

    (a) Safety Risk Management process. A transit agency must develop 
and implement a Safety Risk Management process for all elements of its 
public transportation system. The Safety Risk Management process must 
be comprised of the following activities: hazard identification, safety 
risk assessment, and safety risk mitigation.
    (b) Hazard identification. (1) A transit agency must establish 
methods or processes to identify hazards and potential consequences of 
the hazards.
    (2) A transit agency must consider, as a source for hazard 
identification:
    (i) Data and information provided by an oversight authority, 
including but not limited to FTA, the State, or as applicable, the 
State Safety Oversight Agency having jurisdiction;
    (ii) Data and information regarding exposure to infectious disease 
provided by the CDC or a State health authority; and
    (iii) Safety concerns identified through Safety Assurance 
activities carried out under Sec.  673.27.
    (c) Safety risk assessment. (1) A transit agency must establish 
methods or processes to assess the safety risk associated with 
identified hazards.
    (2) A safety risk assessment includes an assessment of the 
likelihood and severity of the potential consequences of identified 
hazards, taking into account existing safety risk mitigations, to 
determine if safety risk mitigation is necessary and to inform 
prioritization of safety risk mitigations.
    (d) Safety risk mitigation. (1) A transit agency must establish 
methods or processes to identify safety risk mitigations or strategies 
necessary as a result of the transit agency's safety risk assessment to 
reduce the likelihood and severity of the potential consequences. For 
large urbanized area providers, these methods or processes must address 
the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee.
    (2) A transit agency must consider, as a source for safety risk 
mitigation:
    (i) Guidance provided by an oversight authority, if applicable, and 
FTA; and
    (ii) Guidelines to prevent or control exposure to infectious 
diseases provided by the CDC or a State health authority.
    (3) When identifying safety risk mitigations for the safety risk 
reduction program related to vehicular and pedestrian safety events 
involving transit vehicles, including to address a missed safety 
performance target set by the Safety Committee under Sec.  
673.19(d)(2), each large urbanized area

[[Page 25743]]

provider and its Safety Committee must consider mitigations to reduce 
visibility impairments for transit vehicle operators that contribute to 
accidents, including retrofits to vehicles in revenue service and 
specifications for future procurements that reduce visibility 
impairments.
    (4) When identifying safety risk mitigations for the safety risk 
reduction program related to assaults on transit workers, including to 
address a missed safety performance target set by the Safety Committee 
under Sec.  673.19(d)(2), each large urbanized area provider and its 
Safety Committee must consider deployment of assault mitigation 
infrastructure and technology on transit vehicles and in transit 
facilities. Assault mitigation infrastructure and technology includes 
barriers to restrict the unwanted entry of individuals and objects into 
the workstations of bus operators.
    (5) When a large urbanized area provider's Safety Committee, as 
part of the transit agency's safety risk reduction program, identifies 
and recommends under Sec.  673.19(c)(6) safety risk mitigations, 
including mitigations relating to vehicular and pedestrian safety 
events involving transit vehicles or assaults on transit workers, based 
on a safety risk assessment conducted under Sec.  673.25(c), the 
transit agency must include or incorporate by reference these safety 
risk mitigations in its ASP pursuant to Sec.  673.11(a)(7)(iv).
    (6) When a large urbanized area provider's Safety Committee 
recommends a safety risk mitigation unrelated to the safety risk 
reduction program, and the Accountable Executive decides not to 
implement the safety risk mitigation, the Accountable Executive must 
prepare a written statement explaining their decision, pursuant to 
recordkeeping requirements at Sec.  673.31. The Accountable Executive 
must submit and present this explanation to the transit agency's Safety 
Committee and Board of Directors or equivalent entity.


Sec.  673.27   Safety Assurance.

    (a) Safety Assurance process. A transit agency must develop and 
implement a Safety Assurance process, consistent with this subpart. A 
rail fixed guideway public transportation system, and a recipient or 
subrecipient of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 
that operates more than one hundred vehicles in peak revenue service, 
must include in its Safety Assurance process each of the requirements 
in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. A small public 
transportation provider only must include in its Safety Assurance 
process the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.
    (b) Safety performance monitoring and measurement. A transit agency 
must establish activities to:
    (1) Monitor its system for compliance with, and sufficiency of, the 
transit agency's procedures for operations and maintenance;
    (2) Monitor its operations to identify any safety risk mitigations 
that may be ineffective, inappropriate, or were not implemented as 
intended. For large urbanized area providers, these activities must 
address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee;
    (3) Conduct investigations of safety events to identify causal 
factors; and
    (4) Monitor information reported through any internal safety 
reporting programs.
    (c) Management of change. (1) A transit agency must establish a 
process for identifying and assessing changes that may introduce new 
hazards or impact the transit agency's safety performance.
    (2) If a transit agency determines that a change may impact its 
safety performance, then the transit agency must evaluate the proposed 
change through its Safety Risk Management process.
    (d) Continuous improvement. (1) A transit agency must establish a 
process to assess its safety performance annually.
    (i) This process must include the identification of deficiencies in 
the transit agency's SMS and deficiencies in the transit agency's 
performance against safety performance targets required in Sec.  
673.11(a)(3).
    (ii) For large urbanized area providers, this process must also 
address the role of the transit agency's Safety Committee, and include 
the identification of deficiencies in the transit agency's performance 
against annual safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee 
under Sec.  673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program required 
in Sec.  673.11(a)(7).
    (iii) Rail transit agencies must also address any specific internal 
safety review requirements established by their State Safety Oversight 
Agency.
    (2) A large urbanized area provider must monitor safety performance 
against annual safety performance targets set by the Safety Committee 
under Sec.  673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction program in Sec.  
673.11(a)(7).
    (3) A large urbanized area provider that does not meet an 
established annual safety performance target set by the Safety 
Committee under Sec.  673.19(d)(2) for the safety risk reduction 
program in Sec.  673.11(a)(7) must:
    (i) Assess associated safety risk, using the methods or processes 
established under Sec.  673.25(c);
    (ii) Mitigate associated safety risk based on the results of a 
safety risk assessment using the methods or processes established under 
Sec.  673.25(d). The transit agency must include these mitigations in 
the plan described at Sec.  673.27(d)(4) and in the Agency Safety Plan 
as described in Sec.  673.25(d)(5); and
    (iii) Allocate its safety set-aside in the following fiscal year to 
safety-related projects eligible under 49 U.S.C. 5307 that are 
reasonably likely to assist the transit agency in meeting the safety 
performance target in the future.
    (4) A transit agency must develop and carry out, under the 
direction of the Accountable Executive, a plan to address any 
deficiencies identified through the safety performance assessment as 
described in this section.


Sec.  673.29   Safety Promotion.

    (a) Competencies and training. (1) A transit agency must establish 
and implement a comprehensive safety training program that includes de-
escalation training, safety concern identification and reporting 
training, and refresher training for all operations transit workers and 
transit workers directly responsible for safety in the transit agency's 
public transportation system. The training program must include 
refresher training, as necessary.
    (2) Large urbanized area providers must include maintenance transit 
workers in the safety training program.
    (b) Safety communication. A transit agency must communicate safety 
and safety performance information throughout the transit agency's 
organization that, at a minimum, conveys information on hazards and 
safety risk relevant to transit workers' roles and responsibilities and 
informs transit workers of safety actions taken in response to reports 
submitted through a transit worker safety reporting program. A transit 
agency must also communicate the results of cooperation with frontline 
transit worker representatives as described at Sec.  673.17(b) or the 
Safety Committee activities described in Sec.  673.19.

Subpart E--Safety Plan Documentation and Recordkeeping


Sec.  673.31   Safety plan documentation.

    At all times, a transit agency must maintain documents that set 
forth its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, including those 
related to the implementation of its SMS, and results

[[Page 25744]]

from SMS processes and activities. A transit agency must maintain 
documents that are included in whole, or by reference, that describe 
the programs, policies, and procedures that the transit agency uses to 
carry out its Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. These documents 
must be made available upon request by FTA or other Federal entity, or 
a State or State Safety Oversight Agency having jurisdiction. A transit 
agency must maintain these documents for a minimum of three years after 
they are created.

[FR Doc. 2024-07514 Filed 4-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P