# Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-07514 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** April 11, 2024 - **Citation:** 89 FR 25694 ## Text 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 FTA-Knowledge@dot.gov at least three business days prior to the event. If you have any questions, please email FTA-Knowledge@dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program matters, contact Stewart Mader, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-9677 or stewart.mader@dot.gov. For legal matters, contact Heather Ueyama, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-7374 or heather.ueyama@dot.gov. 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 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: ○ Develop its ASP in cooperation with frontline employee representatives (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(B)); and ○ 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: ○ 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: 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)); 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)); 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)); 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 Identifying safety deficiencies for purposes of continuous improvement (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(5)(A)(iii)(III)). ○ 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: 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 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)). ○ 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: 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)). ○ Ensure the agency's comprehensive staff training program includes maintenance personnel and de-escalation training (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(H)(ii)). ○ 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 § 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 § 673.19. These changes provide additional clarity and specificity regarding Safety Committee procedures. FTA has revised § 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 673.20 as a standalone section, and has moved the safety risk reduction program requirements originally proposed under § 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 § 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 § 673.25, which now addresses safety risk reduction program requirements associated with Safety Risk Management, and § 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 §§ 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, § 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 § 673.11(a)(7)(iv). Given that the Accountable Executive has ultimate responsibility for carrying out the agency's ASP pursuant to § 673.5, the Accountable Executive is responsible for carrying out any mitigations included in the ASP. In response to comments, § 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 § 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 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] Item Total (undiscounted) Annualized (3% discount) Annualized (7% 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 § 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 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 § 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 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 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 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 § 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 § 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 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 §§ 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. 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 § 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 § 673.5 as 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 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 § 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 § 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 § 673.17 dovetails with the proposed Safety Committee provisions at § 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 § 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 § 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 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, § 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 § 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 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 § 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 § 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 § 673.19(a)(2), as FTA's proposed language mirrors the statute. FTA notes that § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 673.19(b). FTA acknowledges the comment received regarding the challenges of asking frontline transit workers to participate 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-07514. Public record. Not legal advice.