Notice2024-07392
National Public Transportation Safety Plan
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 10, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Transit Administration
Abstract
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed into the docket and on its website the final National Public Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) that is intended to guide the national effort to manage safety risk in our nation's public transportation systems. The updated National Safety Plan establishes performance measures for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP), including measures for safety risk reduction programs, to improve the safety of public transportation systems that receive FTA Federal financial assistance. Transit agencies will set performance targets based on the measures in order to monitor and assess the safety performance of their public transportation systems.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25316-25326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07392]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket No. FTA-2023-0010]
National Public Transportation Safety Plan
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of availability and response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed into the
docket and on its website the final National Public Transportation
Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) that is intended to guide the
national effort to manage safety risk in our nation's public
transportation systems. The updated National Safety Plan establishes
performance measures for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans
(PTASP), including measures for safety risk reduction programs, to
improve the safety of public transportation systems that receive FTA
Federal financial assistance. Transit agencies will set performance
targets based on the measures in order to monitor and assess the safety
performance of their public transportation systems.
DATES: The applicable date of the National Safety Plan is April 10,
2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program matters, contact Arnebya
Belton, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, 202-366-7546 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6001120e050219014e02050c140f0e20040f144e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7a6b5a9a2a5bea6e9a5a2abb3a8a987a3a8b3e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal matters, contact Emily Jessup, Office
of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-8907 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84e1e9ede8fdaaeee1f7f7f1f4c4e0ebf0aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f89d95919481d6929d8b8b8d88b89c978cd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Plan
This notice provides responses to comments received on the proposed
updates to the National Safety Plan and discusses the changes made to
the National Safety Plan in response. The National Safety Plan itself
is not included in this notice; instead, an electronic version is
available on FTA's website, at: <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/national-public-transportation-safety-plan">https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/national-public-transportation-safety-plan</a>, and in the docket, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTA-2023-0010">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTA-2023-0010</a>.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of Public Comments and FTA's Responses
[[Page 25317]]
I. Background
Congress first directed FTA to create and implement a National
Public Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) under the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act (Pub. L.
112-141), which authorized a new Public Transportation Safety Program
(Safety Program) at 49 U.S.C. 5329. The Safety Program was reauthorized
by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-
94) and again by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58).
On February 5, 2016, FTA first published a Federal Register notice
(81 FR 6372) seeking comment on a proposed National Safety Plan.
Subsequently, on January 18, 2017, FTA published a summary of the final
changes to the National Safety Plan and responses to comments in the
Federal Register (82 FR 5628) and published the finalized plan to the
docket and on FTA's website.
On May 31, 2023, FTA published a notice of availability of proposed
updates to the National Safety Plan and a request for comments (88 FR
34917). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(b), the National Safety Plan
includes several elements intended to improve the safety of all public
transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under
49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law identified new
elements that must be included in the National Safety Plan, including:
<bullet> Safety performance measures related to the PTASP safety
risk reduction program;
<bullet> In consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, precautionary and reactive actions required to ensure public
and personnel safety and health during an emergency; and
<bullet> Consideration, where appropriate, of performance-based and
risk-based methodologies.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also requires that the minimum
safety performance standards for public transportation vehicles used in
revenue operations take into consideration, to the extent practicable,
innovations in driver assistance technologies and driver protection
infrastructure, where appropriate, and a reduction in visibility
impairments that contribute to pedestrian fatalities.
This update continues to strengthen FTA's safety program and
addresses new requirements in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
further advance transit safety.
II. Summary of Public Comment and FTA's Response
The public comment period for the proposed update to the National
Safety Plan closed on July 31, 2023. FTA received 34 comment
submissions. Excluding two duplicate submissions, received submissions
from 32 unique commenters, including States, transit agencies, trade
associations, and individuals. FTA reviewed all the comments and
thoughtfully considered them when finalizing the National Safety Plan.
FTA received several comments that raised issues outside of the
scope of the proposed National Safety Plan. Because they are outside
the scope of the proposal, FTA will not respond to those comments in
this notice.
Specifically, FTA received comments on National Transit Database
(NTD) reporting requirements and FTA's proposals in the Public
Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2023
(88 FR 25336). FTA appreciates the interest in these areas but is not
addressing these comments in this notice. Rather, FTA directs
interested readers to the NTD web page on FTA's website for NTD-related
information and has addressed comments related to the PTASP NPRM
through the PTASP final rule, which is a separate regulatory action.
While FTA received comments on various aspects of the National
Safety Plan, FTA is largely finalizing the National Safety Plan as
proposed. In response to comments received, FTA has revised Chapter III
of the final National Safety Plan. These revisions are discussed below
in the summary of public comments and FTA's responses. Comments and
responses are subdivided by their corresponding sections of the
National Safety Plan and subject matter.
A. General
1. Applicability
Comments: Two commenters expressed that the National Safety Plan
and safety performance measurement requirements should be consistent
with the applicability of the existing PTASP regulation, which excludes
recipients that only receive funding under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49 U.S.C.
5311, or both (See: 49 CFR 673.1). One of the commenters argued that
rural and small public transportation providers have limited resources
and an excellent safety record, and that FTA should limit the burden of
safety regulations on such providers.
One commenter expressed concern that paratransit service appeared
to be excluded from the National Safety Plan, including with respect to
safety performance measures and the voluntary standards and recommended
practices.
Response: FTA appreciates the comments regarding the applicability
of the National Safety Plan to small and rural providers and the
regulatory burden on such providers. The National Safety Plan is
intended to be a useful tool for all public transportation systems that
receive funding under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, including small and rural
providers. FTA notes that only agencies subject to the PTASP regulation
are required to set targets using the safety performance measures in
the National Safety Plan. As noted above, the PTASP regulation excludes
transit agencies that receive funding only under 49 U.S.C. 5310, 49
U.S.C. 5311, or both. While some voluntary standards and resources
presented in Chapter III of the National Safety Plan pertain to
specific modes such as rail transit, transit agencies of all types and
sizes can refer to the standards and resources presented in the
National Safety Plan.
The National Safety Plan applies to paratransit service. The safety
performance measures identified in Chapter II apply to paratransit
service subject to the PTASP regulation, and Chapter III includes
resources that pertain to paratransit service.
2. Effective Date
Comments: One commenter asked for clarification on when the
National Safety Plan will go into effect, and whether it will be
applicable before or after the effective date of FTA's PTASP final
rule. Another commenter urged FTA to clarify that the safety
performance measures must be implemented on the applicable date of the
National Safety Plan. In addition, a commenter asked FTA not to delay
implementation of the NTD reporting requirements that transit agencies
and Safety Committees rely on to set performance targets for the new
safety performance measures.
Response: The National Safety Plan is applicable upon today's
publication in the Federal Register. Per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(A), the
Safety Committee of transit agencies serving a large urbanized area
must set performance targets for the safety risk reduction program
using a 3-year rolling average of NTD data. In a Dear Colleague letter
released on February 17, 2022, FTA communicated that these performance
targets need not be in place until FTA establishes related performance
[[Page 25318]]
measures through the National Safety Plan (<a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/dear-colleague-letter-bipartisan-infrastructure">https://www.transit.dot.gov/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/dear-colleague-letter-bipartisan-infrastructure</a>). FTA establishes such performance
measures through the National Safety Plan finalized today. Therefore,
FTA expects Safety Committees to set safety performance targets for the
safety risk reduction program based on the safety risk reduction
program performance measures in this final National Safety Plan. Per 49
CFR 673.11(a), FTA expects that transit agencies will revise their
Agency Safety Plans (ASPs) to address the new performance measures,
including documenting required safety performance targets, as part of
their existing annual ASP update process.
FTA recognizes that certain transit agencies may not yet have
reported three years of safety event information to the NTD that
corresponds to the safety risk reduction program performance measures.
FTA has addressed this situation in the PTASP final rule.
FTA understands that transit agencies and their Safety Committees
rely on NTD data to set PTASP performance targets, including targets
for the new performance measures finalized today. In February 2023, FTA
finalized NTD reporting changes regarding assaults on transit workers
and fatalities that result from an impact with a bus (88 FR 11506). The
new NTD requirements took effect for Full Reporters in calendar year
2023. The reporting requirements take effect for smaller reporters
beginning in NTD report year 2023.
3. Safety Management Systems (SMS)
Comments: One commenter requested that FTA develop SMS-related
guidance to support SMS implementation by transit managers and Safety
Committees. Another commenter recommended that the updated National
Safety Plan not completely supersede the 2017 version of the plan. It
argued that the 2017 version includes valuable information,
particularly related to SMS implementation, that is still useful to
transit agencies and joint labor-management Safety Committees.
Another commenter requested that FTA add guidance to the National
Safety Plan about how agencies should use the data they collect,
including how to analyze safety data, use leading indicators to
identify safety issues, and evaluate the effectiveness of safety
efforts. It provided two examples of National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) investigations in which agencies lacked the tools or
processes to use data effectively. The commenter also urged FTA to
include guidance in the National Safety Plan on Employee Safety
Reporting Programs (ESRP), noting additional NTSB investigations that
demonstrated this need.
One commenter requested clarification on FTA's rationale for
omitting ``top-down'' from the definition of SMS in the National Safety
Plan, noting that their agency understands the ``top-down'' concept to
be a foundational principle of SMS.
Response: Regarding the request that FTA develop SMS-related
guidance, FTA encourages transit agencies to explore the PTASP
Technical Assistance Center (PTASP TAC) resource library at <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP-TAC">https://www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP-TAC</a> to locate existing resources to support a
transit agency's SMS implementation. These resources include
information on topics raised by the commenters, such as data analysis
and ESRP development. FTA will continue to develop and disseminate SMS
technical assistance as needed through the PTASP TAC and other avenues.
Regarding the commenter that recommended against the proposed
National Safety Plan completely superseding the previous version due to
the elimination of SMS-related content, FTA notes that the SMS content
in the original National Safety Plan did not fully reflect the SMS
requirements in the PTASP rule, which FTA published in 2018. FTA has
since clarified the SMS requirements, and agencies should reference
updated materials in the PTASP TAC resource library. As noted above,
FTA has developed substantial SMS-related guidance and technical
assistance materials tailored specifically for transit agencies
implementing an SMS and has made this information available to the
public through more thorough and comprehensive technical assistance
materials and SMS documentation published through the PTASP TAC
resource library. FTA believes that providing guidance via the PTASP
TAC rather than in the National Safety Plan allows FTA flexibility and
responsiveness as questions arise related to the implementation of the
Safety Program and SMS generally.
FTA appreciates the comment received regarding the need for
additional guidance on effective data usage and ESRPs. However, FTA
does not agree that the National Safety Plan is the best vehicle for
this guidance because this document is not intended to include detailed
technical assistance on specific topics, such as ESRPs. Instead, FTA
will continue developing targeted guidance and technical assistance
materials focused on specific SMS topics such as performance monitoring
and measurement, safety performance target setting, and ESRP, and
publishing such materials through the PTASP TAC resource library.
FTA appreciates the comment on the definition of SMS but declines
to make changes in response. FTA notes that removing the phrase ``top-
down'' is intended to reflect the multi-directional flow of information
that is intrinsic to the function of an SMS. Transit worker safety
reporting programs and Safety Committees are examples of multi-
directional information flow throughout the agency.
B. Chapter I: Keeping Safety the Top Priority
1. Data Presentation
Comments: One commenter noted the importance of the safety
performance trends presented in the National Safety Plan and
recommended that FTA present a deeper dive into the associated data in
the National Safety Plan, including additional granularity related to
transit modes, geographical regions, population density, agency size,
and other factors. This commenter noted in particular that the data on
transit worker fatalities would benefit from additional context to help
understand the effectiveness of existing mitigations. The commenter
asked if FTA could provide additional ongoing analyses of safety
performance data, including when relevant to FTA's actions to reduce
safety risk and highlighted FTA's issuance of Special Directives as an
example. One commenter commented that the data FTA used to prepare the
charts included in Chapter I displaying safety trends in the transit
industry is incomplete because the NTD did not previously collect the
full picture of transit worker assaults.
Response: The data presented in Chapter I of the National Safety
Plan are intended to provide a high-level snapshot of transit industry
safety performance. FTA publishes more granular data monthly through
the NTD, including individual event records and summary safety
analyses, at <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data">https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data</a>. FTA will
continue to explore additional methods for developing and publishing
topic-specific safety performance analyses and communicating the data
that contributes to FTA's actions to reduce safety risk.
Regarding transit worker assaults, FTA developed the charts in
Chapter I based on historical data that was reported to the NTD. As
transit agencies report to the NTD using the new definitions, FTA will
update these
[[Page 25319]]
charts using that data in future iterations of the National Safety
Plan.
2. Public Transportation Safety Concerns
Comments: One commenter expressed support for the inclusion of bus
and pedestrian collisions as a safety concern and encouraged FTA to
consider how bus electrification may impact pedestrian safety. Another
commenter noted that the National Safety Plan does not mention suicides
and urged FTA to add suicide prevention as a top safety concern in
Chapter I.
Response: FTA appreciates the comments received regarding specific
safety concerns facing the transit industry that were not included in
the proposed National Safety Plan. In response to the suggestion
regarding bus electrification, FTA has added two best practices
resources developed by FTA to Chapter III of the National Safety Plan
that address safety concerns related to the electrification of bus
fleets: ``Safety and Security Certification of Electric Bus Fleets''
and ``Procuring and Maintaining Battery Electric Buses and Charging
Systems.''
FTA agrees that suicide prevention is an important issue facing the
transit industry. In December 2022, FTA issued Safety Advisory 22-4:
Suicide Prevention Signage on Public Transit that recommends transit
agencies apply best practices for reducing suicide attempts to suicide
prevention signage and messaging campaigns. While FTA declines to add
suicide prevention to Chapter I of the National Safety Plan, it has
added a resource to Chapter III in response to this commenter's
concerns: ``Mitigations for Trespasser and Suicide Fatalities and
Injuries.''
After consideration of comments received, FTA is finalizing Chapter
I of the National Safety Plan as proposed.
C. Chapter II: Safety Performance Criteria
1. Definitions
Comments: One commenter urged FTA to specify that transit agencies
should use the revised NTD definition of ``assault on a transit
worker'' when setting the safety performance target for assault on a
transit worker. Two commenters expressed concern with the definition of
``assault on a transit worker'' and its impact on data reporting and
associated data analyses. A commenter argued that it is difficult to
apply certain elements of the definition consistently, such as
determining when an individual acted ``knowingly'' and ``with intent.''
Another commenter noted that the definition may differ from the
definition of assault under State law, which may require agencies to
keep separate records for State law purposes and result in other
burdens. A commenter requested that FTA work with transit agencies to
clarify the term.
One commenter urged FTA to address consistency with event
definitions used across FTA programs to ensure performance measurement
consistency and reduce administrative burden. The commenter stated that
FTA should not impose safety performance measurement requirements until
it addresses definitional inconsistencies. One commenter asked what
definition of ``Safety Event'' transit agencies should use for the
major event performance measure. One commenter recommended that FTA
allow individual transit agencies to define what events will be
included in the major events performance measure, noting that safety
risk differs at each agency.
Response: FTA appreciates the challenges associated with new
definitions and NTD reporting requirements. FTA confirms that the term
``assault on a transit worker'' in the National Safety Plan has the
same definition as in the NTD, which mirrors the statutory definition
in 49 U.S.C. 5302. Although the definition potentially differs from how
assault is defined under State law, FTA believes it is critical to
ensure the definition used in the National Safety Plan, including in
the performance measurement context, is consistent with the statutory
and NTD definition. This is because the NTD is the primary source of
data used for performance target setting. Moreover, Safety Committees
must set safety risk reduction program performance targets using a 3-
year rolling average of NTD data, as required by 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(4)(A). For additional information regarding the NTD definition
of ``assault'' and ``assault on a transit worker,'' FTA refers readers
to the Federal Register notice finalizing the recent NTD Safety and
Security Reporting requirements (88 FR 11506).
FTA appreciates the requests for additional guidance from FTA about
the definition of ``assault on a transit worker'' and how it should be
applied. The NTD program serves as FTA's system for collection of
assaults on transit worker data and ensures all associated reporting
requirements are clarified, including definitional questions stemming
from the terms ``knowingly'' and ``with intent'' in the definition of
``assault on a transit worker.'' Further, the NTD program provides
guidance on the new assault on a transit worker reporting requirements
to the NTD reporting community through (1) annual messaging around
updates to reporting requirements, (2) regular communications with
reporters (both through the system's blast messaging, and between the
reporter and their assigned validation analyst), (3) an updated
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on the FTA website specific to
assaults on transit workers, and (4) updates to guidance and training.
The NTD program has developed several training opportunities and
guidance materials to help agencies address the new assault on transit
worker reporting requirements. The 2023 NTD Safety and Security
Reporting Policy Manual provides detailed guidance about safety and
security reporting, including assaults on transit workers. In addition,
the 2023 safety and security quick reference guides, both for rail and
non-rail modes, define reportable events and identify reporting
thresholds. A webinar on 2023 Safety & Security Updates: Reporting
Assaults on Transit Workers, was provided to the public on April 27,
2023, and is available for viewing online. Finally, the NTD program
develops courses pertaining to safety reporting for full reporters
(rail and non-rail) as well as reduced reporters (see the National
Transit Institute (NTI) website for schedule--<a href="https://www.ntionline.com/events-2/">https://www.ntionline.com/events-2/</a>).
FTA appreciates the comments received regarding consistency in
event definitions across FTA programs and will take the need for
consistency into consideration as it develops its pending safety
rulemakings. FTA confirms that the major events and major event rate
safety performance measures include all safety and security major
events as defined by the NTD. This creates consistent requirements
across transit agencies and ensures definitional alignment across
safety programs. For this reason, FTA disagrees that it is necessary to
delay implementation of the safety performance measures.
FTA disagrees with the commenter who suggested transit agencies
should define what events to include in the major events safety
performance measures because FTA believes this approach would undercut
efforts to ensure consistency of performance measurement requirements
across the industry. FTA's proposed approach is consistent with
previous PTASP safety performance measurement guidance, which used the
NTD major event
[[Page 25320]]
definition for the previous safety event performance measures.
2. Required Safety Performance Measures for All Agencies Subject to the
PTASP Regulation
Additional Measures
Comments: Several commenters recommended that FTA add required
safety performance measures in addition to the 14 measures proposed in
the National Safety Plan. One commenter recommended that FTA add
measures for the pedestrian collision rate of mobility assistive device
users and the number of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals
that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Another commenter requested that FTA add safety performance measures
gauging connectivity and transit agencies' adoption of preventative
measures and technologies. One commenter urged FTA to include a
performance measure regarding suicide attempts and deaths.
Another commenter recommended that the National Safety Plan should
include performance measures for the total numbers of collisions,
transit worker fatalities, and transit worker injuries. The commenter
expressed concern that only using rate-based performance measures for
such events could obscure their scope at larger transit agencies. It
stated that there is no clear distinction explaining why FTA would
require both total numbers and rates for other performance measures,
but only rates for those three.
Response: FTA considered each of the suggestions regarding
additional safety performance measures for all transit agencies subject
to the PTASP regulation. However, FTA declines to adopt the suggestions
and establishes only the safety performance measures identified in its
proposal. FTA believes these safety performance measures provide a
comprehensive look at transit agencies' safety performance, without
attempting to identify every measure that an agency may select and
enable each agency to monitor safety performance based on data that is
collected by the NTD.
Many of the measures suggested by commenters, while useful
measures, are not data points that FTA currently collects through the
NTD. These include measures recommended by commenters such as:
pedestrian collision rate of mobility assistive device users; the
number of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals that are ADA
compliant; measures gauging connectivity; and technology adoption
rates. In the final National Safety Plan, FTA is only adding new
measures that are based on data that agencies currently report to the
NTD. This approach provides consistency across the industry and helps
minimize data-related collection burdens.
FTA appreciates the recommendation that FTA require transit
agencies to set safety performance targets for total counts of
collisions, transit worker fatalities, and transit worker injuries. FTA
believes that safety issues related to these three areas justify the
establishment of related safety performance measures for all agencies
subject to the PTASP regulation. To this end, FTA has established
performance measures regarding the rates of collisions, transit worker
fatalities, and transit worker injuries. However, as described in the
next section below, several commenters expressed concern about the
burden related to new safety performance measures. FTA believes that
establishing only rate-based safety performance measures for
collisions, transit worker fatalities, and transit worker injuries
strikes a reasonable balance between ensuring that transit agencies are
monitoring safety performance related to these important issues and
limiting the burden that setting additional performance targets would
impose. Therefore, FTA declines to establish safety performance
measures for total counts of collisions, transit worker fatalities, and
transit worker injuries. Transit agencies may determine a need to put
in place additional performance measures, such as total counts of
collisions, transit worker fatalities and transit worker injuries, and
to set associated safety performance targets.
FTA disagrees that the scope of safety concerns will be obscured at
large transit agencies by not requiring all agencies to set safety
performance targets for the total numbers of collisions, transit worker
fatalities, and transit worker injuries. The safety performance
measures in the National Safety Plan do not limit visibility into an
agency's safety performance. Safety data analysis at a transit agency
should not be limited to safety performance targets. FTA expects that
transit agencies will use additional contextual data to understand
safety performance beyond the required safety performance measures and
safety performance targets.
Regarding the proposal to include safety performance measures
related to suicides, FTA acknowledges that for many transit agencies
suicide is an important safety concern. FTA notes that suicides are a
subset of two safety performance measures in the National Safety Plan--
major events and collisions. FTA also notes that suicide concerns may
vary significantly across the transit industry based on system type and
other transit agency operational realities. FTA does not believe it is
necessary to require all transit agencies to set safety performance
targets for suicide-related safety performance measures because of this
varied safety risk and declines to establish suicides as a performance
measure in the National Safety Plan. However, FTA notes that transit
agencies may voluntarily establish additional safety performance
measures, such as suicide counts and rates, and set associated safety
performance targets based on needs identified through Safety Risk
Management and Safety Assurance activities.
Burden
Comments: Two commenters expressed concern that the proposed
increase of safety performance measures for all agencies subject to the
PTASP regulation from seven to 14 measures would result in increased
administrative and data reporting burden for transit agencies. Further,
the commenters urged FTA to consider the burden on specific types of
providers, such as rail transit providers who must comply with State
Safety Oversight Agency requirements, and small and medium sized
transit agencies with limited resources. One commenter stated that rail
transit agencies operating multiple other modes and serving large
urbanized areas may be required to have up to 66 performance targets
across the general and safety risk reduction program performance
measures. The commenter requested that FTA coordinate with the industry
on the feasibility of these changes. Another commenter requested that
FTA offer training, technical assistance, and additional funding to
assist agencies with compliance.
One commenter noted that the Pedestrian Collision Rate and
Vehicular Collision Rate measures may be particularly burdensome
because they have not been collected by the NTD in the past.
Response: FTA appreciates the potential burden related to
increasing the number of safety performance measures for all agencies
subject to the PTASP regulation from seven to 14. FTA has thoroughly
considered the effects of these measures on different types of
providers, including small providers and rail transit agencies serving
large urbanized areas, and has taken these effects into consideration
when finalizing these performance measures. To reduce data analysis
[[Page 25321]]
burden on transit agencies, FTA has taken care to ensure that all new
safety performance measures are data points that transit agencies
report to the NTD on an ongoing basis. As of the 2023 NTD report year,
agencies track, record, and report this information as part of their
NTD reporting requirements. Agencies should have access to these
records internally and may download these data for their agency and
other transit agencies from the NTD data portal at <a href="https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data">https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/ntd-data</a>. Importantly, FTA also notes that the
National Safety Plan does not require transit agencies to submit data
or safety performance targets to FTA. FTA appreciates the comment
regarding the importance of industry review and feedback regarding
safety performance measures. FTA sought industry feedback on the
performance measures by publishing the proposed National Safety Plan in
the Federal Register for public comment.
Regarding the number of safety performance measures for all transit
agencies subject to the PTASP regulation, FTA agrees with the commenter
noting that some providers will be required to set more than 14 safety
performance targets based on these measures. As with existing safety
performance measurement requirements, transit agencies set safety
performance targets through PTASP by mode. Through previous guidance,
FTA has identified three modal groups for PTASP performance target
setting: fixed route bus, non-fixed route bus, and rail. This means
that transit agencies that provide service within all three of these
groups already have been setting 21 safety performance targets per year
through PTASP based on the performance measures established under the
2017 National Safety Plan. Based on the safety performance measures
that FTA is establishing under the new National Safety Plan, transit
agencies serving all three modal groups would set 42 safety performance
targets per year. In addition, the Safety Committee of transit agencies
serving large urbanized areas with service in all three modal groups
would set 24 annual safety performance targets for the safety risk
reduction program. This therefore raises the total number of safety
performance targets to 66 for certain providers.
In finalizing these measures, FTA has worked to minimize burden.
FTA notes that 7 of the 8 safety performance measures for the safety
risk reduction program overlap with the safety performance measures
required of all agencies subject to the PTASP regulation. To reduce
burden associated with target setting, transit agencies serving large
urbanized areas may opt to use the same safety performance target set
by the Safety Committee for the safety risk reduction program to
satisfy the general safety performance target requirement for
overlapping measures. In effect, this reduces the minimum number of
required safety performance targets from 66 to 45 for providers serving
large urbanized areas with service in all three modal groups. Further,
transit agencies now have years of experience setting annual safety
performance targets, which alleviates the burden of additional
measures. Additionally, all of the new measures represent data the
agencies track and report to the FTA through the NTD program, which
helps to limit data management and analysis burden. FTA notes that the
new safety performance measures identified by FTA relate to transit
worker safety and transit collisions, two safety concerns addressed
directly by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
FTA is committed to developing technical assistance and training to
support transit agency compliance with safety performance measurement
and target setting requirements, including tools and materials
published through the PTASP TAC, as well as webinars, workshops, and
training opportunities. Further, FTA has made direct one-on-one
technical assistance available to the transit industry through the
PTASP TAC. FTA encourages transit agencies with questions about any
PTASP related requirement, including safety performance measurement, to
contact the PTASP TAC for direct technical assistance.
FTA disagrees with the commenter who argued that the Pedestrian
Collision Rate and Vehicular Collision Rate measures may be
particularly burdensome because they are tied to data points that have
not been collected in the past. While neither Pedestrian Collision Rate
nor Vehicular Collision Rate were required safety performance measures
in the past, transit agencies are now required to report this collision
data to the NTD. These data therefore should be readily available to
transit agencies, which FTA believes alleviates the potential burden.
Major Events
Comment: One commenter questioned whether FTA should adopt the
proposed general major events performance measure, given that the
measure is also included under the safety risk reduction program and
FTA proposed separate performance measures for specific categories of
safety and security events. This commenter also stated that major
events is a new safety performance measure, but the measure is not
noted as ``new'' in the updated National Safety Plan.
Response: FTA believes the major event performance measure should
be included in both the set of general safety performance measures and
the set of measures for the safety risk reduction program because not
all transit agencies are required to have a safety risk reduction
program. Specifically, agencies that do not serve a large urbanized
area are only subject to the general safety performance measurement
requirements. Further, FTA does not believe that including more
granular measures such as collision rate or assaults on a transit
worker rate causes broader measures such as major event rate to be less
valuable. To the contrary, overall major event performance trends can
serve as useful indicators for transit agencies of all sizes. FTA
appreciates the comment about whether the major events performance
measure is new. While the 2017 version of the National Safety Plan
includes a performance measure for ``safety events'' as opposed to
``major events,'' the major event performance measure is not new in
practice. Previous PTASP safety performance measurement guidance
advises that the safety event performance measure is based on the NTD
major event reporting threshold. The two measures therefore are
synonymous in practice. Accordingly, FTA has not designated the measure
as ``new'' in the updated National Safety Plan.
Collisions
Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of rate-based
performance measures for pedestrian collisions and vehicular
collisions.
Response: FTA appreciates the support for these measures.
Assaults on Transit Workers
Comments: FTA received several comments regarding the assaults on
transit workers performance measures. For FTA's response regarding the
definition of ``assault on a transit worker,'' please refer to the
``Definitions'' section of this notice above.
One commenter expressed general support for the performance
measures, as well as the transit worker injury rate and transit worker
fatality rate measures. However, it argued that the National Safety
Plan and proposed safety performance measures will result in
significant data collection gaps and fall short of ensuring transit
agencies
[[Page 25322]]
have the data necessary to address these issues. This commenter, along
with one other commenter, urged FTA to split the assault on a transit
worker measures into job functions or crafts, such as operators,
custodial workers, station agents, and other frontline workers in non-
operating crafts. One commenter requested that the performance measures
separate physical from non-physical assaults.
Another commenter opposed including assaults on transit workers as
a performance measure. Two commenters urged FTA to address transit
security and emergency preparedness as a separate area of regulatory
focus from safety events. One of these commenters requested additional
clarification on the difference between safety and security events, and
between safety risk management and security risk management. The second
commenter requested that FTA socialize any security and emergency
preparedness guidance with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
One commenter recommended that FTA consider requiring the
normalization of assault on transit worker data by unlinked passenger
trips (UPT) in addition to vehicle revenue miles (VRM). Another
commenter questioned whether VRM is a useful metric for this measure
and the safety risk reduction program assault measure, noting that it
may not provide meaningful data for assaults on transit workers not
employed in operating roles.
Response: FTA appreciates the commenters' general support for the
assaults on transit worker safety performance measures. FTA disagrees
that the National Safety Plan and proposed safety performance measures
will result in data collection gaps or will prevent transit agencies in
any way from collecting or analyzing data to support the analysis of
transit worker assault-related issues. The safety performance measures
defined in the National Safety Plan do not create any data collection
requirements. Nor do they prevent transit agencies from collecting and
analyzing data related to assaults on transit workers.
FTA appreciates the commenter's suggestion that FTA should require
transit agencies to set safety performance targets for more granular
safety performance measures related to assaults on transit workers such
as measures specific to job functions or crafts. However, FTA's NTD
program does not currently collect assault on transit worker data at
such a detailed level. As such, FTA declines to establish these more
granular measures in the National Safety Plan. FTA notes that this does
not prevent a transit agency from establishing safety performance
measures such as assaults against custodians or assaults against
station agents and setting safety performance targets for these
measures in addition to the required safety performance measures and
targets.
FTA also appreciates the comment recommending that FTA require all
transit agencies to set separate safety performance targets for
physical and non-physical assaults on transit workers. FTA revised NTD
reporting in 2023 to capture this additional level of detail. While
additional data analysis and safety performance monitoring of more
detailed aspects of assaults on transit workers may offer value to
transit agencies based on their operating realities, FTA declines at
this time to establish safety performance measures for the physical and
non-physical subsets of assaults on transit workers. Both these types
of assaults are included in the larger performance measures for
assaults on transit workers, and both are therefore captured within the
required PTASP safety performance targets. FTA expects that a transit
agency, through its SMS processes, will identify and address any
specific safety concerns regarding assaults on transit workers, both
physical and non-physical. Transit agencies may set additional targets,
as needed, on a voluntary basis to support this process.
FTA disagrees with the commenter that recommended FTA remove
``assaults on transit worker'' from the performance measures and the
recommendations to address transit security as a separate area of
focus. FTA appreciates that some transit agencies treat an assault on a
transit worker as both a safety and a security event. Congress directed
FTA to address assaults on transit workers through both the NTD and
FTA's safety program as part of FTA's work to improve safety at transit
systems across the country. Accordingly, FTA declines to adopt this
suggestion. FTA also appreciates that there can be a distinction
between transit safety and security and FTA coordinates with other
Federal agencies, including DHS, as appropriate and practicable when
developing guidance in this area.
FTA appreciates suggestions from commenters regarding normalization
alternatives for calculating rates of assaults on transit workers.
While other metrics like UPT may provide alternative risk exposure
measurements, FTA disagrees with changing the performance measure as
proposed in the National Safety Plan. As a general practice and
according to existing PTASP program guidance and technical assistance,
FTA calculates performance rates using service provided (VRM) and not
service consumed (UPT). For consistency and to limit safety performance
measurement burden, FTA continues to use VRM for the required safety
performance measure rates. Further, analysis performed within FTA
demonstrates minimal differences when evaluating trends of assaults on
transit workers per VRM or per UPT. As noted above, transit agencies
have the flexibility to establish additional measures beyond the 14
established by the National Safety Plan. A transit agency may opt to
also establish additional safety performance measures such as rates of
assaults on transit workers that use UPT or other normalizers such as
revenue hours.
After consideration of comments received, FTA is adopting the
performance measures for all agencies subject to the PTASP regulation
as proposed.
3. Safety Performance Measures for the Safety Risk Reduction Program
FTA received several comments about PTASP safety risk reduction
programs that are outside the scope of the proposed National Safety
Plan. In the National Safety Plan, FTA proposed safety risk reduction
program performance measures and re-stated statutory requirements for
such programs. FTA did not propose specific details in the National
Safety Plan regarding safety risk reduction program implementation,
target setting, or the reallocation of the safety set-aside when such
targets are missed. FTA addressed comments on these topics in the PTASP
final rule. Accordingly, this section of the notice only addresses
comments related to the safety risk reduction program safety
performance measures.
Relationship to Other Performance Measures
Comments: Two commenters asked for clarification on the distinction
and relationship between the safety performance measures for all
agencies subject to the PTASP regulation and the safety performance
measures for the safety risk reduction program, given that some of the
measures overlap. Another commenter requested clarification on the
possibility of an agency serving a large urbanized area having two
different targets for a similar measure: one as part of the general
PTASP safety performance target requirements and another under the
safety risk reduction program. The commenter argued that
[[Page 25323]]
this could lead to confusion about which target takes precedence and
that presenting performance measures in two separate charts in the
National Safety Plan may be overly complicated. Another commenter urged
streamlining the two types of performance measures to remove any
duplication and reduce burden on transit agencies. The commenter noted
that transit agencies are already analyzing many of the proposed
measures through their existing SMS processes.
Response: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law introduces new safety
risk reduction program performance target requirements for Section 5307
recipients that serve an urbanized area of 200,000 or more at 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(4). This is a separate requirement from the existing general
performance target setting required of all transit agencies subject to
the PTASP regulation under 49 CFR 673.11(a)(3). The general safety
performance measures and the safety risk reduction program safety
performance measures have different programmatic purposes, are shaped
by different statutory requirements, and result in different outcomes
in instances where an associated safety performance target is missed.
For example, per 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(4), safety performance targets for
the safety risk reduction program must be set by the Safety Committee
using a three-year rolling average of data reported to the NTD, and
failure to meet a safety performance target in the safety risk
reduction program triggers statutorily required actions related to a
transit agency's safety set-aside. These statutory requirements do not
apply to the general safety performance targets required under the
PTASP regulation. Due to these differences, FTA believes it is
necessary to establish two separate categories of safety performance
measures and believes it is helpful to visually distinguish them in two
separate charts in the National Safety Plan.
FTA appreciates the potential burden associated with FTA
establishing the same measure under both sets of performance measures
and the concern that transit agencies are already analyzing many of the
proposed measures through their existing SMS processes. However, FTA
notes that transit agencies serving large urbanized areas may opt to
use the same safety performance target set by the Safety Committee for
the safety risk reduction program to satisfy the general safety
performance target requirement for overlapping measures. In effect,
this minimizes burden associated with duplication while preserving
flexibility for agencies to set safety performance targets for the
general safety performance measures using varied target setting
methodologies. FTA agrees that transit agencies should use their SMS to
address safety concerns associated with the safety performance measures
identified in the National Safety Plan.
FTA acknowledges that it may be possible for an agency's Safety
Committee to establish a safety performance target for a measure under
the safety risk reduction program, while the agency sets a separate
target for the same measure as part of the general safety performance
measurement requirements. While agencies and Safety Committees may
elect to use the same target for both types of measures, they are not
required to do so. FTA notes that while such an arrangement is
potentially duplicative, a missed target in the safety risk reduction
program and the required general safety performance targets result in
different outcomes, as discussed above.
Proposed Measures
Comments: Several commenters requested changes to the proposed
safety performance measures for the safety risk reduction program. One
commenter expressed concern that some of the proposed measures are
broader than the statutory focus of the safety risk reduction program
and therefore would detract from the purpose and effectiveness of the
program. Specifically, the commenter urged that the safety risk
reduction program collision and injury performance measures should be
limited to collisions related to bus operator visibility impairments
and injuries resulting from assaults on transit workers, respectively.
Another commenter suggested that FTA should add transit worker
injury rate as a safety performance measure for the safety risk
reduction program. Another noted that agencies should be required to
address a reduction of major events under the safety risk reduction
program.
Response: FTA appreciates the suggested revisions to the safety
risk reduction program performance measures. FTA has thoroughly
considered each suggestion but declines to adopt the recommendations.
FTA identified the eight safety performance measures for the safety
risk reduction program to align with the goals of the safety risk
reduction program. One of these goals is to ``improve safety by
reducing the number and rates of accidents, injuries, and assaults on
transit workers.'' (49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(I)). Based on this statutory
language, FTA disagrees with limiting the measures to bus collisions
related to visibility impairments and injuries resulting from assaults
on transit workers, as suggested by the commenter. FTA continues to
believe that the performance measures address the safety risk reduction
program goals of an overall reduction in the number and rates of safety
events and injuries, as well as a reduction of vehicular and pedestrian
safety events involving transit vehicles, and the mitigation of
assaults on transit workers.
FTA appreciates the recommendation to add transit worker injury
rate to the set of safety performance measures established for the
safety risk reduction program. FTA acknowledges the importance of this
measure and notes that FTA has included it in the set of general safety
performance measures. As discussed above, FTA identified the safety
performance measures for the safety risk reduction program to align
with the goals of the safety risk reduction program at 49 U.S.C.
5329(d)(1)(I). In the future, FTA may identify safety concerns and
safety risk that necessitate additional required safety performance
measures within the safety risk reduction program, but at this time
declines to establish measures beyond those identified in its proposal.
Finally, FTA agrees with the commenter who urged FTA to require
agencies to address a reduction of major events under the safety risk
reduction program. FTA confirms that FTA proposed major events as a
performance measure for the safety risk reduction program and is
adopting the measure in this final National Safety Plan.
5. Performance Target Setting and Safety Set-Aside
Comments: FTA received several questions and comments regarding
PTASP performance target setting and the safety set-aside. One
commenter asked whether the three-year rolling average requirement
applies to all PTASP safety performance targets, or only the safety
risk reduction program ones. Another commenter urged FTA to state that
the general performance targets should be forward-looking, as opposed
to being based on three-year rolling averages. Another commenter asked
what role Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) play in the
performance measurement process.
Several commenters recommended the development of additional
technical assistance or guidance to support the effective development
of safety performance targets. Similarly, one commenter recommended
that FTA provide technical assistance and
[[Page 25324]]
guidance to Safety Committees on best practices for setting safety
performance targets based on the updated data requirements of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Several commenters asked FTA to develop
guidance to support the industry's implementation of the safety set-
aside. One of these commenters asked FTA to work with the industry in
developing guidance and examine issues they are facing with this
requirement.
Response: FTA appreciates the comments on PTASP performance target
setting. While FTA proposed safety performance measures for safety risk
reduction programs in the National Safety Plan, detailed implementation
requirements regarding performance target setting for the safety risk
reduction program are outside the scope of the proposed National Safety
Plan. FTA encourages readers to refer to the PTASP final rule for
information regarding implementation of PTASP safety risk reduction
program target setting. FTA confirms that the three-year rolling
average requirement applies only to the safety risk reduction program.
As described in the National Safety Plan, transit agencies may define
their own methodology for the other targets.
FTA appreciates the comment regarding the role MPOs play in the
PTASP performance measurement process and notes that in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(B) and 5304(d)(2)(B), 49 CFR 673.15(a) requires
that each State and transit agency must make its safety performance
targets available to States and MPOs to aid in the planning process. In
addition, Sec. 673.15(b) requires, to the maximum extent practicable,
a State or transit agency to coordinate with States and MPOs in the
selection of State and MPO safety performance targets.
FTA reiterates that it did not propose specific implementation
details in the National Safety Plan regarding the reallocation of the
safety set-aside when certain performance targets are missed under 49
U.S.C. 5329(d)(4)(C) and (D). This requirement is addressed in the
PTASP final rule at Sec. 673.27(d)(3)(iii), and FTA is not responding
to related comments in this notice.
FTA agrees with the commenters that identified the importance of
technical assistance and training related to safety performance
measurement for agencies and Safety Committees, as well as the safety
set-aside requirements. FTA has published technical assistance on
performance measurement through the PTASP TAC and will consider
developing additional technical assistance on this topic and the safety
set-aside for the transit industry in the future.
After consideration of comments received, FTA is finalizing Chapter
II of the National Safety Plan as proposed.
D. Chapter III: Voluntary Minimum Safety Standards and Recommended
Practices
1. Mandatory Standards
Comments: Several commenters encouraged FTA to move towards
mandatory safety standards. Commenters argued that mandatory standards
are necessary to improve transit industry safety. Two commenters urged
FTA to develop mandatory standards relating to transit worker assault,
with one noting that the FAST Act required FTA to issue a rulemaking on
this topic.
Some commenters also recommended other topics for mandatory
standard development, including standards for connected and automated
vehicle (CAV) speed, size, and testing; automatic emergency braking
(AEB) and pedestrian automatic emergency braking (PAEB) systems;
vehicle design standards to address blind spots, ergonomics, and air
quality concerns; and transit worker facilities.
Response: FTA appreciates the comments regarding the need for
additional mandatory requirements or standards to improve transit
safety. FTA notes that the National Safety Plan does not create new
mandatory standards but rather identifies existing voluntary minimum
safety standards and recommended practices, which can support transit
agencies' efforts to improve transit safety. FTA is committed to
addressing safety concerns, including consideration of mandatory
requirements or standards where necessary and supported by data. FTA
will establish any mandatory standards through separate regulatory
processes.
FTA appreciates the commenters requesting mandatory standards
regarding assaults on transit workers. FTA has initiated a rulemaking
titled Transit Worker and Public Safety (RIN 2132-AB47), which would
establish minimum baseline standards and risk-based requirements to
address transit worker and public safety based on the most current
research and available information, including but not limited to,
addressing Section 3022 of the FAST Act. Recently, FTA issued a NPRM
related to Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection (89 FR 20605) that is
proposing minimum safety standards for rail transit roadway worker
protection. FTA is also exploring additional regulatory action on
topics that include fatigue risk management. FTA reiterates that any
mandatory standards will be undertaken through the notice and comment
process.
2. Voluntary Standards
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for the voluntary
nature of the minimum safety standards presented in Chapter III of the
National Safety Plan. Two commenters encouraged FTA to further clarify
the voluntary nature of the safety standards and recommended practices.
One of them suggested moving the standards to an appendix to limit any
confusion about the voluntary nature of the content and urged FTA to
add a clear statement that the standards are voluntary and that changes
to the National Safety Plan will be undertaken through the notice and
comment process. One commenter requested that FTA develop additional
technical assistance around the voluntary minimum safety standards
identified in the National Safety Plan.
Response: FTA appreciates the feedback regarding the voluntary
minimum safety standards and recommended practices identified in
Chapter III. FTA declines to provide additional clarity on the
voluntary nature of the voluntary minimum safety standards and
recommended practices and disagrees that an additional appendix is
necessary or would be helpful in confirming the voluntary nature of the
materials presented in Chapter III. FTA believes that the title of
Chapter III clearly articulates the voluntary nature of the standards
and resources. FTA appreciates the comment regarding the additional
technical assistance focused on the voluntary minimum safety standards
and recommended practices outlined in Chapter III and will explore
opportunities to develop and provide such assistance, including through
the PTASP TAC.
3. Standards and Recommended Practices
Comments: One commenter commended FTA on the proposed new
categories of voluntary minimum safety standards and recommended
practices, including transit worker safety, pedestrian and bicyclist
safety, and rail grade crossing safety. Another supported FTA's
statement encouraging transit agencies to work with roadway owners to
address safety concerns, noting that FTA should continue to encourage
this and first and last-mile connections.
[[Page 25325]]
One commenter requested clarification and context regarding how FTA
categorized the standards and recommended practices in Chapter III. In
particular, this commenter expressed concern that Category A: Transit
Worker Safety is particularly confusing.
Two commenters noted that the ``Tools and Strategies for
Eliminating Assaults Against Transit Operators, Volume 2: User Guide''
in Subcategory A.1 does not address all law-enforcement related
challenges that transit agencies may experience, including shortages of
law enforcement officers and competing demands with a municipality's
emergency services needs.
Two commenters recommended specific additional resources for
inclusion in Chapter III. One commenter recommended inclusion of
several NTSB recommendations, specifically in Categories A, B, C, and
I. This commenter also recommended adding Transit Cooperative Research
Program (TCRP) Report 149, ``Improving Safety-Related Rules Compliance
in the Public Transportation Industry.'' Another commenter suggested
that FTA include the Equitable Cities ``Arrested Mobility Report'' as a
recommended resource.
Response: FTA appreciates commenters' feedback regarding the new
categorization of voluntary minimum safety standards and recommended
practices. FTA believes these categories help to effectively organize
strategies to address industry safety concerns, including transit
worker safety, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and rail grade crossing
safety. Similarly, FTA appreciates the support for FTA's statement
encouraging transit agencies to work with roadway owners to address
safety concerns and agrees with the commenter's statement about
challenges to further incorporate first and last mile connections using
micromobility systems.
With regards to the comment about the organization of Category A,
the category breaks the topic of transit worker safety into three
subcategories: transit worker assault prevention; roadway worker
protection; and fatigue management, fitness for duty, and employee
distraction. FTA believes that this organization clearly separates the
three areas of voluntary minimum safety standards and recommended
practices included under this category and declines to revise the
category substructure.
FTA appreciates the comments regarding the ``Tools and Strategies
for Eliminating Assaults Against Transit Operators, Volume 2: User
Guide'' that FTA has included in category A.1. While this resource may
not fully discuss law enforcement officer shortages, FTA believes that
it offers valuable information and approaches to help transit agencies
identify and deploy strategies to counter assaults against transit
operators. Further, the document was developed to help transit agencies
improve the safety and security of operators within existing resource
and budgetary constraints and was developed with an understanding that
the needs and available resources of these agencies are often different
depending on their size and scope of operations.
In response to comments, FTA has added two additional resources in
the final National Safety Plan: TCRP Report 149 and NTSB recommendation
R-09-11 regarding programs to identify and address sleep apnea and
other sleep disorders. TCRP Report 149 identifies potential best
practices for all elements of a comprehensive approach to safety-
related rules compliance and offers the transit industry valuable
information for developing or evaluating rules compliance programs. FTA
did not include all the NTSB recommendations suggested by the commenter
as many of these were issued to a single entity and as such may not be
directly applicable to the transit industry. However, FTA did include
R-09-11, which was recommended by the NTSB to the rail transit
industry.
Finally, FTA appreciates the recommendation regarding the Equitable
Cities ``Arrested Mobility Report.'' FTA declines to include this
document in Chapter III of the National Safety Plan as it does not
include voluntary minimum safety standards or recommended practices for
improving public transportation safety.
4. Specific Safety Concerns and Mitigations
Comments: Several commenters urged FTA to include additional
standards and recommended practices to Chapter III of the National
Safety Plan. Some commenters provided specific examples of transit
industry hazards as well as specific safety risk mitigations that may
be useful in addressing the associated safety risk. Commenters
suggested that FTA consider adding standards and resources to the
National Safety Plan related to topics such as: connected technology
systems to alert security personnel of potentially dangerous
situations; collision avoidance systems; panic buttons and body worn
cameras for transit workers; digital methodologies and assessments such
as condition-based health indices of transit assets and predictive
maintenance solutions; and collision concerns related to the increased
weight of bus fleets through electrification. Another commenter argued
that FTA could do more through its Office of Research, Demonstration,
and Innovation to explore how agencies are using connectivity,
innovation, and operational management to address safety issues.
One commenter urged FTA to include safety standards and recommended
practices regarding suicide safety events, including consideration of
design interventions such as physical barriers, signage noting crisis
line numbers, and follow-up care for transit workers who witness
suicide events.
Another commenter recommended that when developing standards and
recommended practices, FTA should explicitly include the safety of
mobility assistive device users on public transportation, including
with respect to railroad grade crossings, emergency signage, emergency
response, and life safety equipment, and that such users should be
considered in all standards as well.
One commenter asked FTA to include strategies to minimize exposure
to infectious diseases, including removal of infectious aerosols in the
air people breathe, consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) or State health authority guidelines.
One commenter urged FTA to require only standard traffic lights at
railroad crossings and to eliminate ``red-red'' flashing lights.
Another commenter provided a list of several suggestions to improve
transit safety, including platform screen doors for suicide prevention;
signal priority; fare gates and security; emergency alarms on vehicles;
and grade crossing barriers. Commenters also urged FTA to include
standards and recommended practices on other topics outside the scope
of transit, such as high-speed passenger rail, highways, municipal
zoning, and automobile usage.
Response: FTA appreciates the information commenters have shared to
the docket regarding transit industry safety concerns and potential
safety risk mitigations. In response to commenters' identification of
safety concerns and mitigations, FTA has added resources to Chapter III
of the final National Safety Plan as discussed below. Most of these
documents were not available during the original development of the
proposed National Safety Plan but are now available for inclusion and
are responsive to many of the suggestions offered by commenters.
FTA appreciates the comment regarding connectivity, innovation, and
[[Page 25326]]
operational management and FTA's efforts to research these topics.
Within this area, FTA has added a resource to Chapter III, Needs
Assessment for Transit Rail Transmission-Based Train Control (TBTC).
Further, FTA's Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation is
undertaking a number of related initiatives, including the Transit
Worker and Rider Safety Best Practice Research Program as well as four
new research programs to address the challenges of: (1) rising assault
incidents in transit; (2) advancing autonomous rail transit track
inspection technology; (3) improving transit infrastructure condition
monitoring; and (4) the Bus Compartment Redesign and Bus of the Future
initiatives.
Regarding the topic of challenges related to the electrification of
transit fleets and associated concerns raised by commenters, FTA has
added the following resources to Chapter III of the National Safety
Plan: Safety and Security Certification of Electric Bus Fleets;
Procuring and Maintaining Battery Electric Buses and Charging Systems;
and Crash Energy Management for Heavy Rail Vehicles, Light Rail
Vehicles, and Streetcars.
In response to the commenter who recommended additional resources
on suicide and suicide prevention, FTA added the resource, Mitigations
for Trespasser and Suicide Fatalities and Injuries to Chapter III of
the National Safety Plan.
FTA appreciates the commenter that recommended FTA include the
safety of mobility assistive device users on public transportation when
developing standards and resources. FTA agrees with commenter on the
importance of ensuring the safety of mobility assistive users,
especially with respect to railroad grade crossings, emergency signage,
emergency response, and life safety equipment. FTA will consider the
safety of mobility assistive device users when developing standards or
technical assistance.
FTA appreciates the commenter that requested FTA include strategies
to minimize exposure to infectious diseases, including removal of
infectious aerosols in the air people breathe. FTA coordinated with the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) prior to publishing the
proposed National Safety Plan to identify precautionary and reactive
actions required to ensure public and personnel safety and health
during an emergency. Following publication of the proposed National
Safety Plan, FTA coordinated with HHS again to confirm the voluntary
minimum safety standards and recommended practices for inclusion in the
final National Safety Plan. FTA has added three related resources to
the final National Safety Plan that are responsive to the commenter's
suggestion: Ventilation in Buildings resources from the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC); FTA's COVID-19 Resource Tool for Public
Transportation; and FTA's Using Your Safety Management System (SMS) to
Mitigate Infectious Disease and Respiratory Hazard Exposure. FTA has
also included additional ventilation-related resources in Category E,
including: Specifications and Guidelines for Rail Tunnel Design,
Construction, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation; Specifications and
Guidelines for Rail Tunnel Repair and Rehabilitation; and
Specifications and Guidelines for Rail Tunnel Inspection and
Maintenance.
Finally, FTA appreciates the commenters that offered suggestions
regarding railroad crossing light requirements and other safety
recommendations. FTA appreciates and has thoroughly considered all
these recommendations; however, at this time FTA declines to include
them in the final National Safety Plan. FTA notes that these
suggestions may be considered when FTA is developing future safety
standards and identifying technical assistance needs for transit
safety.
Veronica Vanterpool,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-07392 Filed 4-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 10, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.